There's a lot to unpack here. For the sake of convenience, I'm going to assume that what Luminous said was a legitimate call for violence and was therefore not complying with the Lemmy.world code of conduct.
If we assume that, then the Lemmy.world terms say that they can:
remove the content and ask a user not to do it again, and/or,
(if it's a second time) suspend the account temporarily, and/or,
restrict or banish the community, and/or,
remove all of that user's content, and/or,
permanently ban the user.
I have no idea how many of those had already happened, I'm going to assume for convenience again that some of it did. The site bylaws also say that for community bans and content removal:
Bans "should only be used as a last resort for hostile users OR for users that are known bad faith actors."
"Any community user ban CAN and SHOULD have a clearly documented reason pointing to explicit rules broken."
"any content that they DO remove, they should ideally be able to cite the community rules that were broken."
I note that all of Luminous' content was removed, and while the "Our Rights" section says this can happen, it somewhat contrasts with the guidelines for documenting content removal. But there's still nothing in any of this that suggests defederating from the entire instance is warranted or an appropriate course of action. If community bans are considered a last resort, then it seems logical that defederating has at the bare minimum the same threshold of seriousness.
Let's assume for convenience again that the comments from one admin can be sufficient cause for defederation, and its absence from the ToS is an oversight. If that's the case, then the bylaws and prior defederation examples (eg. lemmygrad) suggest that this should be adequately explained. But that didn't happen, and it's not clear whether the other admins were involved in the decision.
Even if all of the above reactions to Luminous' comment were justified and proper, the actions afterwards by lemmy.world admins / mods don't inspire my confidence. I can see there has been:
This refederation announcement, only posted as a regular post (I found it yesterday by chance). It only briefly outlines the events leading up to this.
One user in this thread has been temporarily community banned for "Spam, harassment" after three removed posts in the thread, which doesn't seem like spam quantity. Two of those posts cite the reason "this isn't about jordanlund", yet further down in the thread, an admin is litigating the jordanlund situation. Other far more off topic content is in this thread, so if that is a concern, it's not clear why the other comments remain.
A few users have been permanently(?) banned from the instance with the reasons "troll" or "calling FHF members nazis". It's unclear whether the removed comments or user histories rose to the level of needing an instance ban.
Multiple other users have been temporarily banned from this community for reasons spanning from "uncivil" to "disinformation", to "sealioning and harassment". Many of the removed comments from those users did not seem to meet those descriptions either.
Many other removed comments from non-banned users, with varying levels of clear rules broken.
One moderator indicating the defederation mostly only targets several "loud" people and the instance size is only 165 people, which undercuts both the reasoning for why defederation was necessary and the justification for including 150 users as collateral (along with anyone who may have wanted to interact with them). Several people can be dealt with using individual bans, and that quantity are unlikely to be negatively impacting lemmy.world at scale.
No response from the only person further up the leadership ladder for whether / how Lemmy.world admin are evaluating the original decisions, governance process for defederation, or the bus factor and risks of one person being site admin and top moderator and infra simultaneously. Not even a "I'm alive and considering the issue" acknowledgement, unless done behind the cover of the lwadmin account.
Lots of little bits of engagement otherwise from Lemmy.world admin or mods with various tangents in the thread.
Very little here seems to align with the by laws and expectations for proportionate community moderator conduct.
The situation looks to me like it has been poorly handled, and there is no sign of any compromise or admission that any of the events that up to now could have been handled differently, or a process for how it might be handled in the future. I just don't see much in the way of community building or good will, but I do see the same patterns that have inspired other lemmy.world drama over the years.
If one admin's comments or actions aren't sufficient for justifying defederation, then it's unclear why dbzer0 is being considered for defederation at all. But, if one admin's comments or actions are sufficient justification, then the situation in this thread opens the door for other instances to defederate from Lemmy.world.
I welcome the word "external", but with caution about how external or objective that is in reality. It wouldn't be the first external review that commissioned a sympathetic organization or one headed up by a family or friend.
The Nazi symbol laws were one of the ones that came to mind. Strangely, that's not even consistent among European countries - Austria and Germany will strictly enforce swastika display (although they may provide exceptions for limited artistic and educational use?). But as far as I can tell, it's legal in Denmark, Italy and possibly Finland. I suspect that legal status would not be so clear if actively being used to promote hate, understandably.
The laws of my region I'm largely familiar with, so I'm not too concerned about abiding by those. But I noticed many instances have in their Terms of Service or Code of Conduct that the user is responsible for ensuring their content complies with the instance's regional laws - that's what sparked my curiosity. Other instances like lemmy.world have an oddly unbounded position like "Do not post illegal content of any type", but I assume is implicitly scoped to their "governing laws" section which lists Netherlands, Germany and Finland - and I'm unsure which would take precedence if there were conflicting laws.
Edit: Another part of the curiosity came from the recent stories about the US taking Reddit to court to compel turnover of information about the person who criticized ICE.
There are, and the rules for each community (subreddit) differ, but there are also the instance (server) rules, so it can get a bit complex. The community rules are usually posted in the "sidebar" for that community, eg. https://lemmy.world/c/asklemmy, the instance rules you'll usually find in the "sidebar" for the servers home page, eg. https://lemmy.world/. you can tell what instance a community is in by the community name, if it doesn't have a "@" in it, it's on the same instance you are.
Just have a quick look at both sets of rules before you post something and you're probably fine. Even if you get banned from one community or instance, there are likely similar communities and instances elsewhere you can go. The biggest difference will usually be how active they are. You can also set up your own community, and if you're tech oriented, your own instance.
They were the only neighbors I've ever had to do this with after many years of apartment living. I am fine with normal sounds, but their noise far exceeded normal constantly, and I have an expectation that shared living needs to come with a level of consideration for others. I know it wasn't just my problem either, there were multiple complaints made to the property managers by other apartments, to no effect.
I chose this approach intentionally to avoid confrontation with obviously aggressive and unreasonable people. They had a reputation for regularly screaming obscenities at each other and anyone else who displeased them. Knowing the exact content of all their arguments, I knew that normal human interaction was likely to direct their aggressive behavior towards me, which would not achieve my goal of sleeping at night.
The message was just "you can hear me" which I hoped would then logically translate to "therefore I can also hear you". The normal kinds of sound just didn't get the message across for some reason so I added the awkward element - it allowed for longer sound duration than briefly coughing or laughing, and made it more difficult to ignore. I'm pretty sure they thought I was just doing my thing.
It's definitely a very oblique and passive aggressive approach to the problem, but it worked well enough that I didn't have to go for something more confrontational, which would have been the next step.
Interestingly India has lower vegetable consumption levels than you might think.
Image description: line chart showing the average annual vegetable consumption per capita in kilograms for China, India, USA, UK, Italy, Mexico and Russia between 1961 and 2023. China has roughly 4 times the levels of the other countries. Mexico has the least, and India second least.
I started making more noise after my neighbors clearly did not realize that the quiet they enjoyed from my apartment was out of deliberate consideration on my part, and not a mutual experience. I started with normal sounds like coughing or laughing or playing some music, but after that didn't work, I started to make noises they would be embarrassed to ask me about. It somewhat worked at reducing their noise levels. I knew they heard me because they stopped making eye contact. But they were also awful people so that was fine with me.
Thankfully they moved and I now have a quiet neighbor who gets to enjoy my silence. Occasionally they'll get a little noise from me to remind them that the wall between my bedroom and their main room is very thin, but I haven't had to escalate it like with the last people, for which I am grateful. My other neighbors are a very quiet elderly couple and I love them, but our shared wall is substantially thicker, which is partly why I love them.
OP specifically mentioned smiting and wrath, which is often considered violent and destructive anger, so I interpreted the question to include acting based on emotion. If we assume that this is about the Abrahamic religions, we've got some examples to consider where God may not have acted proportionally or appropriately.
That's where the paradox kicks in. Can God feel anger so strong he cannot control his actions? If God is omnipotent and therefore capable of acting appropriately despite emotions, or, because of omnipotence he is capable of not having those emotions at all, then why the carnage?
One example could be the Noahic Covenant, where it was somehow necessary to kill all animals (except two of each species) because of disappointment in human wickedness. Another might be the Ten Plagues of Egypt and ensuing Deuteronomy Covenant where the punishment for one person's disobedience requires the punishment of others, including children, future wives and livestock. It doesn't seem at all clear why all the creeping things that creepeth upon the Earth had it coming, when omnipotence allows for simply fixing the problem.
Omnipotence implies the ability to control emotions (along with everything else). Were God only framed as being omniscient, then your answer could explain it. It's a bit harder to ignore the gap for omnipotence.
OP's question is a version of the classic Omnipotence Paradox: "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?", which has had a good couple of thousand years worth of discussion, but no particularly satisfying answers. I doubt lemmy will have a breakthrough, but no harm in trying.
he’s not close to my side of the family at all ... and neither did I ever let my son visit them ...
he’s disrespecting our family lineage and his ancestors ... It’s like he’s trying to cut ties with his own heritage
If he had a valid reason...
Perhaps putting these parts next to each other might help you to see they're possibly contradictory. Is he severing ties, or were they only very loosely connected from the start?
It's not clear why he would find heritage a persuasive argument if he had little relationship with that heritage. Even if it held that carrying a name you didn't choose implies respect for your ancestors, it's not clear why changing a name for religion or marriage would be somehow less disrespectful.
I can see why you'd feel hurt that something you personally chose is not used, but when you give someone something, it is theirs to use or leave as they please. Changing your name is also not a permanent decision, there's no reason he can't change it back later, even if it is an administrative hassle.
It feels like he’s going through some sort of identity crisis
Given how intense your emotional reaction is to his decision to change the letters and sounds he associates with, and your refusal to respect his decision as an adult, is it possible that you are actually the one experiencing an identity crisis?
I hope you will consider talking to a professional, and I hope you can find a way to turn this painful experience into an opportunity to build a stronger and healthier relationship with your son. It sounds like this turmoil is a symptom of a much larger connection problem than just the symbolism of a name and it's relationship to your family history.
Plenty of them seem to have just memory-holed it. I check on the posts of one very random extreme right winger occasionally, and I'm guessing she didn't like his post because she's posted twice as much today as she usually does. But it's all just her normal talking points: A Bible verse, Mamdani's rent control will hurt poor people, election fraud "pass the save act" reminders, and Obama/Biden/communists open borders child trafficker conspiracies. It's like she's trying to drown out the the information she doesn't want to hear.
They're very effectively siloed off in their social media echo chambers, this is why that 33% support number doesn't move. In my opinion, the number of articles about "they're finally outraged" just lulls people into a false sense of security and obscures actual developments.
That is not a thing, and even if it were, they're towns. They don't move on their own. The IDF could pick up a paper map published 20 or more years ago with the same information.
This is what happens when a company receives enough requests internally or from customers or other organizations or governments to take a geopolitical stance. It happened with the "Gulf of America", it happens when companies list Hong Kong without the suffix "(PRC)", and it's happening here. It also happens when companies use flags to describe languages or show country borders.
Damn, that's no exaggeration, I wasn't prepared for the quality of that.
I'm going to have the hook "your government is run by pedophiles, they ordered you to die for Israel" stuck in my head for a while. Those are not words I ever expected would be catchy lyrics, but here we are.
There's a lot to unpack here. For the sake of convenience, I'm going to assume that what Luminous said was a legitimate call for violence and was therefore not complying with the Lemmy.world code of conduct.
If we assume that, then the Lemmy.world terms say that they can:
I have no idea how many of those had already happened, I'm going to assume for convenience again that some of it did. The site bylaws also say that for community bans and content removal:
I note that all of Luminous' content was removed, and while the "Our Rights" section says this can happen, it somewhat contrasts with the guidelines for documenting content removal. But there's still nothing in any of this that suggests defederating from the entire instance is warranted or an appropriate course of action. If community bans are considered a last resort, then it seems logical that defederating has at the bare minimum the same threshold of seriousness.
Let's assume for convenience again that the comments from one admin can be sufficient cause for defederation, and its absence from the ToS is an oversight. If that's the case, then the bylaws and prior defederation examples (eg. lemmygrad) suggest that this should be adequately explained. But that didn't happen, and it's not clear whether the other admins were involved in the decision.
Even if all of the above reactions to Luminous' comment were justified and proper, the actions afterwards by lemmy.world admins / mods don't inspire my confidence. I can see there has been:
Very little here seems to align with the by laws and expectations for proportionate community moderator conduct.
The situation looks to me like it has been poorly handled, and there is no sign of any compromise or admission that any of the events that up to now could have been handled differently, or a process for how it might be handled in the future. I just don't see much in the way of community building or good will, but I do see the same patterns that have inspired other lemmy.world drama over the years.
If one admin's comments or actions aren't sufficient for justifying defederation, then it's unclear why dbzer0 is being considered for defederation at all. But, if one admin's comments or actions are sufficient justification, then the situation in this thread opens the door for other instances to defederate from Lemmy.world.
I welcome the word "external", but with caution about how external or objective that is in reality. It wouldn't be the first external review that commissioned a sympathetic organization or one headed up by a family or friend.
Just when I think I've seen every strange thing a cat might do, the Internet throws something new at me. This is amazing.
The Nazi symbol laws were one of the ones that came to mind. Strangely, that's not even consistent among European countries - Austria and Germany will strictly enforce swastika display (although they may provide exceptions for limited artistic and educational use?). But as far as I can tell, it's legal in Denmark, Italy and possibly Finland. I suspect that legal status would not be so clear if actively being used to promote hate, understandably.
The laws of my region I'm largely familiar with, so I'm not too concerned about abiding by those. But I noticed many instances have in their Terms of Service or Code of Conduct that the user is responsible for ensuring their content complies with the instance's regional laws - that's what sparked my curiosity. Other instances like lemmy.world have an oddly unbounded position like "Do not post illegal content of any type", but I assume is implicitly scoped to their "governing laws" section which lists Netherlands, Germany and Finland - and I'm unsure which would take precedence if there were conflicting laws.
Edit: Another part of the curiosity came from the recent stories about the US taking Reddit to court to compel turnover of information about the person who criticized ICE.
There are, and the rules for each community (subreddit) differ, but there are also the instance (server) rules, so it can get a bit complex. The community rules are usually posted in the "sidebar" for that community, eg. https://lemmy.world/c/asklemmy, the instance rules you'll usually find in the "sidebar" for the servers home page, eg. https://lemmy.world/. you can tell what instance a community is in by the community name, if it doesn't have a "@" in it, it's on the same instance you are.
Just have a quick look at both sets of rules before you post something and you're probably fine. Even if you get banned from one community or instance, there are likely similar communities and instances elsewhere you can go. The biggest difference will usually be how active they are. You can also set up your own community, and if you're tech oriented, your own instance.
I assumed it was for insulin, which needs to be refrigerated.
His girlfriend in Canada has it. Along with the proof of aliens. Fuck off, Patel.
They were the only neighbors I've ever had to do this with after many years of apartment living. I am fine with normal sounds, but their noise far exceeded normal constantly, and I have an expectation that shared living needs to come with a level of consideration for others. I know it wasn't just my problem either, there were multiple complaints made to the property managers by other apartments, to no effect.
I chose this approach intentionally to avoid confrontation with obviously aggressive and unreasonable people. They had a reputation for regularly screaming obscenities at each other and anyone else who displeased them. Knowing the exact content of all their arguments, I knew that normal human interaction was likely to direct their aggressive behavior towards me, which would not achieve my goal of sleeping at night.
The message was just "you can hear me" which I hoped would then logically translate to "therefore I can also hear you". The normal kinds of sound just didn't get the message across for some reason so I added the awkward element - it allowed for longer sound duration than briefly coughing or laughing, and made it more difficult to ignore. I'm pretty sure they thought I was just doing my thing.
It's definitely a very oblique and passive aggressive approach to the problem, but it worked well enough that I didn't have to go for something more confrontational, which would have been the next step.
Interestingly India has lower vegetable consumption levels than you might think.
Image description: line chart showing the average annual vegetable consumption per capita in kilograms for China, India, USA, UK, Italy, Mexico and Russia between 1961 and 2023. China has roughly 4 times the levels of the other countries. Mexico has the least, and India second least.
Source: Vegetable consumption per capita, 1961 to 2023, for China, India, USA, UK, Italy, Mexico and Russia
I started making more noise after my neighbors clearly did not realize that the quiet they enjoyed from my apartment was out of deliberate consideration on my part, and not a mutual experience. I started with normal sounds like coughing or laughing or playing some music, but after that didn't work, I started to make noises they would be embarrassed to ask me about. It somewhat worked at reducing their noise levels. I knew they heard me because they stopped making eye contact. But they were also awful people so that was fine with me.
Thankfully they moved and I now have a quiet neighbor who gets to enjoy my silence. Occasionally they'll get a little noise from me to remind them that the wall between my bedroom and their main room is very thin, but I haven't had to escalate it like with the last people, for which I am grateful. My other neighbors are a very quiet elderly couple and I love them, but our shared wall is substantially thicker, which is partly why I love them.
OP specifically mentioned smiting and wrath, which is often considered violent and destructive anger, so I interpreted the question to include acting based on emotion. If we assume that this is about the Abrahamic religions, we've got some examples to consider where God may not have acted proportionally or appropriately.
That's where the paradox kicks in. Can God feel anger so strong he cannot control his actions? If God is omnipotent and therefore capable of acting appropriately despite emotions, or, because of omnipotence he is capable of not having those emotions at all, then why the carnage?
One example could be the Noahic Covenant, where it was somehow necessary to kill all animals (except two of each species) because of disappointment in human wickedness. Another might be the Ten Plagues of Egypt and ensuing Deuteronomy Covenant where the punishment for one person's disobedience requires the punishment of others, including children, future wives and livestock. It doesn't seem at all clear why all the creeping things that creepeth upon the Earth had it coming, when omnipotence allows for simply fixing the problem.
Omnipotence implies the ability to control emotions (along with everything else). Were God only framed as being omniscient, then your answer could explain it. It's a bit harder to ignore the gap for omnipotence.
OP's question is a version of the classic Omnipotence Paradox: "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?", which has had a good couple of thousand years worth of discussion, but no particularly satisfying answers. I doubt lemmy will have a breakthrough, but no harm in trying.
Perhaps putting these parts next to each other might help you to see they're possibly contradictory. Is he severing ties, or were they only very loosely connected from the start?
It's not clear why he would find heritage a persuasive argument if he had little relationship with that heritage. Even if it held that carrying a name you didn't choose implies respect for your ancestors, it's not clear why changing a name for religion or marriage would be somehow less disrespectful.
I can see why you'd feel hurt that something you personally chose is not used, but when you give someone something, it is theirs to use or leave as they please. Changing your name is also not a permanent decision, there's no reason he can't change it back later, even if it is an administrative hassle.
Given how intense your emotional reaction is to his decision to change the letters and sounds he associates with, and your refusal to respect his decision as an adult, is it possible that you are actually the one experiencing an identity crisis?
I hope you will consider talking to a professional, and I hope you can find a way to turn this painful experience into an opportunity to build a stronger and healthier relationship with your son. It sounds like this turmoil is a symptom of a much larger connection problem than just the symbolism of a name and it's relationship to your family history.
Plenty of them seem to have just memory-holed it. I check on the posts of one very random extreme right winger occasionally, and I'm guessing she didn't like his post because she's posted twice as much today as she usually does. But it's all just her normal talking points: A Bible verse, Mamdani's rent control will hurt poor people, election fraud "pass the save act" reminders, and Obama/Biden/communists open borders child trafficker conspiracies. It's like she's trying to drown out the the information she doesn't want to hear.
They're very effectively siloed off in their social media echo chambers, this is why that 33% support number doesn't move. In my opinion, the number of articles about "they're finally outraged" just lulls people into a false sense of security and obscures actual developments.
I hope Vance is losing a lot of sleep over this.
That is not a thing, and even if it were, they're towns. They don't move on their own. The IDF could pick up a paper map published 20 or more years ago with the same information.
This is what happens when a company receives enough requests internally or from customers or other organizations or governments to take a geopolitical stance. It happened with the "Gulf of America", it happens when companies list Hong Kong without the suffix "(PRC)", and it's happening here. It also happens when companies use flags to describe languages or show country borders.
Damn, that's no exaggeration, I wasn't prepared for the quality of that.
I'm going to have the hook "your government is run by pedophiles, they ordered you to die for Israel" stuck in my head for a while. Those are not words I ever expected would be catchy lyrics, but here we are.
Production isn't consumption. A lot of that is for export.
Edit: my mistake, they included the consumption graphs further down..
Better quality of nutrition - more protein and vegetables. Much more vegetables. An absurd amount more vegetables.
They also fixed their zinc deficiency, which has long been known to affect height.
But seriously, the vegetables.
Graphs pictured: