[And] nobody bothered in the west

That’s definitely not true. I’m not saying these movements are heard or effective, but there’s still a strong anti-war/anti-colonial movement in the West, in both the decolonial circles and in the libertarian networks.

You should definitely be pointing this out in regards to hypocrisy of state/industry-controlled media and the variable empathy bombed people get from them. I definitely upvoted.

Yes there is a lot of russophobia and sinophobia on the part of conservative elements of society (remnants of anti-bolshevik propaganda), but there is also legitimate concerns against imperialist behavior on all sides. A lot of people you see criticizing Putin for invading territories are the same people you saw criticizing France invading Mali or USA invading Iraq/Afghanistan. A lot of the people here in France concerned with russian invasion of Ukraine are the same people who were very much against France joining NATO.

Not all of us are media-driven puppet who have to choose a side between equally-evil sides. I personally side with the people/communities who struggle against imperialism, whether it’s zapatistas in Chiapas, various communities in Rojava, popular movements in Hong Kong, independentists in various french colonies (Guadeloupe, Kanaky, Bretagne), or the people of Ukraine who are facing military invasion at the hand of their former colonizer.

Of course we need to keep a critical look at western propaganda in this matter, and how separatists in certain parts of Ukraine are treated, but that does not mean we should support another colonial empire in this geopolitical game of sociopaths, and it certainly doesn’t mean that people disgusted by military invasion saying “fuck putin” on internet forums are puppets of NATO interests.

Though it’s fair to point out that the global empathy toward ukrainian people is both media-manufactured and based on ethnocentric principles of “white people are affected” and “it’s a European country being invaded, not some African/Asian country”. But in order to deconstruct these racist narratives and revive the internationalist movement, it’s not a good start to support a dictatorial regime who’s rebuilding the former Russian empire, is increasingly reinforcing the cis-heteropatriarchal dogma hand-in-hand with the orthodox fundamentalists, and has zero insightful criticism in regards to its own history of genocide and political repression (against muslim populations of the USSR, against anarchists in Russia/Ukraine, etc).

So i never heard about citadel project before… From their Code of Conduct (or lack thereof):

Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) are prohibited from participating in the Citadel community.

Not that i identify with this SJW label, but my interpretation is they’re pretty happy without most of us :)

I prefer having this filter rather than not having it, mostly because of the systemic effects I explained.

That’s also the case for me, in case that was not clear :)

I think some words are almost always meant to harm, and can be easily replace by more positive or neutral term.

I don’t think it’s that easy, because of the context. Should all usage of the n***** word by black people be prevented? Should all usage of w****/b**** words by queer/femmes folks in a sex-positive context be prevented? etc… I agree with you using these words is most times inappropriate and we can find better words for that, however white male technologists have a long history of dictating how the software can be used (and who it’s for) and i believe there’s something wrong in that power dynamic in and of itself. It’s not uncommon that measures of control introduced “to protect the oppressed” turn into serious popular repression.

Still, like i said i like this filter in practice, and it’s part of the reason i’m here (no fascism policy). As a militant antifascist AFK, i need to reflect on this and ponder whether automatic censorship is ok in the name of antifascism: it seems pretty efficient so far, if only as a psychological barrier. And i strongly believe we should moderate speech and advertise why we consider certain words/concepts to be mental barriers, but i’m really bothered on an ethical level to just dismiss content without human interaction. Isn’t that precisely what we critique in Youtube/Facebook/etc? I’m not exactly placing these examples on the same level as a slur filter though ;)

The devs explain here a clear intention to make this change difficult enough to prevent at least partially the migration of some communities they don’t want to support and/or give a platform to.

I’m happy it’s becoming harder for neonazis to find a home online, however i’m not happy that this makes lemmy english-centric, and i’m not happy that honest discussion about some topics (including thoughtful criticism) will be made harder.

Related example: on another message board a few weeks back i couldn’t post a message containing my criticism of “bitcoin” because bitcoin was part of the slur filter to filter out the crypto-capitalist clique… i understand and appreciate why it was put in place, but i felt really powerless as a user that a machine who lacks understanding of the context of me using this word, decided i had no right to post it. I appreciate strong moderation, but i don’t trust machine to police/judge our activities.

Well it depends what type of “communism” we’re talking about. Fascism has usually a pretty clear understanding: repression of political dissent, emphasis on a national feeling and a sense of unique destiny to destroy/conquer whoever disagrees, various forms of eugenism (in the sense of killing people because they’re homosexual or handicapped), the cult of work as a duty to your homeland, as in some cases also strong racism (to my knowledge this is not a feature of italian fascism, but rather other forms of nazism/fascism).

So now, what is communism? According to marxists and anarchists, communism is the stateless, peaceful, egalitarian society. However, marxists believe an intermediary step is required to reach communism: the dictatorship of the proletariat, which has led to countless deaths and suffering. So if “dictatorship of the proletariat” is your definition of communism, then i would almost agree with you “communism” is just as bad as “fascism”. However, there still are some differences:

• women’s rights (and often gay rights) are faring well under marxism-leninism ; that is, women are equal in their right to be exploited by the State
• most leninist regimes, despite their atrocities, are not known for putting forward racial theories and committing genocides (although Stalin in the USSR had quite some genociding on his hands)

So no, it’s not the same. And in any way, most people you will meet through life will talk about communism as the principle free and equal society. That is, the abolition of privileges (remember 1789?) and freedom and equality for all. In this anarchist understanding of communism, then really there’s nothing wrong with communism.

Free association + Mutual aid + Solidarity against domination = <3 Short introduction to anarchism i wrote in another topic