Stop concern trolling. The ridiculous nature of the “threat” makes it obvious they’re being completely unserious.

Alright, I’ll play along.

Claim:

The document titled hamas human shields released by NATO Strategic Communications is propaganda.

Argument:

Merriam-Webster defines propaganda as-

the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

Let’s break that down. To determine whether the NATO StratCom document hamas human shields meets the criteria for propaganda we need to answer the following:

Q: Does the item in question contain ideas, information, or rumor?

A: Without having to verify any claims you can still confidently state that the document contains at least one if not all of these. Statements of opinion can be classified as ideas, and statement of fact can be considered either information or rumor depending upon the amount and veracity of supporting evidence.

Q: Was the item in question spread for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person?

A: By posting the document on a public forum for the purpose of defending NATO’s actions, you yourself fulfilled this criteria. Prior to that, NATO StratCom also fulfilled it, as they have an implicit interest in defending the actions of NATO (which this document serves to do)

For example: I can point to evidence that Tasnim News is propaganda.

I don’t dispute this.

Unless you disagree with the meaning of the word propaganda then everything I said is a statement of fact, not a personal opinion. What do you mean when you say propaganda (and don’t just give examples, actually define it).

there’s nothing “propaganda” about NATO

You can’t be serious. Everyone does propaganda, propaganda is everywhere. Just because you happen to agree with NATO propaganda doesn’t mean it isn’t propaganda. Your original comment is propaganda, the responses to it are propaganda, this entire comment section is full of propaganda. Anyone disseminating information reflecting the views or interests of any doctrine or cause is engaging in propaganda.

Edit:

My pet theory for these is that they’re like a test of skill for metalworkers, and that they would be put on display as proof of their capabilities. They were often found in safes with coins, which I think supports this theory. You wouldn’t want some rival metalworkers stealing your skills display and making it so nobody trusts them anymore.

I don’t reject relationships with other people, but I think they should be between independent individuals who associate with each other only because they both want to. (Violating this principle is sometimes necessary but always undesirable.) You appear to think otherwise, and I suppose that’s a fundamental value difference that can’t be resolved through debate

I also believe in autonomy, but everyone has relationships with people they did not choose to associate with due entirely to unavoidable circumstance. This doesn’t just apply to family, but to everyone on earth to varying degrees. You are just as dependent on community as you are dependent on nature, a complex web of relationships of which you are a small part. Refusing to acknowledge that these relationships exist because you did not choose to enter them is childish, and it enables you to behave selfishly because you do not take responsibility for your externalities. This is the same pitfall that capitalists dive into to justify pollution and all manner of horrible things.

The bunker-building impulse demonstrates what’s wrong with libertarianism very well, an irrational attachment to individualism in all things. Libertarians refuse to acknowledge the positive role of nature and community in their lives, instead focusing on the negatives and spending all their energy fighting the very thing that keeps them alive. How long do you think you can last alone in a bunker without any support?

Silicon Valley techno-libertarians (a group I identify with)

I hate to break it to you but these are definitely the worst ones. It’s what the Gadsden flag waving canned food and gun hording preppers turn into if they end up with tons of money. These are the morons that build bunkers in New Zealand and try to brainstorm ways to keep their post-apocalyptic security guards loyal to them with remote-detonated bomb collars or holding their families hostage.

The idea of preventing private ownership and rent-seeking of communication platforms is.

I respect it but if you’re American and trying to take the word back, I’m afraid you’re a little too late. It’s a political party now and they’re all-in on corporatism.

Lemmy is an inherently libertarian platform

This is an interesting perception, because if you mean American libertarianism then this doesn’t really make sense. Lemmy’s creators are communist and intended it to be anti-corporate. It is designed in a decentralized manner specifically to avoid situations where companies can own and profit from it.

The kinds of platforms I would see as being libertarian (in the American sense) are the diaspora of privately owned social media companies.

This is a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that Allende choosing reform over revolution is what resulted in the US interference. The US has been known to interfere in revolutionary movements as well.

Yes, cameras and security theatre at the entrance/exit that rivals airports.

They don’t have cameras watching their warehouse workers

Uhh, you sure about that?

Introduced during COVID and as far as I’m aware most never went away. Especially in warehouses at risk of unionizing.

Based on @Overshoot2648@lemm.ee 's other comments under this post Mutualism seems to be a label they really identify with, and I was just curious about why. I consider myself an anarchist but don’t really read theory, so I guess I’m trying to make sense of the differences in these hyper-specific labels.

In your view, what differentiates Mutualism from Anarcho-syndicalism, and on the other end, from Anarcho-communism?

Christian (conservative) values do not differentiate between fear and respect. Preachers harp on their equivalence at the pulpit on a regular basis. They are taught by their respected authority figures that to fear is to respect, and they reinforce those values in their children. It’s no wonder that authority figures in communities that hold these values are some of the most abusive.

Less left leaning than liberal? Are you suggesting the EFF is conservative?

For starters, all liberals have Reddit and Lemmy.world, which are large. Where do leftists have?

I agree that lemmy.world is a primarily liberal instance, but I haven’t seen the same level of censorship on lemmy.world as I have on hexbear, though I’m open to evidence to the contrary. You can create a space for a specific ideology without resorting to such an extreme level of censorship and lemmy.world is proof of that. Also see my home instance slrpnk.net, we’re a primarily anarchist instance and we haven’t had to resort to extreme censorship to achieve that.

Secondly, this comment is indistinguishable from concern-trolling. I’d have to read through your post history or go back and forth with you to know if you were an honest actor or just a troll.

By what method do you distinguish concern-trolling from legitimate concern? Concern-trolls generally want to shut down discussion, and the whole reason for my concern is that censorship shuts down discussion.

Thirdly, most of us know your views, and have rejected them.

They’re not my views, did you miss the part of my comment where I said I disagree with the comments that got them banned?

We don’t live in a tame world, lots of people have deeply problematic viewpoints. When someone who expresses such viewpoints is otherwise well-intentioned it’s better to address them directly and potentially change some minds (or at least plant the seed) than to shun them and further entrench them into a problematic worldview.