I made a sarcastic comment and then defended myself against false accusations. It’s that simple.

I defined what I consider authoritarian:

The in-group is people who belong to the prevailing ideological hegenomy within the left and the out-group is the suppression of differing points of view outside the hegemony with methods invoking ad-hominem, coercion, appeals to emotion and intimidation.

Am I wrong? Is it not appropriate bring up a wider discussion about the state of the left on a post about a code respository? I dunno.

You choosing to not to exchange with what I have written and instead use emotive language “good grief” because you felt like jumping on the bandwagon with others making false accusations of fascism goes against your own principles about “watering the term down”.

Look, I have not called anyone a fascist.

My comment was using this action by codeberg to highlight what I feel is growing authoritarianism within the left.

The in-group is people who belong to the prevailing ideological hegenomy within the left and the out-group is the suppression of differing points of view outside the hegemony with methods invoking ad-hominem, coercion, appeals to emotion and intimidation.

It is plain to see in this thread.

Was my comment hyperbole? Maybe. But it highlights a valid concern in my opinion and that it ironically evokes such clearly authoritarian reactions proves it was an appropriate criticism.

I bemoan the false equivalence of all cryptocurrency based code with fraudulent activity. And I see such lazy thinking as an act of vanity at the expense of tolerance.

I cannot speak for OP but you have intentionally mischaracterized my position on another matter instead of discussing and addressing the criticism leveled against Codeberg’s decision here and broader culture of authoritarian behaviour happening within the left.

I am myself left wing, its a mischaracterization to say “knowingly, intentionally continue to fund neo-Nazis in Sweden”. Because first of all, I didn’t know. Secondly, if you read what I actually wrote I say I do not approve of the action by co-owner of Mullvad and that his actions to not represent the the entirety of the organization.

Furthermore, in your attempt at ad-hominem, you selectively cherry pick a nuance take on the Mullvad situation where I am rightfully concerned about the loss of a much needed force in the sphere of digital rights and online privacy. And then neglect to highlight a post I made before where I am critical of emerging far-right fascism and the neoliberalism that fuels it.

My initial critisicm of the left and the decision by Codeberg is something you are welcome to disagree with. But you can do so addressing the issue at hand and not resorting to misrepresentation and emotive language.

By acting bad faith you have successfully derailed the conversation as such that I have had to defend myself. I remind you of what Jean-Paul Sarte wrote regarding fascists:

They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

Don’t claim to be an anti-fascist while employing the methodology of fascists.

And don’t promote anti-intellectualism and use emotive language to try enforce ideological conformity on the left and claim you are not an authoritarian.

I am entitled to my dissenting opinion and in any healthy community it would be welcomed. Again you can disagree but your behaviour and words are toxic and only serve to fracture the left.