I would love to agree with you. However I don’t think I’ve seen a hexbear post in general for whatever reason. maybe that’s for the best considering the few posts I have seen about degenerating from them
But yes, I can at least agree with you about political compass memes. I stumbled on that subreddit earlier this year while I was still on Reddit.
I was like, oh cool, a place to make fun of everyone on the political spectrum. But the posts only ever seemed to really make fun of anyone on the left. Comments were much worse than the posts, in general
I was on it when it was relatively new to trending. It seemed a bit more even, but like any community that allows Nazis to say Nazi shit, everyone that wasn’t a Nazi got sick of it and left, and now it’s Nazis larping and trying to convert clueless people that walk in.
It’s worse than that. It’s one of the few places that invites fascist participation, shouts down those that object to that participation, and purposefully induces normal people into interacting with fascists and their ideas. We should not allow it here.
All under the pretense that “everyone is welcome”. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that every meme that makes it to the front page is far-right and that 75% of the people flared “left” hold views like “I’m left wing but I think leftists take things too far” and other fascist apologism.
Censorship is a slippery slope. Truth is not empirical. Lawyers professionally manipulate the appearance of facts, and judges use opinions to determine validity. Start censoring some, and soon enough you’ll be censored as well. There’s a reason why freedom of speech is part of the first right in the Bill of Rights. It wasn’t foresight, it was experience.
Let’s say legislation is passed to allow censorship of language. What if that power is transferred to a leader who chooses to use it for their own interests? Now that not only infringes on freedom of speech, but freedom of the press. Governmental control of the press is how you make a dictator.
Instead of telling about what the government shouldn’t do, why don’t you tell us about what the government should do to deal with misinformation and stochastic terrorism?
I simply do not believe the government should restrict or regulate speech. Neither did the founders. They understood the power that puts in the government’s hands, and no leader should be trusted with that much control.
I’m being as consistent in my opinion as one can be. I don’t believe the government should do anything about a citizen saying hateful or offensive things. What is illegal is unlawful action.
When it comes to broadcasting, it is illegal to spread misinformation (a fact proven to be false) or disinformation (a fact proven to be false with intent to mislead). It can also be prosecuted through a defamation lawsuit as libel or slander.
Listen, I’m not a fan of freedom of speech because I want to hide behind it while spitting venom. I agree that there’s too much hate in the world, and the internet brings it to your front door. I’m simply saying that giving the government the power to determine what is, and is not acceptable to say has empowered dictatorship after dictatorship throughout history. America won’t be any different. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I’m simply saying that giving the government the power to determine what is, and is not acceptable to say has empowered dictatorship after dictatorship throughout history.
And I’m saying if government isn’t going to have the power to regulate speech then it will be hijacked by malicious actors.
Did I say ‘will be’? I meant to say ‘has been’.
Pick your poison. Do you want government to have that power, a government whose representatives you can vote for, or do you want to give that power to the billionaires and corporations?
I think you’re conflating speech and press. As I said in my previous comment, press is already regulated and legally bound to report true information. Freedom of speech is what’s allowing you to share your opinion on this topic, no matter how wrong it may be.
yes it is and where it cannot be proven with 100% certainty, the scientific principles applied to truth will at least get you as damn close to it as possible.
This statement reads like you want the right to replace reality with your own and say whatever you want without consequences.
I think you misunderstand the point. No one is asking for legislation against stating the sky isn’t blue. When a general idea, such as “hate speech” is made illegal, the definition can be manipulated by those in power to do so. That’s exactly how past governments control the narrative of the citizens to their liking. All they need is our permission to tell us what is, and is not, acceptable to say.
Welcome to participating in society, where you are expected to work alongside your neighbour, not against them.
our government is supposed to be there to define these lines, in conjuction with the will of the people AND the limits of the courts.
Theres’ valid argument about some parties abuse. But thats where a robust parliament with multiple different houses can help.
But at the end of the day, if you let hate speech fall under the pervue of freedom of speech and take an absolutist approach to freedom of speech, you will inevitably, lose tolerance as the intolerant will eliminate the tolerant. We have seen this enough times to know that free speech absolutism is a joke, and why it’s not the rule of most countries.
Problem is with speech is that speech itself IS action.
You might not see it or feel it if you’ve never really been a marganlized group, but even speech itself can be harmful, especially when it spreads. At some point, there must be a line where it is not ok to say those things.
For example: Some white supremacist walking around with a swatstika flag might seem like a nothing to you and you might just htink the person is an idiot (they are). But to me, that is a symbol that says “I want you, your family, and your heritage murdered violently, and I don’t care how its done”
In addition, your premise assumes good faith on the part of the intolerant, and that they are probably just that way and will change with evidence. This is not true. Many intolerant know that they are intolerant and don’t care. And nothing will change that. Arguing with them is what they want since it gives them a platform to repeat their vile hatred.
Again: There MUST be a line in the sand where society and the social contract say “This is not acceptable and you will not be permitted to participate”, or eventually it creeps and spreads.
Nazism (ack, a godwin myself) didn’t just start as Germany’s preffered viewpoint. Hitler was ostracized for it early on, but many free speach absolutists took the exact same approach with him, until he was able to convince enough people who before would keep quiet, to support him and his causes.
Speech is not action, but I agree it can lead to action. Actions are held accountable by law.
I absolutely agree that speech can be harmful, and harmful language should not be tolerated. It should be met with resistant speech or ignored. Social mores are not legislated, but agreed upon by society as a whole. If it’s a location where you are required to listen, such as employment, there are already laws in place to protect you from harmful language.
I assume no good faith from intolerant people. I do not expect them to change their mind. By meeting their ignorance with truth, you can provide the listeners with a contrasting view.
I suggest you read about historical dictatorships and authoritarian control of speech to understand the potential dangers of empowering your government to determine acceptable speech. It may seem like a good idea at first, but all it takes is someone you adamantly disagree with to take office with that power and everything changes.
Yes it is. And this is why the Free speech absolution argument fall flat on it’s face.
Speech is Action.
Speech encourages Action
Speech is powerful. There’s a reason why there’s the old saying “The pen is mightier than the sword”. Words are the most influence action we have.
I’ve responded to you enough. the fact you’re going to sit and defend peoples right to hate speech implies to me that you have some of these opinions yourself that have been called out for and you want to defend your right to say them.
So, On that assumption, I don’t think you and I have a further need to talk.
So best case for someone like this: don’t drive. Get other people to drive you, use public transportation, get a bike, etc. But this is probably America and that is 100% not possible everywhere. Or even most places.
There is another option: State-Owned High-Risk Auto Insurance. These are insurance plans owned by individual states. Because US states all require auto insurance to drive a car and because driving a car is goddamn necessary in a lot of America, this exists.
It’s VERY expensive. Like when I was looking at getting good coverage for 2 newish cars I was staring down $500/6mo. Our state’s high-risk was $2,000+. But it exists for people like in the post who are just too expensive for ordinary insurance companies to want to insure.
Where on earth are you getting insurance for 2 cars for $500/6 months? I’m middle aged, drive a 10 year old car, and have a perfect driving record, and mine’s about $100/month. I’ve priced the same level of coverage with other companies and that’s pretty much what all of them offered.
Eta: I’m literally asking. I have no loyalty to my current company, if I can get it cheaper, I’m out.
I’m in a similar position, middle aged, clear driving history for about 15 years, car’s an '18. I pay ~$450 every 6 months with Progressive. Paying the whole amount up front gives me a good discount. If you can’t do that size payment at once you can pay with PayPal credit and it should be no interest for 6 months so you can get the discount and still pay monthly.
I need to check on whether I get a discount for paying all at once. I’m finally at a point where I could manage it but I have no idea what it would save.
Ooh, just checked looked and nope, USAA gives me $16/month off for autopay but no pay in full discount. Lots of pretend discounts for other stuff but that just puts them around what other insurers would charge anyway. What a rip off.
I live in the Netherlands and now pay €188 a year. It’s just a “wa” insurance meaning if I hit something they pay the damage of the other’s, but not mine damage.
I drive a car from 2009 and have 10 years of no damages. So if your willing to move to the Netherlands wait 10 years you can lower your payment. (Not really a option I guess)
That was a few years ago. But I have the same coverage and cars for $580/6mo. BTW it’s cheaper to pay all at once usually.
But our cars are compact and subcompact about 9 & 10 years old. We carry 100/300/100. It’s GEICO is MD but it was also about the same with progressive in FL. Only one of us has a perfect record, the other is still minor and rare.
So you may just live in an expensive state for insurance.
No way. Even just commuting assuming $20 each way (cheap for rush hour) that’s $4,800 every 6 months. Probably 2-3 times as expensive as the high risk insurance.
The post said they had been paying $500 a month ($3000 for six months) and it went up with every accident. When you factor in gas and maintenance (let alone deductibles for all their accidents), ride share services might well be cheaper.
$4,800 every 6 months is only $800/month. The OP pays $500/mo on insurance, let’s say $100 on gas a month, that’s only $200/month payment on the loan for an old used car. Car ownership is expensive, but it’s probably more common for the car payment to be $500/month and insurance to be $200/month. This doesn’t even factor maintenance
I feel like I can say it here compared to that other site, but I never liked these comics. Maybe 1/100 felt clever or funny and I hated that stupid meta of adding shit to find in your boring ass comics.
I didn’t take much issue with Pizzacake until their comics became this weird circlejerk about people who didn’t like them. There was no joke just “Oooh I made another one! Look how much I don’t care about the haters! They’re sooo upset!” Each complete with a strawperson getting super triggered that they would continue making comics.
I get it, you put time and effort into making a comic and it’s frustrating to see people who don’t like them. Let off steam with maybe just one comic. But after seeing multiple of the same exact thing I was really done seeing that kind of rage bait in my feed.
Glad you finally found the courage to speak up! If there was one thing I felt was missing from Reddit, it was people sharing how much they disliked certain web comics.
The difference isn’t something missing. The difference between the sites is here has more actual discussion. While people still feel the need to downvote anything they don’t agree with I still think it’d be interesting to have discussions
Clearly this fine cat is taking a simple loaf break between rounds 🙄 Kids these days spending 24/7 on their games don’t even know how to unwind after a stressful match /s
I shall make use of this whenever I shall enter discourse with the common enemy. Alas, thanks for allowing the addition of thy knowledge to me little brain. Perchance.
(thank you for engaging my attempt at humor with patience, grace, and charitability 💜 I actually don’t have anything against starfield either, i just saw an opportunity to wisecrack and took it)
This is one step more than I do: If someone calls me there is a 99% chance it's spam so I never answer. If they do not leave a voicemail, I am 100% not calling them back.
sopuli.xyz
Hot