Imagine if Christian converted Apollo over to kbin, that would be hilarious. Give it a few weeks a good 20% of Reddit could quite easily continue exactly moreorless as they were but without Reddit at all…
Edit - Christian if you see this, I would happily pay a few bucks for an Apollo/kbin app.
I think the problem was that those posts were created parallel to each other, so the discussion was split, which was undesirable. And at this point there isn't a way to merge two or more similar posts into one at Tildes. So there were two options, either keep the discussion split, or remove one of the posts.
Right? Tildes literally has a written rule "if the admins don't like you we'll permaban you". Only a matter of time before the admin team bans the wrong person and the users are faced with a similar situation with Reddit. But they can't just seamlessly escape to another federated site like we can - they'll have to give up everything again
Maybe it is because I am still very new to the federarion, but I still feel that the option to leave for a different instance is not as easy as everyone here makes it.
People will tend to join and use the most populated/active communities/magazines. What if that active community is on an instance you can no longer use, or don't want to use?
Same, maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how it's any easier/harder than it would be with a non-federated open-source site, or even just different subreddits on the same domain.
Agreed. I think if tightly-knit communities were starting instances and getting all their other interests outside their niche that it might be more like that. For instance (LOL, I crack me up), if kbin.rocknroll.social were an instance hosting a thousand refugees from /r/music, /r/classicrock, and /r/grunge, but they only really participated in a few local magazines/communities and tended to consume their news from lemmy.world, their dog pics from beehaw, and their basketball news from some other instance, they'd have less on the line if their instance crashed or was overrun by people they didn't want to associate with. It would be even more pronounced the other way around, with the people visiting kbin.rocknroll.social only losing some music content if they felt a need to block or their instance felt a need to defederate.
It could also work, as with the tankies' instances on Lemmy, if an instance, however broad-based, had a cohesive ideology and the "residents" and visitors alike knew what they were in for and what they'd be giving up if they avoided it or were banned/defederated.
But I don't think that's what is happening, at least right now. As it is, people are more just signing up wherever there seems to be inertia at the moment they're ready to try something knew, and either trying to build something local or just using their new home as a window onto the most popular instances.
On the other hand, I guess in the end, it is what it is and you can certainly have a wonderful experience on a federated site, even if the integration is exaggerated. The need to leave for another instance would still be a giant pain and much could be lost, but to a refugee (or an outlaw) there is value to having a someplace halfway familiar to go, and the barriers to entry are lower if a popular instance goes bad.
I am a rexxitor. I heard about Lemmy first and tried to figure out how to join. It was too busy there. I couldn't get anything to work. So I looked some more and found kbin. Since then I have learned some more. I think I will be happier here.
I think as it exists today- that is the case. But if "multireddits" are implemented, and any single community is actually the sum of federated communities aggregated together, we are in a much better position if a single community goes down.
But even with aggregation, if the most active community is taken away, either by defederation or just by you blocking it, you lose majority of the content in that community. Or maybe I am just missing something.
As I understand it, there is no system short of being fully decentralized that could guarantee access in such a way (federated being a pit stop in between centralized and true decentralization). In order for communities to not be under the control of any one server owner, it would mean communities would have to be fully P2P, which raises additional problems with how moderation would work. Would you cryptographically assign moderation permissions to an individual? Or have no centralized moderation and make each user moderate their own view of communities? You could decouple moderation from communities so communities can be fully P2P and permissionless, and have users subscribe separately to moderation entities (users or groups), but given that finding communities on other instances is too complicated for many people, I suspect that having to also search across a fully decentralized network to find a moderation group(s) that you can subscribe to, and making sure that all your moderation groups combined give 100% coverage to all the communities you follow would make usability for the layperson even worse.
Imo the federated model is a good middle-ground between giving a CEO 100% control over all users/content/moderation and having no centralized control over any of that. Just enough decentralization where instances cannot exert absolute control over the network, cannot force users to leave the fediverse as a whole or lock people out of API access across the board, but just enough centralization where curated spaces can exist and abuse can be handled in a few places instead of duplicating work everywhere. The remaining issues with the remaining amount of control that instance owners have can be addressed by asserting our ability to switch instances and access the same content. The threat to badly behaving instance owners is much greater when users can switch instances and still access the same communities and use the same apps.
Imagine what the reddit blackout would look like on the fediverse - users would register on new instances and pick up where they left off. Any communities on the problematic instance would already have their content federated to other servers, preventing the content from disappearing - a simple script could update the community address to reflect a new location. The original instance would have 0 leverage over the community, and everyone would be able to use the same apps they are already used to.
But the content is hosted on the instance and is federated in a sense that you can interact with it from a different instance, but if the instance hosting the content is defederated or something, the content stops being available in every other instance. Or is it not?
I understand the goal of spreading the power over several entities, I just feel like this is an "out of the frying pan, into the fire" situation with current implementation and mindset.
I think the idea with aggregation is that there is no "most active community". There is no reason for users to all flock to one community if all posts in the fediverse, on a given topic, are viewable in one place.
Right. If you have a sort of automagic multireddit aggregation, then losing 80% of your aggregated content still leaves the 20% cohesive, and that becomes all the more important with the 80% being gone. If instances aren't coalescing around interests or ideologies, but instead around availability and bandwidth, then I think it makes a lot of sense to aggregate more elegantly.
The software is open source. The instance that everyone has been talking about is centralized and privately managed by the dev. They're basically creating a carefully curated space, and sort of letting other people read the resulting content.
I unfortunately do not, as the ability to generate a given amount of invite codes is occasionally given to existing users, and my account isn't old enough to have been there the last time it happened. You can however send an email to invites@tildes.net to request an invite yourself.
I tried this yesterday (a terrible time, I know) and I'm waiting to hear back. I figure I'll hedge my bets by joining a few different communities to see which I like best. I may, in the future, just use many of them for different purposes.
That's probably the best course of action. Kbin seems positioned to welcome about the same kind of content Reddit did, but Tildes is more aimed toward longform, in-depth discussion (so no spamming low effort memes).
It is very good! However, I have stopped using Ivory and started using Mona instead as it's a more complete app in my opinion. The customisation features are awesome too!
Near as I can tell, there are only five so far (listed on the homepage under "Instances" ), and only two are primarily English-speaking (kbin.social and fedia.io). The reason "people don't know that other kbin instances exist" is because either they don't, really, or because kbin's homepage is accidentally hiding them all.
I imagine Christian could just make his own instance kbin.apollo and maybe use app subscriptions or donations to give it a beefy server, but I wonder about over-centralization. (Or if that's even how this all works...)
But that would require him to administer a server. That's a lot of work.
Look at the strain its putting on ernest. We have a growing pile of threads talking about what features need to be added, but he's spending his time trying to keep the website from spontaneously combusting.
The separation of community administration and website administration was a key element of Reddit. It's what made it work at all. The separation of website administration and development takes this one step further.
If we'll ever stop demanding that software developers be social media website managers, at least.
Yeah - Christian has also publicly stated that he's not interested in building or operating a service.
It's a shame in a sense though, because there is this one-time opportunity of invested users migrating from Reddit to something else and it will likely end up in a very fragmented universe. (Though maybe that is for the best).
I firmly believe that Reddit is too big to actually be useful as anything other than a passive ingestion experience for the overwhelming majority of people there, even the ones who want to be engaged. Major subreddits are too big to actually discuss issues, and the entire comment system is gamified to promote finding new posts in popular subs with a low number of comments with the potential to reach the top of the sub and then posting something biting.
That's not actually a healthy model of interaction, and it actively twists the way we think about topics, both as posters and lurking readers.
A multitude of accessible communities of a few hundred to a couple thousand users on the same topic where those users can actually be seen and heard and engage in a discourse is just better for us all. For each of us individually, for the online communities, and for society as a whole.
The fragmentation is a feature, not a bug.
Yes, there's the very real possibility that some post that you would have been interested in will show up on another website. Maybe that website will federate with the one you're using, so that you can go and fetch it and engage in it directly, temporarily engaging with another community. Maybe it'll happen on a website that doesn't federate, and you'll have to open another browser tab to read it. There will be friction there, sure.
But that friction is a good thing. It makes you make active choices in how you engage, rather than passive ones.
And yes, there's also the possibility that the post never crosses your field of vision, and you never know it exists. That you miss out on it entirely.
But that already happens on Reddit. It happens more times than you can count, as new posts that might be interesting to you get ignored by the subreddit at large and never get upvoted into relevance.
The FOMO is real. I get that. I experience is quite strongly myself. I go down way, way, way too many rabbit holes during my day, because websites like Reddit are designed specifically to make people burn hours scrolling past ads while having interactions of negligible meaning to anyone.
We have the opportunity to do something different now. Something more considered. Something without CEOs and investors who are looking to exploit our psychology and our passions to line their pockets. Instead, we can take ownership of the space at the infrastructure level and decide what's actually good for us, not just what's easy or what extends session times and clickthrough rates.
High quality take. There's just one practical issue, most users of the internet are creatures of convenience, and they're not super big on the philosophical aspects of online culture. Fragmentation, friction, healthy interactions, these aren't considerations of the average social media user. They like integration, centralization, and (at the risk of sounding derogatory) being part of a hivemind.
As an example of that behavior, despite the scores and scores of videos and articles telling people not to pre-order games, to be wise with their purchases, gamers on the whole still pre-order games on a large scale.
We don't have to cater to everyone. If the average social media user won't climb over small barriers -- assuming those barriers aren't actual accessibility barriers, and are just an unwillingness to try -- then maybe... They can stay where they are?
We can have a healthier space. They can join us if they care enough to.
The difference with a federated system is that you can leave kbin without leaving the entire ecosystem. Don't like how kbin is being run? Well, you can go join Fedia, or some Lemmy instance, and go right on following the communities you enjoyed, without losing anything terribly meaningful (at worst, your post history, and Reputation if you value that).
Imagine if Reddit had been part of the Fediverse. You could abandon Reddit, but keep all the things you liked about it. That's the biggest advantage of decentralizing access to content: while Reddit has a monopoly on being Reddit, kbin or any other Fediverse instance does not.
EDIT: Yeah, yeah, editing after being downvoted. In case it's unclear, I'm not telling this user "If you don't like it, leave." I'm saying the nature of the fediverse is that leaving one instance does not necessarily mean leaving the fediverse. If what they suggest comes true and kbin.social eventually does something to provoke a mass exodus as Digg and Reddit have done previously, people can basically just move next door and go about their day as normal instead of being uprooted from all of their communities.
It is, but kbin is just software. I was meaning more like "If you don't like the way the administrator is setting policy, you can move to another instance with a different admin team." If your problem is not with the people but with the software itself, then absolutely, you can move to a different software platform like Lemmy or any future equivalents that come along.
Thank you for the work you've put in, guys. Life can really knock you off your feet sometimes, and I'm pretty sure Hariette has a good reason to be offline now. II really hope everything works out for her and one day she'll be able to come back.
As for myself, at the beginning of the year, I plan to dust off the drawer and return to my mobile client that I started some time ago, and develop it in my free time. If someone likes /kbin feeling, I'm pretty sure they'll also enjoy this app ;)
Thanks. In the meantime I've been getting by with the mobile website well enough. I've actually become used to not having notifications any more, perhaps it's better not being immediately informed in the middle of my day that I need to drop everything to go argue with people on the Internet. :)
Thanks Ernest, please do get that app going if you can! :)
I was using Kbin on Artemis without any login, and was pretty much fine to just lurk, but having no app at all is a real bummer. I’ll check out Lunar in the meantime but I’m itching to contribute more to Kbin as a logged in user.
Will the API be opened on Kbin.social prior to the release of your mobile app, so that other app developers also have a chance to try it out before there's an "official" solution? I feel strongly that having a single developer in control of the only client is going to end up with a lot of people waiting and possibly being disappointed again. Much better to let people experiment early and have several available options.
The API will be made publicly available in the coming days. Essentially, everything is ready except for one technical issue where I need Piotr's assistance, but he is currently quite busy. However, I'm trying to resolve it as quickly as I can.
As an added bonus, you can also use the https://kbin.social/d/[instance domain here] scheme to block entire domains, if you find that they include content you don't want to see in your feed.
Oh that's brilliant! Nothing against our German friends, but my All page gets full up with German language content and blocking feddit.de might be quite handy.
But if I do this, would it also block me from seeing feddit.de users' comments on other instances (which I wouldn't want to do)?
...and a kbin instance will run in docker (or on a raspberry Pi) with only 2gb of ram... I'm with you there is some crazy clever code propping this all up!
Effectively, we're seeing the output of software developers that aren't held back by corporate red tape, Agile development, focusing all resources on monetizing user data, and general office politic bullshit. Quite refreshing, seeing what we're capable of.
Are you suggesting I can block any media posted to kbin from those websites!? My god....I could block the porn gifs at the source. Ha ha! Get less fucked, timeline!
On the minus side, since instances only have to take on the data from whatever their users are specifically subbed to and they ignore everything else, I wonder if users subbing to multiple entire instances like that will drastically increase load in a way that would prove difficult for a young server?
I'm not a tech person at all, so I may have misunderstood, but isn't kbin's federation already backed up temporarily because of the wealth of combined activity?
The app devs, including Selig, often, said they were perfectly fine and found it quite reasonable that Reddit wanted to charge for API access-- they even looked forward to it because the y believed it would. open up access to previously walled-off parts of the API such as chat, polls, and other features only available in the native app and the website. This was public info, and users also looked forward to this.
The problem came with both he outrageous pricing and the absurd 30-day timeframe. Then, further with spez's refusal to be flexible by listening to the reasonable complaints of the devs, slanderous accusations against Selig, profound and entitled disrespect towards the mods, and shitshow parade which started with his mind-boggling AMA and then continuing by taking interviews with any news agency that would talk to him, further spreading the lies, slander, disrespect, and disinformation-- ending by praising the king turd of tech: Elon Musk.
THAT is what provoked the outrage, protests, and overall "uprising". THAT is what is killing Reddit.
yeah. the protest was small but reddits response has been great and has lead to where we are at today. like you said it wasnt really the pricing but how reddit went about it and afterwards. hell if he had announced that their intention was to kill off third party apps but was more transparent about it and wasnt acting like an elon musk there might not have been any protest at all.
Once Selig announced that he could not keep Apollo going after June 30, I was done with Reddit. That was days before Huffman said anything publicly - even before the AMA in which he pasted prefab answers to 14 questions.
Same. Different app, but it was the same day. Once I realized my app would die, reddit was dead to me. I came to kbin a bit earlier than others but it was super dead in the beginning.
I'm strongly of the opinion that instead of killing Apollo, Selig should featureflag most of the features, scale it back, implement ActivityPub quickly and a guided process to get started. Just killing Apollo gives Spez exactly what he wants, especially with the amount of algorithm rigging they are doing to block ActivityPub/Lemmy/Kbin info from making it into Top and Popular.
Spez is going to get what he wants either way, really. He just wants third-party app activity gone from Reddit, and Apollo moving over to ActivtyPub is just more of the same, even if the app itself is around.
Personally, I think that dropping Apollo might make more sense. It was designed as a Reddit Reader, so instead of cramming new app functionality into it, it would make sense to just split it off into its own app.
A lot of ActivityPub/Lemmy/Kbin features are natively supported, so he wouldn't need to keep paying for things like Imgur API access, unlike with Reddit where third-party image hosting is the only way to do image hosting, without using the official app.
Plus, after the recent shenanigans from everything, he probably deserves a break, for a while, at least.
FWIW, I don't think it's spez who's asking for that; he's simply the conveyor of the message.
I'm pretty sure this is a finance constraint imposed by underwriters/financers of the IPO, who want to see all the revenue with reddit and not with third parties. (I also think Twitter's similar move was at the behest of $ people since Elon borrowed money to buy the company.)
There's a definition disconnect happening between Reddit refugees and more experienced Fediverse users. Identical terms seem to have different meanings here:
Reddit: Kbin/Fediverse
Post: Article or Thread
Top-level comment/thread: Post
Comment: Post
Microblog (No real Reddit equivalent, profile posts maybe)
Subreddit: Magazine
Upvote: Boost
Thus, making a new "post" is called creating a new "article", while making a top-level comment (starting a new "thread") or response to that article is making a "post". Any other comment is also called "posting".
It's confusing as heck, but it's natural that a different social media ecosystem would have different terminology.
You can write on your own user profile in reddit, I'd say is the equivalent to Microblog
Let's say you are /u/BaldProphet on Reddit
You go to your profile, click on "Write new post" and this post will not appear in any subreddit, but only in your own profile. It will appear on the feed on people following you and people who enter in your profile can read and reply those posts
This feature is mostly used in NSFW profiles (people self-promoting their onlyfans)
This is the answer I was looking for. So this is sort of how KBin deals with fediverse posts outside of groups - an automated "subscribe to tag" feature based on the magazines that you're subscribed to. Neat!
Thing is, if you go to your profile to post something, you don't see a big ass stream of Twitter posts there. Here, the Microblog tab is full of content from Mastodon, Misskey, and Pleroma users.
There probably isn't the time or will to do this, but it'd be fun if there was a "Reddit refugee" mode you could set in your profile that swapped all the words out to the more familiar ones. It'd only last until Reddit sent a cease-and-desist over trademark usage but that might still help a lot of people make the transition.
To make it feel extra-familiar for Reddit refugees, perhaps also cause people with that mode set to occasionally randomly double-post their comments, randomly show them a "You broke kbin!" screen, or maybe even simulate an abusive moderator randomly banning them from communities.
It's extra confusing since if I click on the plus in top right, I get all of these as options. Wouldn't that mean that all of these are just types of threads, as in article is a text post/thread, photo is an image thread, etc?
Basically, thread = submission in reddit terms?
And it's just a comment, it's never called a post in this context, at least based on the button that I'm about to click to send this? Top level comment doesn't start a thread, right now it says that the thread owner is "VerifiablyMrWonka" whos the author of the whole thread, not the commenter.
They are all threads other than "post" and "magazine." The form for each has a slightly different layout and fields. Maybe they should be consolidated.
I'm trying to understand this comment, but i can't get my head around it. Unfortunately I find the reddit vs fediverse table (is it that?) actually more a hindrance than help. It doesn't format, at least where I'm looking from (kbin.social on web) so I don't really understand what it's trying to communicate.
It would really help if you could describe what this hierarchy is. It doesn't even need to be compared to reddit - just a clear explanation. Or of course a link to something that describes it plainly to those who are new to it. Thank you!
Kinda ditto. I just created a magazine, went to create content and wasn't sure whether to add an article or a post—and whether it mattered. Somehow what I posted showed up as a microblog.
Yeah, you want an link/article/photo or video not a post. Posts are like Twitter/Mastodon posts and are actually viewable by people on Mastodon and other fediverse short form services.
Meta is facebook who engaged Cambridge Analytica to purchase our lives.
Not from us, but from them. Facebook literally sold out the world
Facebook nearly destroyed this country for a buck.
Fuck facebook. I don't want to avoid federating because I dont want them around; I want to avoid federating because anything I can do to starve them of every resource for growth that I possibly can is the best thing I can do about facebook.
Not only did Facebook allow incitement to genocide to be circulated on it for years while people begged it to stop, but after the genocide Facebook also actively impeded the international investigation into that genocide.
Through constant vigilance, anyways. Every time you see some little fuck dogwhistling about FREE SPEECH or CENSORSHIP, you gotta make sure they aren't welcome in these parts.
"Far right buffoonery" starts with people batching about how they're being """censored""" for saying slurs or trying to have "honest conversations about race" or whatever.
Nip 'em in the bud and voila, no Nazis on your kbin.
I remember concrete dog whistle accusation generally falling into two categories:
Checking their comment history revealed either actual Nazi apologia or a general destructive behaviour if you looked deep enough.
Checking their comment history revealed that the accuser was a pro-censorship and didn’t like dissenting opinions.
My conclusion: dog whistles are a reason to look deeper. Keep an eye on those people. However, don’t just condemn them.
The very point of dog whistles is to appear innocuous and even invisible to "normal people". False positives are inevitable, and after seeing a dozen actual dog whistles, pareidolia will make you see their shapes everywhere.
That reminds me of that story I saw on Twitter, ironically enough:
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, ohok 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.
And i was like, ‘oh damn.’ and he said “yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.”
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven’t forgotten that at all.
There's a Lemmy instance perfect for you then: exploding-heads.
We are more than welcome to decide what behavior is and isn't appropriate in our own community. If you don't like it, then you don't have to be here. You aren't entitled to our friendship.
want a place free of authoritarian policies that don't limit actual human discourse.
You've already been given a suggestion for just that kind of instance. If you want to see that kind of content, there's a spot for that.
Or are you just upset that there are places who don't welcome those kinds of dumbfuck takes? Is it that you want to see the content for yourself, or that you want to make the content and force everyone to see it?
Either way, this instance isn't the place for you. Exploding heads is. Go there, be happy.
Do you prefer having a centralized authority dictating your exposure to content? What prevents you from personally blocking instances you disagree with and allowing others to make their own choices? Is it possible that the idea of critical thinking is discomforting and it's more convenient to be shielded from diverging opinions, rather than exercising personal discernment?
The problem here is what gets defined as bigotry and who gets to define it? I was called a nazi for expressing the same opinion I'm expressing here. Do you think that might be a bit much? How long until the bubble of acceptable thoughts and opinions shrinks so much YOU get defined as a nazi?
It's not a fallacy when it has already slipped to calling all Republicans (or even people who wish to hear their opinions) nazis and fascist. Why don't you think it will slip further?
Who defines what counts as "bigotry"? I think the guys over at beehaw are extremely bigoted. does that mean that we should prevent everyone from speaking with them simply because I think they're bigots?
Fuck off to your sad shithole, nobody has any obligation to be nice to Nazis. To the contrary, every decent person should feel obligated to strongly tell them to fuck off. You don't have a space here, we don't want you here, you are not welcome.
EXACTLY. Downvotes and disagreement are the cornerstone of a functioning human society. It shows that we're engaging in a discussion where various perspectives are presented. What I'm advocating for is not an echo chamber where everyone bows to some transient and fluctuating ideal of "correctness", but a platform for the diversity of thoughts and ideas. So, the downvotes don't bother me, but rather embolden the importance of speaking what I believe to be true and attempting to understand the beliefs of others. If people like me don't speak up then we will just create echo chambers of intolerance on both sides of the spectrum. Debate me, prove me wrong. Downvotes don't prove me wrong, they only prove discomfort and anger. Despite engaging in several discussions, I've yet to understand the benchmarks being used here for branding someone a 'nazi'—a very strong term used liberally here and even against me in another thread for sharing views similar to what I've expressed here. I shouldn't be called a nazi for believing in individual autonomy, it discredits a persons entire argument if they can so easily warp a terrible insult like that just to fit their own narrative. The ease with which people advocate for authoritarian censorship, despite having personal control over their content exposure, genuinely worries me. I find it unsettling how readily people will relinquish their intellectual freedom.
Do you prefer having a centralized authority dictating your exposure to content?
Like, you mean, a website? That's what you mean by "centralized authority", right? A website? With its Terms and Conditions, following the applicable copyright and IP laws, following the relevant laws of the jurisdiction it operates in? Yeah, I'm fine with that.
If you're not, go to Exploding Heads. They welcome you. They want you.
I don't want exploding-heads. I would have blocked the instance myself if it hadn't been blocked already. My issue is I don't like having content blocked FOR me because I'm a functioning adult that can make my own decisions about what I see and think. You should be careful with how quick you are to cede control of what you're allowed to see to others. Might make you pretty susceptible to hate and give you a false sense of reality.
I'm not an unreasonable person. I just wanna chat, share my thoughts, share what I'm into, without being censored to hell because some perpetually offended people took offense at regular everyday human things, or noticing things going on in society and thinking about what might cause such.
I don't want to send people death threats, I don't care to say the slurs everyone knows are slurs (but fuck you if you're gonna declare regular speech to be a slur, or medical terms to be a slur).
I just wanna be able to talk to people online? why is that so hard for people to accept? Why should I be literally banned from civilization simply for acknowledging the medical science on my own diagnosed medical condition; merely because some perpetually offended morons were offended by science?
Why should I be silenced, simply for wanting to discuss things without blindly believing idiots with money?
Are those exploding-heads guys dicks? sure, probably most of them are. are they correct about what they're saying? I don't know, I'd like to talk to them and hear where they're coming from, and tell them about my own thoughts. why do you feel the need to get in the way of that discussion when you aren't even a part of it? if you don't wanna chat with those guys, why is it so hard for you to just use the block button? why must you prevent everyone from speaking with them?
I genuinely do not understand that viewpoint, and no one who is on the side of "censor everyone" seems to want to explain it. They'd rather just block/censor/ban you and shut down the conversation entirely. why? are you afraid you might be in the wrong?
Oh, is 4chan too much freedom for you? What happened to your whole "no rules, just right" attitude?
It's sounding more and more like you don't give a single fuck about seeing this kind of content; you want to force us to see this content. All the places you could go to get it, and you're still arguing that we should have to see it too or we're not free.
You're right. We're not free. We're sad, pathetic, chained little sheep beholden to a "central authority" that doesn't allow hate speech. Run while you can! Flee, quickly! Or you, too, might get consumed by the woke mind virus and start thinking that maybe the Jews are ok people!
The issue I have with this overzealousness to censor is that the people who are most eager to censor others, are often the most bigoted, hateful, and misinformed. The suggestion of going to exploding-heads is just dishonest. They are undeniably right-wing. What I wish for is an open platform where left and right can speak freely to each other in polite discourse, not simply just be exposed to whatever dogshit takes some far right people post. going to exploding-heads would then limit my ability to see other positions.
Are you suggesting that I should have an account on each fediverse instance, just to get all of the content? If so, then what the actual fuck is the point of federation in the first place?
What I wish for is an open platform where left and right can speak freely to each other in polite discourse
Oh, I see. You're delusional. You honestly think I should be having "polite discourse" with people who either want me dead, or are ok with voting for people who want me dead.
Because, see, what's left? What makes a Republican want to claim to be a Republican other than the culture war bullshit? What do they stand for? They haven't stood for "fiscal responsibility" or "small government" since W was in office. The straight-up write things like "We stand against teaching critical thinking in schools" (see: Texas GOP party platform) into their guiding documents. And you think they're going to have a civil conversation? You think I owe them a civil conversation?
Every server we allow those people on freely will become exploding heads or 4 chan. Go look at r/politicalcompassmemes if you need an example. I don't know how many times we have to watch it happen before you get the picture, or maybe this is your first ever internet community experience. But you're wrong. Their bad-faith rhetoric, carefully-stated death threats, and direct personal attacks will drive everyone who isn't one of them away, leaving only Nazis. If the admins call them out and ban them for that stuff, they'll end up banning all of them and we'll be having this same conversation. If the admins allow their speech, but don't allow us to say "Fuck off, weeb, nobody likes you" without censure, then guess who gets to control the "discourse"? And if the admins don't ban anyone for it, we'll become Voat. Since only the slimiest members of humanity can tolerate that vibe for long, guess who ends up owning the server by default?
You wanna see that shit, you enjoy being called slurs and told to go kys, you are free to seek out the communities who will do that for you. But fuck all the way off with telling me I must put up with it, too.
Oh, I can block them? No I fucking can't. I blocked you days ago, and your shit still shows up in my notifications. So, again, fuck off. If I have to listen to whatever dumb shit spills out of your brain, against my will, then you get to listen to my toxicity.
Are you suggesting that I should have an account on each fediverse instance, just to get all of the content? If so, then what the actual fuck is the point of federation in the first place?
...you... honestly thought... the fediverse... was supposed to be a centralized content aggregator...?
What.... uh, so, what... what do you think the fediverse is?
Oh, I see. You're delusional. You honestly think I should be having "polite discourse" with people who either want me dead, or are ok with voting for people who want me dead.
have you.... talked with them? I try to speak with everyone and pretty much none of them actually want me dead. If you want to talk about voting criminals into power, look at the democrat party, who legit rigged the 2020 election to vote a known pedophile rapist and warmonger into power. a guy who literally pushed racist and homophobic policy. a guy who literally is fighting to repeal racial equality. a guy who literally openly said he'd deny me healthcare. should we then shut down conversation with every democrat voter? why are you so eager to shut down conversation? do you not realize that creates echochambers, which increases the extremism and polarization?
Because, see, what's left? What makes a Republican want to claim to be a Republican other than the culture war bullshit?
If you actually spoke to them and tried to understand where they're coming from, maybe you'd learn that :) instead you choose to shut down conversation, ban them, censor them, any chance you get. So of course you don't understand why they hold the views and say the things they do! you never listened to what they had to say!
Regardless of how offended you might feel or say you are, the reality is that there are actually decent points to be made by people in both major political parties; as well as the varying 3rd parties. Personally, I found my own view on things that matches neither cleanly, so where's that put me? should I just be on the side of censoring both democrats and republicans? or are you suggesting that anyone that holds any view other than your specific view should be censored and banned? is anything other than openly accepting and celebrating human sacrifice something that should be silenced, censored, and banned? serious question. is going against that "being hateful and intolerant"? where is your line? how about pedophilia? are people against pedophilia just "hateful bigots who are intolerant and mean for no real reason"? where is your line?
The reality is that there's a lot of, and growing, opposition to progressive ideology because it is causing harm to real people. Surely, if something is causing harm, we should try to stop that harm? IMO the proper thing to do is to try and base our views on science (not feelings), and to try and heal and help as many people as possible reach their potential, while also avoiding societal setups that would inevitably lead to problems. Is this an unreasonable stance?
They haven't stood for "fiscal responsibility" or "small government" since W was in office.
I think you'll find if you talk to a lot of registered republicans that they do actually hold those views, but that many of the establishment career politicians hold different views than the people voting for them. Ironically, people who are against sending obscene amount of money to ukraine are now called "bigots". so if they push for small gov and fiscal responsibility, they're a bigot. but if they don't, they're a hypocrite? aren't you being unfair?
I don't think you owe anyone anything. I think that you're in the wrong, and are an authoritarian tyrant and bigot yourself, if you try to shut down a conversation between two consenting people who are completely unrelated to you and aren't addressing you. If you don't wish to speak to someone, that's on you, feel free to ignore them or block them. But it says a lot about you if the second you run into a disagreement, or if you think someone's doing something wrong, instead of helping correct their behavior or ideas, you instead shut down the conversation and let them keep doing what they're doing. Do you have no feeling of obligation to help improve society? if not, I'd say that puts you as worse than them. While they may be misinformed or perhaps hateful due to their ignorance, you are openly admitting that you don't wish to improve society. I'd much prefer a misinformed and ignorant group who want to do the right thing, than someone who neglects the possibility of improving society.
Every server we allow those people on freely will become exploding heads or 4 chan.
I thought "reality has a liberal bias" and all that? Surely, if we allow people to discuss, to debate, to converse with each other, and to let everyone speak rather than a few, we should arrive at what is true, yeah? if you're saying people will become conservative after fair uncensored debate and discussion, then surely they are right? No one is asking for 4chan. there's a difference between fair, uncensored, civil polite discussion, and shitflinging slurs around. exploding-heads themselves have a ban on slurs.
Go look at r/politicalcompassmemes if you need an example.
One of the best subreddits for actual discussion between people of differing ideas? I'd prefer if more places where like that, personally. What issue do you have with them? They're a meme sub but the civility there is awe inspiring.
Their bad-faith rhetoric, carefully-stated death threats, and direct personal attacks will drive everyone who isn't one of them away, leaving only Nazis.
I can't say that's ever been my experience in right wing spaces. I've only ever had that experience in progressive spaces. Perhaps what you're experiencing isn't a problem with right wing people, but rather the hostility and polarization between two groups that are constantly at each other's throats because they refuse to hear each other out?
If the admins allow their speech, but don't allow us to say "Fuck off, weeb, nobody likes you" without censure, then guess who gets to control the "discourse"?
Why do you feel that their insults shouldn't be allowed, but yours should? Isn't that unfair? Either we prevent all insults and have civil discussion (my preference), or we allow all insults from both sides. Surely that's fair?
You wanna see that shit, you enjoy being called slurs and told to go kys, you are free to seek out the communities who will do that for you. But fuck all the way off with telling me I must put up with it, too.
The opposite is actually happening here. You are trying to push your content preferences onto everyone else. All I'm saying is: let the users decide. If you wanna block them, go ahead. Craft your own echochamber. But why should you being offended at civil discussion mean that no one else can discuss things?
Oh, I can block them? No I fucking can't. I blocked you days ago, and your shit still shows up in my notifications.
Fair enough. This seems to be a bug then. I agree that should be fixed. blocking should prevent you from seeing the blocked content.
...you... honestly thought... the fediverse... was supposed to be a centralized content aggregator...?
My understanding was that I'd sign up on a single site, and then have access to content from across the federated sites. Not: have to sign up an account on each individual site, and only see that one site's content. Isn't that latter way just a centralized platform? where is the "federated" part then?
What.... uh, so, what... what do you think the fediverse is?
Sign up on one site -> see content from all the sites. is this not the point of the fediverse? are you really saying the fediverse is: sign up on one site -> see only that site's content? because that just sounds like a regular centralized platform to me.
Yeah but it’s basically impossible to have a civilised discourse between “I think some people are subhuman and should have fewer rights” and “equal rights for everybody”.
You’re making it out like there’s no place to discuss difference of opinion on economic policy.
If me and you are having a discussion, but the topic is the fact that I want to kill you, how long will it take before you stop wanting to talk to me?
"But it's just words!"
Well, we know that's not true, so how long would it take before you stopped wanting to be around me?
Oh, also I promote pediphelia. Just as a little fun thing. Just the casual story of raping kids.
I get the appeal. I do. I 1000% do. I get it. But also fuck Nazis. I don't want to be around them. I'm gay, so they don't want to be around me. Fuck pedophiles. I don't want to be around them. So if a site is filled with Nazis and pedophiles, I'm gonna go to a different site. Now you have an echo chamber of Nazis and pedophiles. The thing you wanted to avoid. But you're stuck with only talking to Nazis and pedophiles.
Meanwhile the bubble without Nazis is a really large bubble encompassing everything except Nazis and pedophiles.
I'm not advocating for unchallenged platforms for nazis. What I'm concerned about is the dangerous broadening of the term 'nazi' to include any viewpoint differing from one's own. Neither you nor I hold all the answers. However, I'm not the one categorizing wide-ranging groups as 'nazis' to conveniently dismiss dissenting views, while complacently considering myself superior to all those being arbitrarily mislabeled as 'nazis'. It SERIOUSLY weakens your entire argument when you throw that word around so carelessly.
Well we don't use it for just anyone who has any different opinion. So the problem right there is solved. We do use it frequently. But that's when we see thing like homo/transphobia(Nazis hated queer people), antisemitism(another group Nazis hated), racism(also Nazis), and sexism(once again, Nazis). There seems to be a pretty fucking large overlap of what modern day Republicans preach and what the Nazis preached. Including as of lately "eradicating transgenderness" and "erasing communities." As well as the amount of terrorist attacks that ha e actively been encouraged.
So if you would prefer we could just call everyone bigot, since that includes them all and not everyone personally considers themselves a Nazi, but I hardly see the difference between a Nazi, the KKK, Proud Boys, 3%ers, etc, when they all preach the exact same stuff. At that point you're not arguing anything except semantics. It's like the whole "race realism" thing. It's racism, but more palatable to racists who think the name racist is mean, but not the mentality.
I guess another way to look at it is as people keep bringing up, but there's a German saying about this. If you have a table with 9 people and 1 Nazi, you have 10 Nazis.
This also doesn't change the actual argument being made, which is about a forum that is open. In which case, you do get Nazis. Like not even what we mean when we call Nazis as Nazis, but people who call themselves Nazis. We have seen that over and over and over. You get Nazis, and you get pedophiles. Then everyone else starts to leave and you are stuck with Nazis and pedophiles.
So once again, I get the mentality behind it. In a lot of ways I would love a site like that. But it's also a little different for those of us that are having people call for our deaths on a regular basis.
How do we define 'nazi' and who is the authority that applies that label? If the word 'nazi' is carelessly applied to anyone exhibiting even slightly right-leaning tendencies, it diminishes its significance and undermines your credibility. This kind of naive approach and severe lack of nuance will lead to an intolerant echo chamber.
Fuck nazis, but also fuck anyone who dilutes the meaning by inappropriately labeling any viewpoint they don't like as nazism or fascism.
Carefully, on a case-by-case basis; and the community.
It's not nearly as complicated as it seems on the surface - and you're trying to make any definition of "nazi" as complicated as possible, because you're wanting to delegitimize any rejection of nazis or nazi speech.
Remember how you said you don't care if people like you, you just want to push your topics on other people?
it diminishes its significance and undermines your credibility.
No one cares if the Nazis think they're "credible" or not. Each and every one of them will tell you they're not a nazi and they 'hate' nazis - while defending themselves and their nazi buddies from critique by insisting the label for their ideology is, for example, "cheapened" if applied to anyone who is not a card-carrying, armband-wearing, farcical exaggeration of stereotypical Nazis in full Reich dress regalia.
They always send the clean cut, quiet, polite one in first. And that guy puts a foot in the door, argues that their pals aren't really nazis, and that everyone in the room are the real baddies for judging those other guys unfairly - and tries to pry the door wider so their Nazi buddies can come in. Sure enough, every time, you let enough nazis in the room and the room is a nazi space now - so the whole gang of them don't have to pretend at being polite non-nazis anymore. The polite veneer, the deep care for "debate", and "respect for all viewpoints"? Those are all just tools, trying to whitewash and re-legitimize an ideology whose end goal is harming other people.
Notice how I'm casually referring to you like you're one of them? That's not some wokist over-use of the term. You're standing here defending them, you're trying to shove a foot in the door for them, laying down apologia for their views and their right to share them - you've spent like a week around the Fediverse arguing against any actions that have served to limit Nazis access to polite and adult spaces within the Fediverse as a whole. I don't care what you believe about yourself, or your views, or your ideology.
If you're going to stand with Nazis, if you're going to stand for them, consistently and repeatedly - don't get all offended and playact at being victimized when people assume that you are a member of the group you chose to stand with.
I'm not aligning with nazis, but advocating against the misuse and overuse of the term (which is utterly rampant here). The problem with using such powerful labels casually is that it muddies the waters and blurs lines that should be clear but now aren't precisely because of the misuse of the term. It's this very misuse that is leading to misinterpretations, such as the one we're facing here, where I'm inaccurately labeled as standing with nazis. My stance is about nuanced understanding and precision in communication, not about sympathizing with hate ideologies. I am defending thoughtful dialogue, not nazis, and it's important not to conflate the two. Since everyone is so happy with misusing the term, what are we going to call ACTUAL nazis so that we can differentiate people you disagree with and ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS. The semantics you're playing with are a dangerous game, and do nothing but prove my point.
You're aligning yourself with nazis while engaging in sophistry to pretend that neither you nor they are nazis.
All these wild mental gymnastics to explain how it's not like that, or the farcical posturing of academic exactitude and "nuanced understanding" - those are the exact same shit as nazis sending in the quiet well-spoken guy to break the ice and get a foot in the door.
You're doing triple overtime to figure out ways to argue compassion for cryptofascists and nazi sympathizers, while going even further out of your way to avoid having the faintest shred of empathy for people who simply want nothing to do with any of that bullshit.
You can call them whatever you want. You don't get to demand that we call them what you want us to. You don't get to demand that we ignore your choice to align yourself with them, to defend them, and to try and make their views sound more palatable and more reasonable than their end goals.
Since everyone is so happy with misusing the term, what are we going to call ACTUAL nazis so that we can differentiate people you disagree with and ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS.
I completely understand that you absolutely refuse to get it and will continue to avoid getting it forevermore - but I'm going to say it for the rest of the room anyways.
Those guys are the "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS".
They just understand that pretending that they're not is the only way to get through the door of spaces dominated by the reasonable mainstream they'd like to sell their ideology to. They know that the reasonable mainstream wants nothing to do with "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" so the "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" dress up as the people you're currently defending and trying to make this conversation about. And anyone in that group that you're trying to defend the nazis by pointing towards, any single person among them who doesn't want to stand with nazis - changes where they stand so that they're not with the nazis anymore. You're staying still while trying to defend that decision.
The "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" don't dress up in SS Uniforms and 'heil' each other in the comments sections - they pretend to be reasonable mainstream people and in order to present their views and their talking points wrapped in rhetoric that masks its nazi roots. They want to win over the mainstream, they want to convince people they're "on to" something, they want to exploit our willingness to engage in discourse to sell their views and advance their ideology. They are not here to engage in debate - the debate is merely a vehicle towards seizing power and then acting out an ideology of violence and hatred.
I'm not 'playing semantics' - I'm not even engaging with yours.
We are not going to split hairs and massage academic definitions until "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" aren't actually nazis anymore. Either you're a useful idiot and not qualified to try and talk down on folks about the intricate semantics of "nazi" - or you're actually on their side.
thats weird. i never get called a fascist, and nobody i know gets called fascists, and i've never had to worry about other people calling me a fascist when i disagree with them. huh...
I was called a fascist on Reddit for saying that punching nazis is a victimless crime, because punching people, merely because they want to eradicate other people, is a well-known staple of fascism.
Yeah but if everyone slightly right of center gets labeled a nazi then you can just call anyone you don't like a nazi and you can do whatever you want to them. That's a problem.
I get called a fascist nazi all the time merely for agreeing with the 1st amendment of the USA which guarantees the right to free speech. If simply supporting the right to freely speak means you get called nazi/fascist, then I'd be wary of anyone who wasn't accused of such.
I don't believe I've insulted anyone but if you think I have could you point to an example? I'm expressing my opinion (which certainly appears unpopular) and if that is seen as insulting or fighty then I don't know what to tell you. I'm going to keep expressing my opinion.
sure. i'll bite. how about you tell me exactly what opinions have gotten you branded in this way? please. tell me what exactly are the kinds of things you say that get other people to call you a nazi.
i'll drop the tone. i've looked at your other comments, have a general clue about what you're about. i'll just say this: there are specific patterns of behavior and ideas which are either attributed to or linked to the Nazi Party, or more generally to fascist ideologies, which have, throughout history, led to oppressive regimes. when people see these patterns or ideas expressed, there is a tendency on the left to reject these ideas because of that association, because they have proved to be potent tools for the spread of fascism, and encourage the dehumanization of minority groups.
transphobia, and specifically appeals to the pedophilic nature of queer people? this is unambiguously Nazi shit. trans people were the some of the very first people the nazi's actually threw into concentration camps in nazi germany. this process included the burning of medical literature describing the proper treatment of transgender people. it also included the denial of an explicit description of the gender spectrum, as observed by medical professionals of the time. so if you are dismissive of or make a political issue out of trans identity, call queer people groomers, any of that bullshit, even if you are "not a nazi", many of the information sources publishing anti-trans rhetoric today have explicit ties to real neo-nazi organizations, or are politically aligned with movements calling for the "eradication" of """transgenderism""".
to anybody with an education on the historical circumstances of Nazi Germany, this exact rhetoric and the modern political movement against trans people, is unambiguously mirrored by the actions of modern republican politicians, including legislating restrictions against cross-dressing (happened in nazi germany), restricting transgender medical care (happened in nazi germany), and revoking the ability for trans people to be recognized legally as trans (happened in nazi germany). people who are queer or trans both do not necessarily want to be confronted with this rhetoric wherever they go online, as it can be extremely distressing seeing people parroting literal nazi talking points in the modern era, and do not want that kind of rhetoric to spread, because it was nazi propaganda that lead to the execution of human beings.
while theoretically somebody might "misuse" this label, call somebody a transphobe or a nazi when they aren't explicitly talking about this stuff, you may be able to follow the logic from here. if transphobia, questioning the validity of transgender identity, calling for the restriction of transgender medical care, restricting access to books about queer people, if this has explicit links to nazi ideology and activity, what do you call people that want to open up a space for these people to spread their beliefs? what do you call people who accommodate or legitimize these beliefs which have led to the genocide of people groups? well, for a lot of people, if you accommodate the people who accommodate the fascists, that really isn't that different from letting the fascists run about.
maybe you don't think of yourself as somebody who does that. maybe you really do think of yourself as a moderate who wants productive discourse, and believes that if everybody just talked to each other, all these political divisions would be easier for us to solve. for the people who would be impacted by the threat of violence behind these beliefs, that isn't so easy. for the people who see the striking similarity between the modern transgender panic and the genocidal escalation of yesteryear, it isn't worth the risk to allow in the would be monsters, willing to execute the people who are not like them, even if that means that some reasonable people are caught in the crossfire. hopefully that gives you at least some insight into why productive dialogue isn't a very convincing argument on this side of the fence. you've called yourself a moderate in other posts. tell me, what is the moderate position between genocide and tolerance? between eradication and acceptance? if you're moderate about that shit? well, that just sounds like bigotry to me.
i would encourage you, if you aren't just a nazi concern troll, to look into the Institut fur Sexualwissenschaft, and the history behind the persecution of transgender and gay people in nazi germany, and try to conceive of why people believe that they are right in rejecting those who display sympathy towards the right wing of the United States, especially in light of their modern retreading of old bigotry. i would love to give people the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they are truly just advocates for free speech, concerned about authoritarian censorship, all that jazz, but the content of what opinions people like you are defending the right to have are historically ruinous for minority groups, a harbinger of a horrifically violent regime which killed countless people, and burned the records of what had been learned about their humanity.
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, ohok 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.
And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.
One of my good friends does tattoos, and he doesn't do them for pretty much this exact reason. Like on one hand, fuck Nazis and he doesn't want to do it. On the other hand, money is money. They're gonna get it done, so might as well be the one that gets paid.
But ultimately he doesn't want to make anyone else who comes in uncomfortable, and he doesn't want to slowly become known as the guy who does all the Nazi tattoos. It makes him look bad and means he will get fewer people. So it's best to just tell them no.
It certainly doesn't. It's just that alt rtght absolutely abuses good will and rules to the extreme and systematically hijacks certain phrases.
See Elon Musk's Twitter as a light example (giving in to authoritarian censorship, and skewing content visibility, while constantly touting himself a "Free speech absolutist"), or the_donald from Reddit, which was mostly made of bots, conspiracy theorists and some sane, but malicious people, banning anyone who's even slightly misaligned.
Some people like the previous commenter are then incorrectly shortcutting hijacked slogans to the alt right. Which was their goal to start with - increasing the friction, uncertainty and division.
To elaborate about free speech we want to mantain sensible environment. So we need to give a boot to astroturfing bots and far, far right neonazis. Though as with most things, moderation is the key.
Elon's acquisition of Twitter serves as an insightful case study of how a corporate CEO can turn what used to be a diverse, tolerant, and bountiful community of netizens with no home for hate speech and misinformation into a sad capitalist bloodbath.
Please take note, Huffman. And please take note, the internet in general.
I once said in the World News subreddit during the initial days of Russia invading Ukraine "fuck Russia. Also fuck China" and made it clear I was talking about their governments, and was banned. I also commented in Old School Cool subreddit a benign mention that OP's mom was attractive and got banned. I also told the mods of another subreddit that allowed comments on how to encourage violence at drag shows (can't remember where now) they were fascist pieces of shit, no mincing of words, and literally had an account ban from reddit due to too many strikes.
I can tell fascists and tankies here to go fuck themselves here consistently without fear of reprisal by a fat unemployed useless mentally retarded moderator on a power trip.
Wow, the only reasonable comment talking about "censorship" in this thread.
Another example I can think of is when the CCP announced that they were going to put restrictions on depicting "feminine men" in media, so I went to r/GenshinImpact to see the riots that would unfold from having their femboys taken away. there was a post about it that appeared on google but had been removed, so I went on there using removeddit and found several with over 3k upvotes each that had all been removed, undoubtedly by the mods shilling for the Chinese government.
I completely disagree with your views here but completely support your right to say it. Why's it so hard to allow people to simply speak to one another without some uppity censor-happy/ban-happy authoritarian fuckwits getting in the way and preventing conversation?
I was banned from a bunch of subs all at once because I said in one (I'm still not sure which one), that I don't think children should undergo gender or sex transition.
I’m so glad I signed up on Beehaw where I can flip my app to local only and makes these dog whistling conservative bigots disappear. It’s wonderful. I also never see any downvotes.
What a boring and unnecessary opinion to have. You're not their doctor, they arent your patients, what business is it of yours? and to go on about sharing that uneducated, untrained, unsolicited opinion online and then complaining about censorship when your medical advice is not well received.. I just can't wrap my head around the entitlement.
I have opinions on when and how children should be allowed to access cigarettes, alcohol, and motorcycles. Are those opinions also boring, unnecessary, and entitled?
The medical opinion backed up by doctors and the majority of the medical community used to be that alcohol for minors was fine and that cigarettes were good for you.
The medical community is perfectly capable of being wrong and prescribing societal dogma over anything else.
Yes, they are perfectly capable of being wrong. But guess what, they are less capable of being wrong than you are, because they have actually spent years of researching these topics.
Sure it’s possible that they’re wrong, but they are astronomically less likely to be wrong about this than you and the fear mongering anti-trans media are.
You’re dismissing all of modern medicine there, which IMO is even worse. Knowledge might change, but until it does, we have to follow the current state of science. Otherwise we’re back to guesswork.
No, I'm dismissing the idea that the "medical consensus" is unquestionable truth.
If questioning the medical consensus was always wrong then we'd still believe that handwashing was a waste of time, and cigarettes would probably be lauded as a way to resist the miasma.
When the consensus changed to say that cigarettes and underage drinking are bad, that didn't overthrow the idea that handwashing is still good. And when the consensus changes to say that the modern approach to transitioning has caused more harm than help, that won't overthrow the idea that underage drinking and cigarettes are still bad.
Questioning the medical consensus is ok, as long as you're a medical researcher with a study to show that there's a problem. I don't get the feeling that you are.
Laypeople are perfectly happy to give baseless opinions on my actual field of expertise, only fair I return the favor on other fields. Also how do you propose we get a study which shows the problem if you aren't allowed to ask the question which prompts the study until after the study is done?
Besides, when societal dogma is driving more than anything else then the only expertise you need is to be a member of that society. And nobody can deny me that qualification.
I'm in software development. If people give uneducated opinions, we all have a laugh and move on. In medicine, people die when this happens. This is not comparable.
That's a fun way of admitting that you have absolutely no qualifications regarding medicine. The only thing you can do here is point at the dogmatic opinion and pretend that there's nothing wrong with letting social pressure silence any uncomfortable questions.
If your goal is to have a safe space for an oppressed minority group to express themselves, allowing transphobes to go about "just asking questions" and harassing people shuts down conversation of a group that actually has their freedom of expression threatened. Allowing harassment is more censorship than banning it. And no one should have the expectation of being able to just go into anyone's house and shit on their floor without consequence. And that might mean being banned from going to all of their friend's houses as well.
But you don't know what they said or what the community was. You are missing my general point. Please don't support general fascism behavior, whether it is from the right or left.
On top of that, this isn't somebody's house. That isn't a good analogy.
They already said quite clearly that they're transphobic. The "I don't think children should undergo gender or sex transition" is almost verbatim an anti-trans talking point.
Here's some actual research on the subject of trans people, including trans youth, and suicide risk. With citations;
Bauer, et al., 2015: Transition vastly reduces risks of suicide attempts, and the farther along in transition someone is the lower that risk gets.
de Vries, et al, 2014: A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team with mental health professionals, physicians, and surgeons, including puberty suppression, followed by cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery, provides trans youth the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults. All showed significant improvement in their psychological health, and they had notably lower rates of internalizing psychopathology than previously reported among trans children living as their natal sex. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population.
Gorton, 2011 (Prepared for the San Francisco Department of Public Health): “In a cross-sectional study of 141 transgender patients, Kuiper and Cohen-Kittenis found that after medical intervention and treatments, suicide fell from 19 percent to zero percent in transgender men and from 24 percent to 6 percent in transgender women.)”
Murad, et al., 2010: "Significant decrease in suicidality post-treatment. The average reduction was from 30% pretreatment to 8% post treatment."
De Cuypere, et al., 2006: Rate of suicide attempts dropped dramatically from 29.3% to 5.1% after receiving medical and surgical treatment among Dutch patients treated from 1986-2001.
UK study: "Suicidal ideation and actual attempts reduced after transition, with 63% thinking about or attempting suicide more before they transitioned and only 3% thinking about or attempting suicide more post-transition.
Heylens, 2014: Found that the psychological state of transgender people "resembled those of a general population after hormone therapy was initiated."
Perez-Brumer, 2017: "These findings suggest that interventions that address depression and school-based victimization could decrease gender identity-based disparities in suicidal ideation."
Here's a study showing that children know what gender they prefer and don't change their minds on it.
Transitioning is One solution, and it is valid to be able to discuss other options. Your citations bring good discussion points, but shouldn't be used to ban people.
My point is about censorship and the race to the bottom thst it can and often brings.
Except that's a sidestep. The viewpoint you were defending was saying that this one specific option, that has substantial academic backing for positive outcomes for kids, should not happen or should be prohibited.
That's not "discuss other options" - that's discussing this option and arguing that society should take it away.
That you're now trying to argue that it's just discussion and it's reasonable debate and - forgive my bluntness - being openly dishonest about what the original speech was that you're defending with "free-speech" and anti-censorship talking points is like ... the example case for how this thread started. The nazis and the transphobes and the hateful bigots can always, easily, spin their own takes as righteous and reasonable debate - if you let them lead the dialogue and frame their discourse through the most-appealing lenses possible. And they can make valid-sounding and appealing arguments for why you, too, should defend them and their right to speak.
But inevitably they are also going to use any and all space you clear for them to be hateful and bigoted and call for harm to other people - that is their goal. Everything else is just a setup play.
I don't know, I'm always in favor of banning transphobes. Their arguments are always based in hatred, not any verifiable science. I gave you the science.
If the scientific community overwhelmingly and independently comes to the same conclusion over and over again, insisting on being able to discuss other solutions, especially not in the context of academic exploration (because it IS important for the scientific process to check opposing hypothesis and to peer review) but in the Context of telling a baseless opinion easily disputed, then no.
That's like the people who insist on 'discussing other explanazions' for climate change.
And it is more than understandable that this insistence then is seen as the Opposite of good faith arguing and met with resistance. There is no point in giving a forum to harmful lies. That is not productive discourse
I'm literally transsexual, have transsexual friends, and don't think children should undergo gender/sex transition. that isn't an "anti-trans talking point" it's common sense backed by medical literature and scientific studies.
They repeated what they said, which is good enough reason to ban them from dozens of communities. People generally portray themselves in the least controversial light possible in these circumstances, so that's the best case scenario.
Many subreddits are the personal spaces of groups of people. Doesn't matter whether it's literally a physical house someone lives in or a metaphorical home for marginalized people. It's still their personal space. They're justified in excluding people even for trivial reasons such as liking the number 7. Blatant transphobia is an obvious reason to ban people from such spaces.
Blocking people from harassing marginalized people is not fascism. Excusing the persecution of marginalized people otoh...
In society we routinely have opinions about things which don't affect us personally. We have opinions about murder, for example, and we made it illegal. None of my family have been murdered before. I'm neither a police officer nor a judge nor criminologist. I'm the least qualified person in the room to have an opinion on this, and yet, democracy gives me that right. I choose to continue to vote to make murder illegal because I think it is immoral.
Likewise, I think it is immoral to do this to children:
In one particularly shocking case, a girl who wanted to become a boy began taking hormone-blocking drugs at just 11-years-old. Almost five years after the treatment began, the puberty-pausing drugs induced osteoporosis and permanently damaged the teen’s vertebrae, severely limiting the teen’s mobility.
“When we asked him regularly how his back felt, he said: ‘I’m in pain all the time’,” she added.
You're not their doctor, they arent your patients, what business is it of yours?
ok, so if you're not a doctor you can have no opinion on healthcare now? ridiculous statement. i think healthcare should be free. i don't work in healthcare or health insurance. so am i just supposed to shut the fuck up and know my place?
no, I have my opinion and I'm going to share it and @JasSmith has his opinion and he's going to share it. that's the whole point of having discussion boards. the last thing i want is this place to become an echo chamber
kids are fickle creatures and fads catch on - all of a sudden we see a dramatic rise in kids wanting to transition - like 4400% increase in girls wanting to transition to boys. is it because we are now more accepting as a society or is it social contagion? probably both and it's a serious topic we need to address if we actually do want the best for the kids. we need to keep ideology out of healthcare and make sure each individual kid is taken care of with whatever is best for them - transitioning is not always the best option. but sometimes it is.
This is an uncomfortable conversation that needs to be had, but it sadly likely won't until too many lives have been irreplaceably altered.
Now firstly, I support trans people! I support all LGBTQ+ people, and Cis Straight people, to find themselves and be themselves and accept themselves for who they are! People need to learn to love themselves and not need to change to find happiness. Trans people are unfortunately stuck in a body that doesn't match their brain so they need to change to become who they are inside. Just as everyone's fingerprints are unique, everyone's brains are unique, and sometimes the brain is so different from their sex that they need to transition to truly be themselves. But IMO not all people who say they are trans actually are, let me explain why.
People want to support minorities, and lonely people want to find a community that will support them. So some people will surely become a minority just for the social support being a minority offers, not necessarily because they actually are that minority but they may convince themselves that is the case even if they aren't. But the issue is there's no easy way to know who's who in this situation, and it's arguably not our business to challenge them in their personal decisions. These are lonely people who need people to hear them and be their friends regardless of what they choose to do, and people who preach anti-trans arguments often aren't able to do that and instead are very hateful.
People today are lonely, in large part because of social media's affect on our psych. And what support is there for straight cisgender people? Essentially none. Especially white straight cisgender people who are practically seen as the "bad guys" throughout history (Which isn't necessarily an unfair assessment considering what Europe has historically done to basically everyone (including each other for that matter) but that was largely the actions of the wealthy few again). Why do so many kids and adults commit suicide? Where's the support network for people who need it regardless of minority/majority status? Real life social networks are dying. I'm sure there is some support, but it's not as visible to those who need it.
There's a conversation that needs to be had which is being shutdown because of the "look everyone a bigot(!)" mentality that bringing this up has. However, there's no simple way I can see to really separate that honest discussion from those who do want to ban the practice entirely, so it's understandable why the reaction is the way it is. It really is a shitshow from all sides. (Transitioning should not be banned BTW in case I haven't made it clear that that's my position.)
I think that some kids should be allowed to transition, based on their physicians and families assessments of the situation. But in the end it's not my business if someone believes they truly need to transition to be happy. I do think currently too many are transitioning because it's become the new social fad like being goth or emo, though perhaps I'm wrong. But if I'm right than it's a lot harder to reverse being trans, if it's possible at all.
Personally, I'm just dropping the subject IRL because of the reaction that happens after any mention of that honest concern comes out.
I expect someone will say I'm a bigot just for this comment showing any concern at all that too many people think they're trans and are harming themselves long term. My goal is the largest amount of happy people who love themselves as possible. And sometimes in trying to do that society inadvertently causes some people unnecessary suffering as I'm sure is the case here, but there's nothing we can really do about it, it is what it is. So just love everyone and accept everyone and do your own thing. Things will work out for most people in the end if you just accept people and don't worry about things. Which is what I try to do.
It's so funny to me this person don't ever seem to have the same concerns about the nose jobs, boob jobs, lip enhancements, etc that are also being done on teens AND CHILDREN. I hear nothing from you about the performance enhancing drugs for teenage boys, or the altering of the bodies of gymnasts who also start in their early childhood. In the case of the latter, they get stunted growth because the intensive amount of training affects hormones and delays puberty. Gee what other thing that you argue about sounds similar to that?
Maybe you didn't know about those things before. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But now I fully expect that you go to all of gymnastics forums where they're talking about young female gymnasts and male athletes,l and tell them that you don't think they should do those sports anymore. You're totally going to do that right? Right?
It's so funny to me this person don't ever seem to have the same concerns about the nose jobs, boob jobs, lip enhancements, etc that are also being done on teens AND CHILDREN. I hear nothing from you about the performance enhancing drugs for teenage boys, or the altering of the bodies of gymnasts who also start in their early childhood.
I mean, you don't know me, or you'd know that I also think those things are wrong. I also tell people that I think those things are wrong. Don't you?
I mean the top comment is a guy who was banned because of his opinion on gender/sex transition... And the person you answered to expressed their opinion on that topic. Why would they talk about nose jobs or whatever? If you want to discuss these topics why not ask them about it instead of assuming their political agenda? Not saying I agree with them, but that's not how debates work.
we aren't seeing a 4000% increase in kids becoming gymnasts
it's a poignant social topic. instead of attacking my credibility, aiming to represent me as biased, you should try to attack my argument
having said that, i support kids transitioning. i'm more upset about the "wrongthink" mentality where someone can't even share their opinion without getting pounced on. he isn't sharing hate speech he's just talking
between 2009 and 2019, children being referred for transitioning treatment in the United Kingdom increased 1,000% among biological males and 4,400% among biological females.
i guess it's too much to expect people to read things
So "transition treatments" have gone up 4000% ... in the time period following the treatment becoming available. If being a gymnast was illegal until 2009, or nobody had invented a trampoline until then, you can certainly bet making it legal or possible to do floor routines would result in a 4000%+ increase in people who were openly and publically gymnasts.
Trans people, trans kids, have always existed - we just didn't have the technology to provide the treatment in that article.
That article is choosing to cite the numbers on the treatment rather than the condition because the treatment's very recent launch means it allows the presentation of a scarier number.
Indeed, I've been finding myself hesitant to chime in on this because I know I'm inevitably going get lumped in with transphobe Nazi facists because at some point I'm going to say "hey hang on, there's some nuance here that you're missing."
Sure, I can go harass people on gymnastics forums if that's what you want. But in that case it's only fair that I start harassing people on trans forums as well. I wasn't doing either of those things before, but you said I have to so I guess it's time to go bully some trans people.
I have no problem with condemning the people who push children into intensive training for competition gymnastics. And no, I don't believe them either when they argue that "the child wanted this." The parents wanted a child who fits a certain mold and the child is just trying to make their parents happy, or atleast not angry depending on how externally abusive that parent is being.
Also I absolutely support the idea of banning under 18s from getting nose jobs, boob jobs, lip fillers, taking PEDs, etc. Heck throw in piercings and tattoos as well for all I care. No procedure and no parental permission exceptions.
Ah yes the great source of the New York post. I don’t think you are being harmful on purpose but I do believe that by spreading shit like this you are harming trans people. There is no trans epidemic or social fad. That opinion is absolutely ridiculous. I have a close family member who is trans and the difficulty of even getting hormones is extreme. Multiple meetings with psychologists and endocrinologist, many exams and paperwork, not even mentioning the bureaucracy you have to deal with afterwards. And this is as an adult, transitioning as a minor is way way harder. No one just gets transitioned in an accident, and 99% don’t regret it. Now on the flip side 30-50% of trans kids want to commit suicide due to societal pressure and bullying. The only „cure“ for gender dysphoria is, shocking I know, transitioning. So when people say to protect trans kids, it’s literally protecting them from self harm or from getting attacked. Also, do you really think that more people identify as trans because it’s a „fad“ or maybe it’s because your can finally openly talk about it! It’s like saying that the rise of left handed people after them not being retrained in school anymore is a social fad. It’s a stupid opinion. Whenever you have more societal acceptance of something more people will feel safe coming out. I understand that some people are scared of their kids being transed by the woke liberal teachers but the same people also think that Obama turned the frogs gay.
Are you questioning that Chloe exists? She's been speaking at length about her de-transition because the whole experience has destroyed her body permanently. You can read about her on her Wikipedia page. It's cool to question sources, but you didn't even take a sec on Google to check if your ad hominem attack was valid.
Here is another example. Sweden went all-in on "temporary" puberty blockers for gender affirming care until children started experiencing life-long injuries. They are now effectively banned for gender affirming care for children.
In one particularly shocking case, a girl who wanted to become a boy began taking hormone-blocking drugs at just 11-years-old. Almost five years after the treatment began, the puberty-pausing drugs induced osteoporosis and permanently damaged the teen’s vertebrae, severely limiting the teen’s mobility.
“When we asked him regularly how his back felt, he said: ‘I’m in pain all the time’,” she added.
Chloe's case is a tragedy, for sure. The issue I have is that people are calling for bans rather than enhanced oversight.
Healthcare, at its core, is a numbers game. No effective treatment we've ever discovered is completely without risk. Every surgery or treatment, no matter how innocuous, could lead to complications or death. To use a recent example, the Covid vaccinations. They're considered extremely safe, and over 13 billion vaccination doses have been given to date with over 5 billion people having been vaccinated. Given that Covid kills or permanently disables 2 in every 100 unvaccinated people, and vaccines lower that rate by at least 90%, that's nearly 100 million lives that have been safeguarded by the vaccine. However, the vaccine has certainly harmed some people with extremely rare side effects. We accept that tradeoff, because saving 100 million lives is worth the risk of harming a few thousand people.
Gender affirming care for children is the same thing. We know that trans children are at extremely elevated risks of self harm and suicide, and gender affirming care is proven to be effective in preventing those outcomes. We know that some will regret their decision to transition because those cases are inevitable in any population that transitions. The focus should be on reducing the cases of regret with better screening and more oversight.
So, to debate this seriously, you need to answer the following question:
How many regretful de-transitioners are you willing to risk in order to save the lives of successful transitioners?
If the answer is zero, then you're not willing to seriously debate the use of a medical treatment and your opinion is dogmatic and carries no semantic value.
If the answer is very few, then congratulations, you're on the same side as many allies who want more funding for care and screening for trans issues.
Chloe would have likely been helped by more psychiatric care and screening, as from her story it's clear that her sexual assault as a minor precipitated a complex regarding her sexuality that was misdiagnosed as a desire to transition.
Also, do you really think that more people identify as trans because it’s a „fad“ or maybe it’s because your can finally openly talk about it
i think it's both. i don't know at what ratio, but kids really do follow fads. one kid kills themselves at a school and it raises the chances for all of them to do so. ideas are contagious. a kid that may just be going through the regular teenage angst period searching for an identity might latch onto the trans label to explain their feelings when really it's just a normal teenage thing to go through identity issues
again, i'm not trying to say kids shouldn't transition. i view transitioning as healthcare so to block kids off from it is absurd. but i think we also need to be careful and talk about the elephant in the room - that the rate of trans kids increasing so dramatically points to some issues with the ways we are doing it. when something jumps up so dramatically we should be asking questions
It’s like the prevalence of left-handedness shot up dramatically once it was socially acceptable. You can’t look at changes alone and say that things changing is a concern because it’s changing.
This is false equivalence if I've ever seen it. The treatment for left-handedness was to sit on your hand, not do a fucking life-altering permanent surgery.
The problem is that there's a very big difference between wanting a blanket ban on transition preparation and wanting the actual people involved (the trans kid, the parents, and the doctors) to do a better job of evaluating the situation and working out the best path for each case.
While your opinion may be more reasonable you should be careful to not assume they share your opinion. A lot of people don't realize that the common choice for "transition" treatments for teens does not transition them, but rather delays/suppresses puberty in such a way that they can choose which way to go at a later time. Banning this treatment forces a choice and disallows a trans person's ability to fully transition once of age.
The opinion that you have flies directly and explicitly in the face of some of the most trusted and respected medical organizations in the world, then no, you shouldn’t have that opinion.
Because on the one hand, we have people like you and right-wing talking point media . On the other hand we have the opinions of the American Academy of pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive medicine, the American College of physicians, the American Association of clinical endocrinology, the American Academy of child and Adolescent psychiatry, the American Academy of pediatrics, the American Academy of Physicians assistance, the American Medical association, the American nurses association, the American Counseling association, the American medical student association, the American Psychiatric association, the endocrine society, the Pediatric endocrine society, the National Association of Social workers, the World Health organization, the world medical organization right.
When you put those two lists side by side, you have no fucking point. I would put one of those organizations above your opinion on medicine, but every single one of them has come out in support of the idea that it is better for a trans child to transition. Your argument holds no weight aside from baseless Fear mongering
I get why subs that consider themselves safe spaces for trans folk would ban you for that.
Transitions are Never done willy nilly. Several doctors and psychologists will be in contact with that person before. If they agree it is fine, as Healthcare professionals, then it must be that forcing the person to stay their birth gender will do more harm
Lmao, yeah you deserved to have your trash take "censored". Gender affirming care saves lives, and has a less than 1% "regret rate". For reference, knee replacements have about a 15% rate. Shocking how trans-inclusive spaces don't want transphobes around.
I think the problem with your opinion is that it conveys that you believe children are being throw into surgery rooms and given sex transitions loosely and without thought to the consequences.
I think your real opinion is that you believe children shouldn't be given unnecessary surgeries. If that is true, the large majority of the population would agree with you.
In addition, have you explored what Doctors believe is a necessary sex transition for a child? What are those parameters? If you don't know, then I would consider your original stance to be of ignorance. Since you really never dive into the subject, most people will assume that you haven't explored those parameters and don't understand the reasoning behind them. That is why you're facing aggression with your opinion.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the consensus among the medical and scientific communities is that you are wrong. They are the experts here, not you. At some point, blindly repeating falsehoods based on prejudice stops being an avenue for constructive debate and instead just wastes everybody's time and makes people angry for no reason.
You're advocating against life-saving treatments. Of course you're going to get shit on.
Yes, but the "censorship" and "freedoms" they talk about isn't about malicious censorship (I.e. Spez going around quietly editing dissenting comments) or freedom about how our content is used (I.e. Reddit refusing to let people delete their comments).
Their version is about spreading misinformation and hate speech of all kinds, alongside racist and facist ideologies unfiltered and unimpeded. They're malicious actors acting like victims.
We don't want any of that, we want all folks to feel welcome, which is why we have to shoot that down. To maintain a tolerant society, we must only be intolerant of the intolerant.
I always say that there is no paradox of tolerance, because tolerance doesn't work that way.
It's not a wide open door. No tolerance is a compact. It's a peace treaty. A social contract that can be violated, and those who violate it can then be excluded from it until they stop being hateful idiots.
Going to bring it up again, the Paradox of Tolerance disappears when you consider tolerance a social contract rather than a moral standard.
Nazis base their identity and politics around not tolerating the presence of various minorities, and therefore aren't entitled to tolerance themselves.
TERFs base their identity and politics areound not tolerating trans people, and therefore aren't entitled to tolerance themselves.
Furries don't base their identity on excluding, invalidating or persecuting someone else, so furries are entitled to tolerance.
So, the furry boards stay but we need to defederate Nazis and TERFs.
There's always going to be some fuzzy edge cases, unfortunately. When tolerance becomes such an important and powerful thing it will become easily weaponized and subject to misinterpretation, deliberate or otherwise.
Oh yeah, but honestly if we can just keep the big troublemakers out and set a line in the sand we can put up with the fuzzy edge cases. It would also be necessary to consider tolerance a concept that goes beyond interpersonal interaction. Like, okay, this guy is civil but what he's saying is that genocide is okay. Or, okay, this guy is rubbing me the wrong way but at its core "Archer is a better Captain than Sisko"* is not fundamentally about race, it could honestly be he just prefers Archer.
*Sisko is a better Captain than Archer, this is fact. But sometimes people are just wrong and that's okay.
Archer's problem is that he's weak, kind of cowardly, and a bully. I watched the whole series, but you only need watch Cogenitor to see it. Even Lorca would've kept a promise to one of his crew.
Sisko did some stuff we can argue about, but he has the courage to make the choice according to his principles. I can't put Archer in Sisko's situations and see him coming out better.
Also, Sisko punched Q. Knowing FULLY who Q was. Nothing can detract from punching Q.
That's another thing they'll tell you, to add to your point. They'll say general society, or lefties, are unwelcoming hypocrits for expressing the need for inclusion while not including fascists.
They'll word the same opinions in a million ways until they find the way that gets you to allow them to continue blabbering intolerant bull crap.
It's true, those types will use your own rules against you to wipe you out if you let them. It's one of the oldest tricks in the playbook of bad faith arguments.
I bet you we'll see a version of that very argument with the Fediverse when Meta brings "Threads" onto the scene. They'll preach inclusion then use the old EEE tactic to kill us off.
That's the Paradox, they use tolerance to fill the space with intolerance.
I said it in a comment below and I'll write it out again because it is a great point (that I have seen several times on Mastodon, not that I thought up on my own) that the only way to resolve the Paradox of Tolerance is to understand tolerance as a social contract.
Nazis start from not adhering to the contract, because they refuse to tolerate certain identities. TERFS refuse to tolerate trans identities. Neither the Nazi nor the TERF viewpoint is entitled to tolerance. Compare to Furries, who have no problem with non-furry identities but are often not welcomed because they are so very very strange. Tolerance is for furries, not nazis.
fascism doesnt play fair in the marketplace of ideas, if you invite a nazi to sit at your table you've made it a nazi table. free speech is necessary and important, but we still draw lines for things like defamation and hate speech. another line is not offering a platform to fascists, they arent entitled to a seat at the table to spread fud.
you're like "but i'm not a nazi" , great, let's keep it that way.
Importantly, "free speech" is about government, not privately owned spaces.
We believe the government should not be given the power to censor speech, because people are born into it without a choice. Governments could use this power nefariously, and their citizens would have no meaningful recourse.
Nobody is born into Reddit or kbin or Lemmy. If someone doesn't like the rules of a given instance, they are welcome to leave and free themselves of this burden.
Genuinely curious what word you should use if you think people should be able to say whatever they want in any space without getting kicked out or censored, as opposed to being able to say almost anything without getting arrested by the government. As it stands right now, some people mean the first definition when they say “free speech” and some mean the second.
Reddit was filled with a special brand of retards always trying to police language always acting smug about taking about some weird moral high road it is exhausting to deal with. People irl dont have such tight asses about speech. And permabanning someone for having an opinion you dont agree with is an abuse of power (not like it matters much to people who are so zealous about policing public morality). Obviously dont be a shitter and start spouting off trump supporters special brand of koolaid but if you feel like trans women should not compete with biological women in professional womens sports then you are free to think that way.
Using the word “retard” as a derogatory term is pretty offensive to those born with developmental defects. It’s similar to how we used to use “gay” in a similar way a few decades ago. It’s pretty shitty.
Speaking as someone with a speech impediment, using the word "the" is super offensive to me. It's basically a slur. If you don't stop using it immediately, I have no choice but to report you for being a Nazi.
That’s sounds tough. You should probably not report people for generally benign speech, though, just because you personally find it offensive. Have you tried simply informing others of your problem with this language?
I would say that "retard" is less offensive than the Q slur used to refer to LGBT people. You say there's a problem with calling stuff "gay" whereas I'm actually same sex attracted and have no issue with that. THe bigger issue is the Q slur.
if you're gonna just say "well my dictation of language is the only one that matters!" then you're just being an authoritarian fascist nazi and are literally the problem.
you are free to feel that way but the mods are not free to ban me for my shitty vocab. they can just call me an asshole and move on like every other website
You are entirely in control of what you say.. but it sounds like what you meant is not in line with what you're saying.
Do you deliberately want to belittle people with developmental issues? It doesn't sound like it. I think what @Dr_Cog is trying to say is that you should consider lining up the words you use with the message you're actually trying to convey.
If we're to start declaring how people speak, can all you word nazis please start cracking down on those people who use the Q slur to refer to LGBT people? it's a literal slur, has been used to attack and harm large portions of the community, yet people will happily broadcast it.
I feel that's a better use of time than pushing offense over the word "retard" which ultimately doesn't hurt anyone and hasn't been used to hurt anyone.
Do you deliberately want to belittle people with developmental issues
no one is attacking people with developmental disabilities by calling something retarded if you want to take it that way your are free to do so its your opinion not mine and even if you try to twist my words to suit your fucked up narrative i know what i mean and thats what matters to me
I’m honestly sure you don’t mean “retarded” as a personal attack against people with developmental disabilities.
There’s also a very long history of people using that exact same word to attack them. Many people who make arguments like yours, that they should still get to use the word, tend to also be prejudiced against these people and treat them poorly. Maybe you’re not like that, but using that word does make you look a lot more like these people.
You making an argument to try to keep using the word, even though it hurts people, essentially tells them “I will not change one word in my vocabulary to accommodate your feelings and history of being hurt by this word.” Your choice on if you want to change your words to in an effort to get people to interpret you in a way that better matches your intent, or if you’d like to stick to your guns even if it means lots of people will get hurt. After all, people are free to interpret words however they wish, including in ways that you don’t intend them to and ways you don’t mean. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people affected by this word to not want you in their communities if you want to keep using that word, at least if they didn’t promise you absolute freedom of speech.
Hey if the mods want to remove folks like me so be it. Do i make extensive use of such slurs in my day to day vocabulary? (Not really) i mainly want to test the waters and see how hard the mods and the community comes down on me for it. Can i speak like normal or will i have to sing song dance around subjects like on reddit.
Technically depends on the instance. The Fediverse supports free expression in the sense that you can spin up your own instance and say whatever you want. Flip side, any other instance can de-federate with your instance if they don’t want to listen to your BS^1.
For instance, my instance^2 would probably police my ability to use slurs. Which is fine. I certainly am a member of some groups for which slurs exist, and if some asshole started spewing that BS in my house, I would express myself by kicking them the f*ck out. Likewise I chose an instance where I can be comfortable, and not have to deal with being harassed for who I just happen to be. My choice of an instance is largely founded on its Code of Conduct. In exchange, I extend the same courtesy to others on my instance.
It’s almost like a social contract…
Anyway, point being, as a consequence of different instances having different Codes of Conduct (even if just minor changes), you will technically be bound by both the CoC of your home instance and the home instance of the community/magazine.
Yep, the Fediverse can totally provide that. Self-hosting puts you in total control. I’m just making the point that free expression cuts both ways. Each instance is a free association of members who consent to that instances CoC. Each community/magazine has a home instance, and by joining that community you are also consenting to abide by that instances CoC.
This does mean that in effect you can be banned from either the community or your home instance.
Flip side of all this, is you have a bunch more variety of instances. You should be able to find one where you are comfortable, but still be mindful when participating in wider communities. You’re visiting someone else’s house in effect.
Finally, instances can de-federate if they don’t want to deal with another instances nonsense.
I didn’t say anything about banning you, or stopping your speech. Just pointing out that most people look down on those who use that kind of derogatory language.
Exactly. I posted on a sub talking about the fact I thought the covid lock downs went too far (ironically enough I’m actually a junior doctor as well) and just from this one comment where I did not say anything remotely controversial immediately got banned from about 50 unrelated subreddits. Now I’m usually not too fussed but I just thought it was ridiculous that I can be banned from posting on r/cutepics or whatever because of one comment.
However I’m a bit worried with lemmy about the defederation thing and would like to know how it’s different from this.
In my experience, the people ranting about "free speech" the loudest are the most flagrant violators of the "my right to move my arms ends at your nose" maxim.
ehhhh..... I think it says a lot about a person if they don't care about free speech, or the encroaching censorship from the rich 1%ers. That's literally the entire appeal of stuff like the fediverse.
If you want a strong crackdown on speech, then go back to reddit?
Whether or not it’s was a failure depends on what you expected from it. Reddit was not going to change its mind. The investors demand more money and will continue to squeeze Reddit for ever dime the can. It wasn’t going to die overnight either.
What did happen is a non-trivial amount of users left and found the Fediverse. Apps are currently being developed to make it more accessible to your average user. The Fediverse will no longer be some obscure thing for a niche group. I think it was a huge success and will have long term repercussions for Reddit.
Precisely how I feel on it. Would it have been magical if the protest resulted in every last user leaving reddit behind for better alternatives? Of course. But that was never something I thought was likely. However, it's caused a lot of us who were already unhappy to leave and come over to the Fediverse, and I do think that's a success.
It's not like Reddit was even likely to die. I think we all knew the best case outcome that was still grounded in reality was something like Reddit falling into a slow but certain nose dive.
I mean, even Twitter is still kicking despite all the horrible stuff that's gone on there. Reddit isn't Twitter levels of bad. A slow decline was the best we could have hoped for.
Honestly, we wouldn't have been able to scale to a massive migration, anyway. A slow migration is ideal for scaling and community building.
All very good points! So yeah, I'm taking what victories I can, in this case my victories are having found the Fediverse and no longer being on reddit ☺️
Just like Digg, digg is still technically around since the website is still up. Though it's not really Digg anymore. It's just some random news site now, you would never guess that it was once one of the most active forms on the internet.
That's where Reddit is headed, any arguments trying to push otherwise are pure cope by Reddit addicts, who just want to keep scrolling forever and don't want to have to start over from the beginning on a different platform that might be alien to them. They're going to have to though, even the people who were loyal enough to stay with Digg until the end had to move on at some point.
IDK I guess I kinda hoped that people would realize how stupid and exploitative the whole system of reddit is and the site would get overrun with spam and turned into an archive site. Was very disappointed in that pipe dream.
It's going to be a long, slow process. The people who quit and deleted their accounts are part of it. The people who are just using it a lot less are part of it. The communities continuing to protest in their own unique ways to continue to raise awareness are part of it. The 3rd party app devs telling their sides of the story are part of it. People who get bored or curious when their communities slow down and go looking elsewhere will be part of it. The flurry of negative news is a big part of it. And the more all the other stuff continues, the more the negative press continues, and Huffman is doing himself 0 favors in any of his interviews.
I know. Me too. It fucking sucks that we don't see larger, more consistent examples of unity over issues like this. Part of me is grateful for the amount of people that did port over, and part of me is mad at that grateful part, thinking that I should--we should--be able to expect more. And part of me wants to take the victories that I can. It's not a simple issue, so I'm trying to hold on to the faith that I have left that we'll figure all of this shit out and do what I can in the meantime.
It's a difficult thing to measure, since it won't necessarily be a leap from just one platform to another.
I saw a meme on Tumblr about redditors remembering they had "dual Tumblr citizenship" all along. A lot of people are exploring a bunch of different options simultaneously (me included) and that's pretty great.
Yes, I jumped ship to mastodont after Elon took over and Twitter is still a thing. It's slowly getting worse and worse but some users just don't want to leave.
Yep, especially considering the clear improvements that are constantly being implemented and the higher activity levels than before, what makes Lemmy/kbin feel more like a good alternative where people should migrate to
Upvotes on posts on the front page of /r/all are now like 15k where they used to be in the 100k range. Very promising. I keep checking in every other day or so but that’s going to stop once Apollo goes dark. Things are going to get quite bad for reddit in July and I absolutely can’t wait to see it
I think that what's happened in the last hundred or so years, for China, during the Cultural Revolution, and for the USA, since Vietnam, the ideology of social anarchism, along with the whole piracy movement has had a far reaching impact on people throughout society.
The modern concepts of freedom of information, direct action and skill sharing has effectively crushed and displaced both fascism and economic opportunism/gatekeeping that plagued the cold war generations, as it gives everyone, thle tools and opportunities for another renaissance, opening the door for further innovation and creativity, etc
Yeah, I first took a look at lemmy and others a few weeks ago, when everyone was asking "what's an alternative?" and at the time, despite so many people talking about the fediverse, there weren't that many people or threads. And now look how active some communities are becoming!
I still lurk. I expected the slow decline and change in character that others here have predicted.
What I have seen in the last 8 days floored me. Continues to floor me. Reddit is already a zombie platform. Front page is week-old posts. Bot generated reposts from 2 weeks ago.
And astroturf posts trying to spin the whole thing as a "what was that blip?" Or "glad those whiners are gone"
Oh, I think it's hurt Reddit more than it seems on the surface. Of course they will say "it's not working" but reading between the lines of this Engadget article [1], the number of ad impressions would be down rather significantly. Note the difference between time spent on site (seeing ads) and "visits" -- many of which were likely people checking on the site rather than participating in the site. I think this is taking a toll, and am hopeful this situation will serve as an example of poor leadership for the next generation (Digg being a previous example).
Honestly, I thought they might. Not to cancel the API fees entirely like some wanted, but to reach a compromise with developers that would increase Reddit's revenue and let the apps stay in business.
But it's become clear since then that killing the third party apps isn't an accident or side effect, but the explicit intention of the API changes. Now I can't see Reddit compromising as long as spez is in charge.
I still have a dim hope it could happen. The protests aren't over and Reddit is feeling it.
I really thought it was part of the plan, introducing expensive plan, and later reducing it to more acceptable level. Which should achieve the income they need and maintain public image.
I mean, kbin's been in development for a bit, but we only really started hearing about it generally in the Fediverse like a month ago? Maybe 6 weeks ago? Kbin.social is only a few weeks old.
The developer set up a testing environment, and then Reddit jumped aboard basically immediately.
I hit up kbin first but was having some issues with it, which makes sense as I was probably in the middle of the swarm. I jumped to shitjustworks, because it did what it said on the tin. I do think kbin would be a better fit, has it smoothed out any?
Yeah same. I've actually been using Mastodon a bit and so far enjoyed it a surprising amount. Had some casual but nice exchanges with folks over there. I think leaving reddit is helping me diversify my media consumption habits which is a really good thing imo, if only for the sake of my sanity. Like many others, I don't think I was quite aware of how reliant I'd become on reddit as a source of new, entertainment etc etc.
Hey, that's the plan. After the first release, the status update will probably be every two weeks. Currently, I'm struggling with the preparation of the release, it's taking up a lot of my time because I have many changes to integrate. On top of that, I've been going through a tough period in my personal life, but I've overcome it and starting from Monday, I'll be giving it my 100%. Contributors continue to be active, and their assistance is invaluable to me. To make matters worse, I have to deal with waves of spam that have recently surfaced on kbin.social, which you've probably noticed. Stay tuned ;)
Currently, all I need is a bit more time ;) I'm gradually granting additional permissions and sharing responsibility with contributors. We still need to establish a some policy. If it speeds up work on /kbin, I'm okay with that. They are great and experienced developers. However, it's important to remember that they all do this in their free time.
the thing is that the only people who are capable to do that are those who are involved with the development. and to write something about all the changes, someone would have to be involved or at least knowledgeable about a variety of aspects of the software.
The people who run this particular repo are pretty vigilant at tagging the issues. It's not necessarily comprehensive but you could try filtering by pr pending (also toggle the open/closed option at the top left; I can't find a way to display all of them together on codeberg)
"PR" = pull request. which is what it's called when someone makes a change to the code.
I am also not a developer but I like to nose around in these things. :) I'm sure you can understand the gist of a lot of them. Like we have "Strip whitespace of emails on login", "Add a "show password" option when logging in", "Email Address Confirmation Cannot be Re-triggered". Also things like "Actor is null in Page and Note" which means nothing to me.
You can also look directly at the pull requests. Not everything is discussed in the Issues first. It's not the case with every project but this one is reasonably clear for a non expert to look through. eg "Show full language names in smaller badges", "Add upvote color when an item is boosted" etc.
The Outer Wilds. IMO, non-violence-based gameplay design is an underexplored space, especially in 3-D games. The Outer Wilds manages to feel like a fully-fledged game, rather than a traditional walking simulator, using exploration as it's core gameplay loop.
Further, it's main progression system is you, the out-of-game player, learning about the world. There's no abilities you gain or keys you have to find. You unlock new areas, not as a programmed game mechanic, but as a function of reasoning about what you've discovered and gaining insight into how the game world works. Any playthrough could be beaten in about 15 minutes -- there's nothing physically blocking you from triggering the end of the game -- but it takes you 15 hours or so of flying around the solar system to accrue the necessary insight to get there.
Beyond being set in space I would say they are pretty different. Outer Wilds is set in a single, hand crafted solar system. The planets are kind of "cutesy" and small. Like you can see the curve of the horizon when you are on each planet because they are each designed as spherical levels you are meant to explore most of.
The space flight mechanics are also pure Newtonian physics ala the Expanse, whereas the ships in no man's fly like planes, not rocket ships.
All that said. If you liked No Man's Sky I think there's a decent chance you'll like Outer Wilds.
Tried to get my now-husband to integrate the soundtrack into our wedding, but alas!
And for anyone reading this thread and thinking it sounds worth a try: a) do no further research, go in blind, very important and b) Outer Wilds is the one you want, not to be confused with The Outer Worlds.
Original Myst was like that- you could technically beat the game inside of seconds- if you knew the answer. (Empty world where everyone was sealed inside books- you could free them by freeing one of two heirs. You had to decide which was the “right” heir.)
The puzzles left clues around the entire game to explain things unlocking puzzles
It’s a toss up for me between Outer Wilds and Subnautica. I found Outer Wilds after playing Subnautica and looking for something with the same feeling.
Anyone that liked Outer Wilds should also play Subnautica. Although the game play is more similar to No Man’s Sky (even though Subnautica is definitely much better than NMS)
I’m playing Subnautica for the first time right now, after hearing it was similar to Outer Wilds. I’m discovering I have a much bigger fear of vast open water than I do for space!
I wish I had the guts to play it - the anxiety I got from the water-tornados and huge vast emptiness of space, the black hole - the game did such an amazing job at giving me an overwhelming sense of dread that I had to just stop playing. I consider that a compliment towards the game lol
Hey, speaking as someone who hated all the planets (especially the a fog-ridden one I won't spoil)
Part of the reason why I fell in love with this game was the realization that nothing could ever really harm you. The anxiety I feel when exploring the water-tornado planet was always there -- slightly dampened by the understanding that nothing dangerous could ever happen. At most, I was flung up to space. Black hole? Don't worry, you'll just end up far away. I'm always anxious, always fearful. I had to learn to be with those feelings, instead of pushing them away.
This was outer wild's personal message to me: it's okay to feel scared or overwhelmed. It's okay to be crushed by narrowing tunnels or die of oxygen depravation or whatever else the universe can throw at you. You'll always be back in front of a crackling campfire. That's the safety that the game always guarantees you.
Honestly, with enough exposure to outer wilds, I tried doing black hole trick jumps and sometimes even drove my ship right into the tornados for fun.
I really hope you continue playing! This was one of the best games I'd ever played.
One of the points of federated and decentralized social media is that there’s no need to profit. The concept is that communities are built by individuals instead of a central institutions and the communal gain is what incentivizes folks to host servers and participate. I see it as a similar ecosystem as the open source software community who constantly gives everything away for free because it serves the common good, enables faster innovation and widens the spread of knowledge that makes everyone more successful/efficient at the end of the day. If these decentralized social networks can provide the same level of benefit as Reddit, I.e. people adding “Reddit” to their search queries to get first hand answers, I think that’s the singularity point at which people will realize giant social network corporations are completely unnecessary. I can’t wait. Seems inevitable to me because the entire business model of the current centralized networks is unsustainable - part of the reason you see Reddit making such drastic moves regarding their API or Meta investing in anything and everything outside of social media or Twitter throwing unnecessary digital products at the wall and hoping people pay for some of them. Once decentralized social networks are mainstream the ad target pool is going to be greatly affected and these companies will collapse under their own weight if they haven’t pivoted to something else.
What's the general consensus as far as fear for future profiteering? Right now these platforms are great because the are run by people who genuinely care. Do you think there is any risk of this growing so much that federated content reaches the front page of search engines, followed by advertisers wanting space here? Or what about risks like reddit gold which was initially just a fun add on, which then became a "temporary" paid feature, which ended as a full scale scam.
Anyway, I love what we have for now, I just want to know what everyone else is speculating for the future.
Meta, a well-known for-profig company are gearing up to join the Fediverse, reaction is mixed, some server operators seem keen on welcoming them, some cautiously optomistic while others want nothing to do with Meta at all.
In terms of paid features, might be a thing down the line but it will very from server to server. Cool extra statuses (e.g. Wow I'm a gold tier superstar supporter on this instance) likely won't appear on other instances unless they decide to include something in the federation protocol that would display it.
The thing with the Fediverse is that things like this aren't really possible. The creators of Lemmy are pretty anti-capitalist, so the source-code won't ever support ads.
An instance admin could try to modify it to incude Ad Sense, but the users would just reject that instance and move to a free one.
I personally wouldn't mind premium features, like animated emotes and stuff for people that pay for monthly subscriptions, but again, things like that don't work in the fediverse because they won't be supported on every instance.
Maybe there will be some creative solutions that get made, but it's highly unlikely due to how things are setup.
The biggest difference I've experienced between the fediverse and Reddit is how infrequently I come across outright bigotry in the comments. I didn't expect that, and I certainly didn't expect that to feel as refreshing as it did. I had gotten to the point where I was just numb to the racism, misogyny, homo/transphobia, etc. Not having to put up with it to nearly the same degree in my first few weeks over here was amazing.
Now that I've (a) seen that a community can exist with a minimum of people calling me slurs, and (b) realized how much those comments were actually affecting me (I'm not so tough after all), I am very aggressive about protecting this space while it's still possible to stem the tide.
I suspect a lot of other Reddit migrants feel something similar. We've been forced to put up with these chuds for years, to the point where we've just started treating them as an inevitable, natural forces, like shitty weather or beach seagulls. Over the last four years, particularly, we've very clearly seen the result of allowing these fuckfaces to take root and grow their communities. Now that we have a chance to make something different, a place where that doesn't happen, we're (pretty collectively) jumping at the chance to actually fight against them. Trying to fight them on Reddit was like trying to fight a snowstorm, or fire ants, or the just the fucking tide. Here? There's a chance.
Edit: Another great thing about this place is I can see everyone who downvotes comments like "I'm glad I don't have to just suck up and deal with being called a f*g twice a day", go through their activity, and see if I want to just block them preemptively.
The unilateral rejection of right wing antics gives me hope for humanity. Not just that lemmy admins are willing to take a stand... but that the entire community here is downvoting them and not letting them thrive anywhere.
When I joined a week ago, the founder of c/conservative had already been run out of his own community and created c/conservativesonly... which he was subsequently run out of a second time and forced to make a new account to mod it.
In a weird way... lemmy might be the proof of concept we needed that democracy can beat fascism.
To be fair I prefer not to conflate any and all fascism or conservatism with either of the other.
At the end of the day, everybody deserves space and a voice, whether they call themselves left or right wingers, what's important is whether they want that space to become a hate filled echo chamber is on them.
That's fair... But also to be fair we're not talking about conservatism. We're talking about fascism masquerading as conservatism and declaring themselves the authorities on morality; so that they can undermine democracy for theocracy -which is inherently fascist.
I grew up Christian. These people are not followers of Christ, they're not fucking "conservatives." They're loonies! The majority of Christians who actually believe in his morals stopped going to church and tuned out from Koolaid.fm a long time ago. I guarantee you the genuine conservatives you're trying to protect are more likely to not vote at all than vote conservative. Never mind go online to propagate hateful garbage Jesus would absolutely (!!) denounce vehemently!!!!
Bad news first - I think a lot of the reason this doesn't exist on federated services is largely because those services are in their infancy and principled people or at least people with slightly more than lukewarm IQs are more likely to seek them out.
Good news - the capitalist nature of corporate social media means that at scale you have to tolerate a certain number of nazis and bigots. See also: the recall scene from Fight Club. The fediverse largely doesn't have that problem. We don't have to say "we have to keep this account on the network because they're boosting the ad numbers" we can just fucking ban them.
In the short term for the fediverse, it's a little security by obscurity. In the longer term, it's really more of a moderation problem, but even there I'm optimistic. Over on reddit, there were/are a few subs where if you blocked every user subscribed, you'd lose no value even in other subs. instances are going to be similar, I bet.
I like the Beans in general for the Fediverse or whatever the union is here. Kbeans for Kbin, Lbeans for Lemmy, etc. Like a way we can be all united under a Bean Banner while still being unique beans at the same time.
kbin.social
Hot