this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
20 points (75.0% liked)
Meta
733 readers
5 users here now
Discussion about the aussie.zone instance itself
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's good to see, but as of right now the Nazi's explicit mask-off comment is still up, and they are still not prevented from commenting further in the future.
Fwiw, I didn't learn the phrase from online discourse about neonazis, I learnt it from education about WWII in its original comment. Until reading other comments in this thread I was not even aware that it was popular among neonazis as a dogwhistle. So we both learnt something unfortunate here today.
Which you're clearly good with, since your screen-capped version of the comment is also still up. The purpose of moderation is to prevent people from being exposed abhorrent content, spam, unsolicited nudity, scams and other harmful content. I'm reluctant to step into discussions that are clearly between actual humans as a general rule, unless they are being abusive or derailing threads. I could also count on my fingers the number of human user accounts I've needed to actually ban from the site. Whatever a power-tripping mod is, I am not.
The next time you think a comment should be removed, I would recommend that you don't go out of your way to be sure more people see it as you report it. As things stand, I see more value in this moment as a learning point. Yours is still the only report that particular comment received. The truly offensive stuff, I can be pinged by half a dozen reports within 30 minutes of the comment being posted. I also remain unconvinced that the user who made that comment would self-identify as a Nazi. Zionist, sure - though that is apparent more from other comments than this example.
That may be one purpose. But it isn't the only one. Another is shaping the norms of a community and what is acceptable. I'll share the parable of the Nazi Bar, but put it behind a collapsible spoiler in case you or anyone else is already familiar:
The Parable of the Nazi Bar, by Michael B. Tager
I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, “no. get out.”And the dude next to me says, “hey i’m not doing anything, i’m a paying customer.” and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, “out. now.” and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, “you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them.” And i was like, oh ok and he continues.
“you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.”
“And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.”
I've shared my thoughts on why this particular user deserves the label Nazi elsewhere in the thread, and my reply to Lodion in particular also includes some of the justification for including the screenshot. But I'll elaborate on that particular point here.
I don't think mere exposure to that kind of Nazi rhetoric causes direct harm. Which is why I did not think it was causing harm to screencap the comment. Instead, it is the long-term permissibility of that content which causes harm. The Nazi Bar. If Nazis' views are permitted, you get more Nazis.
I shared the comment first of all to highlight that user in particular to anyone viewing the thread to warn them off from engaging. And also to highlight that same parallel that I made in the reply to Lodion. That even if one person may not themselves be a Nazi, they are engaging in some ideology that is dangerously close to that of Nazis. Highlighting an actual Nazi whose views they would agree with was supposed to serve to emphasise that parallel, while serving as a dis-endorsement of the Nazi's own view. I think that sharing harmful views in the specific context of highlighting both that and why they are harmful is not at all similar to simply having those views and sharing them sincerely.
This is incorrect. The community shapes itself. The community is lovely. We are not it's shapers.
You've been here about as long as the instance has existed. In the almost three years we've been at this, have you ever seen us shaping discussion? Who the hell am I to dictate to everyone what the norm is, anyway? I'm just some guy on the Internet.
I was reluctant to remove a reported post on /c/worldnews the other day, despite it being in clear violation of the sidebar rules.
One neat thing about Lemmy is moderation is all transparent. The modlog is just down there on the bottom of every page. You'll see that just about all the accounts I ban are for spam with a smattering of troll accounts. We are accountable to the users and not some secret group manipulating discussion out of sight.
I took Seagoon_'s comment to be in support of the ban on particular phrases, by highlighting another dog whistle for nazis. Before this, I (like Nath) did not know this was a nazi dog whistle.
I don't believe Seagoon_ is a nazi. I do believe they're a zionist. In Australia as it stands... one is illegal, the other is practically government policy.
To say anyone in support of the new legislation in QLD is a nazi, as you have implied, is an extreme take on the situation. I have many issues with the legislation as it has been passed, but do not believe supporters of it are automatically nazis.
As Nath has commented, as a rule we let human to human discussions run their course... unless they're going off the rails. Simply posting something you do not believe, or you do not agree with is not grounds for a comment to be removed.
To be clear, I fully believe that the user in question is a Nazi. There is no other rational explanation for their behaviour. Any space that allows that user is a Nazi bar.
The legislation itself I do not believe is only supported by literal Nazis. But that the ideology in support of them is a similar far-right reactionary one. It necessarily involves gleeful support at the slaughter of thousands of innocent people, including the deliberate killing of medics and journalists whose only job is to reduce suffering and expose how awful the regime inflicting this is. It also necessarily involves support for the restriction on civil rights including freedom of expression. It may not be capital-N Nazi necessarily, but it is certainly far-right authoritarian, of the sort that might have attracted a less formal lower-case-n "nazi" label a decade ago, when actual Nazis were more closeted. But that shouldn't be surprising. My point was to demonstrate that being a Zionist, in 2026, necessarily puts you ideologically very close to Nazis, even if you don't necessarily cross the line into actually being a Nazi, like this particular user obviously does.
There are other explanations, such the one from my comment you replied to. You may not agree with my interpretation, and Seagoon has not posted to clarify the thinking behind their comment. If it becomes clear that a user is a nazi, I'll take appropriate action, as I have done with previous users.
I disagree with your characterization of Seagoon as a nazi, this is categorically not the case.
You see how that's a bad thing, right? Surely. If they don't clarify their stance is anti-genocide in very unmistakeable terms, one must conclude that they are, in fact, a Nazi. Choosing to remain silent should not be allowed to give someone ranting about lebensraum the benefit of the doubt during an active genocide.
See Nath's comment about us not being the shapers of the community or its discussions. Users are free to reply or ignore as they see fit to other user posts/comments.
As I previously posted, (twice now), that is not my interpretation of the comment on the article you posted. Only if you view the comment in a vaccum could you come to the conclusion you have. It seems you've either ignored my interpretation, or don't understand it.
If I were jewish and posted in support of legislation put in place to protect fellow jews, and someone on the internet leapt to the conclusion I was a nazi because the legislation in question is right leaning... I'd probably do my best to ignore them too. Seagoon doesn't owe you an explanation for your misunderstanding.
I'm done posting on this topic unless you have something new to say.