I've stumbled upon some transgender/transvestite communities that typically have anti-transsexual slants but it's easy enough to ignore. Haven't seen any overtly hateful content yet though. The mastodon side of the fediverse is filled with progressive types who can be quite hostile/antagonistic to transsexuals which is part of why I've avoided it for so long.
Kbin has been great though. Really gives me that "reddit" vibe.
Sorry but your terminology is confusing me. Would you feel comfortable explaining that you mean by progressive types being hostile to transsexuals? I've heard all three terms used interchangeably over the years, and last I've heard "transgender" is the acceptable term.
language use is kinda tricky for political topics like this lol.
When I say transsexual I refer to the medical condition known as transsexualism (and has been called such since the early 1900s). It refers to people with sexual inversion: oppositely sexed brains, behaviors, sexuality, etc. originally considered a subtype of homosexuality. You get diagnosed with it, and are born with it. Transsexuals often get HRT and SRS surgery and live as the opposite sex.
Transvestite refers to people with transvestism, a different medical condition coined and understood at the same time as transsexualism (and distinct from it). These are people who have otherwise typical/natal bodies and brains, but have a desire and compulsion to dress up as and be called the opposite sex. It's a spectrum, and ranges from light crossdressing, to full disgust/repulsion to their sexed traits and a strong desire to keep getting cosmetic surgeries. Many transvestites get on HRT and get SRS depending on the severity.
Transgender is a new term (as of the 80s and 90s, and really took off after 2015) that is a political term, not a medical one. That community is mostly transvestites who wish to demedicalize transvestism and "rebrand" it, along with push their own particular worldview and ideology which is rooted in debunked pseudoscience that originated from a pedophile named John Money. The transgender movement is often extremely hostile and antagonistic to transsexuals, due to their desire to "appropriate" transsexualism. Since transvestites have a compulsion to be seen as "real women" and things of that nature, they often appropriate science and medical studies done on transsexuals to declare that transvestites have oppositely sexed brains. they end up appropriating the label as well, and as a result denying transsexuals exist.
Due to this behavior and ideology, most people who identify as transgender and are involved in that worldview/ideology/movement tend to be very hostile to any transsexuals who happen to stumble upon them and simply clarify their medical situation.
Personally, I end up very wary of lgbtqia-aligned spaces as a whole due to this. As I said, it's easy enough to avoid, but some of these people are very politically minded and hostile and they really push their ideology onto platforms too which sucks. I'd been banned from twitter probably 6 or 7 times simply for talking about my transsexualism. The transgender movement declares it "hate speech" despite there being nothing hateful about talking about my own biology and medical condition. They simply don't like the fact that transsexuals exist.
"Progressive" is a political term and label used to refer to people with particular social policy/views, which I'm sure you've seen. they're the types with the pronouns in bio, the blm activism, etc. These are usually the people most hostile to transsexuals unfortunately.
Perhaps I should say biological then? By medical I mean that transsexualism and transvestism have been known to academia and the medical community, are a standard part of diagnostic manuals, have known medical treatments, etc.
"Transgender" is not part of that sphere, and is instead a term rooted in political activism. There's no biological or medical understanding of "transgender" because it's not a biological/medical word, but rather a political one. The transgender movement pushes blatant pseudoscience and misinformation, which puts it at odds with actual science.
I was going to mention that but didn't wish to open the can of worms too much. Lol
I work in the behavioral health field, and while there is a lot of outdated terminology still used, the shift to MTF, FTM, transgender, and gender dysphoria has been very quick. Providers, in the US as that's where I'm located, have adopted that phrasing as the outdated terms have become appropriated by hate speech.
So yeah, I agree, what is or isn't "medical" is often times used as a talking point to justify who is or isn't "real" and target certain groups and people by othering them.
"shift to" this is what I'm talking about. There is no "shift". Transsexuals do not have gender dysphoria. Transsexuals are not covered by any definition of "transgender" (and any attempt to conflate such is actively hostile and transphobic to transsexuals).
have adopted that phrasing as the outdated terms have become appropriated by hate speech.
Without erasing the concept of transsexualism, do please tell me what word you'd prefer to use instead. Because it's clearly not "transgender", and "gender dysphoria" does not apply to transsexuals.
I'm not sure how transgender is a political term given my doctors and surgeons who are medical professionals also use the term.
Given that, implying people who use transgender as a self-identifier are actually transvestites might be a source of the hostility. I understand you may not see it that way, but the term transvestite has a really negative connotation to most people and it's not something people want to be involuntarily described as.
I'm not sure how transgender is a political term given my doctors and surgeons who are medical professionals also use the term.
Your doctors and surgeons are using political terminology, not biological/medical terminology. idk how else to put that to you. There is no dx code for "transgender". There is no clear consensus on medical and biological definition for the word. It's simply not an academic/scientific word relating to one's biological status and medical situation.
Given that, implying people who use transgender as a self-identifier are actually transvestites might be a source of the hostility.
Except everyone appears to be in agreement about that? The transgender label most often applies to people with transvestism disorders like dual role transvestism, autogynephilia, and gender identity disorder, along with gender dysphoria as a symptom. yeah? Like, this is what the word means?
Thanks for explaining, as far as I know the term "transexual" was removed from the DSM and isn't used anymore for diagnosis. "Transsexualism" was replaced in the DSM-IV by "gender identity disorder in adolescents and adults".
So what you're describing is pre 1994, but please don't take this as an argument to your use of the language, plus the DSM is used by the APA and may not be used in other places, as I don't know where you're located those terms you use may still be used there.
Transsexualism has long been removed from the DSM, yes. it's still in the recent ICD though which is used by endocrinologists but indeed is also removed from the new icd-11. this means that transsexuals are at risk of losing healthcare, thanks to the actions and efforts the of the transgender/transvestite movement.
"Transsexualism" was replaced in the DSM-IV by "gender identity disorder in adolescents and adults".
This is incorrect. gender identity disorder is a label that refers to a more extreme form of transvestism. it didn't "replace transsexualism" because it's not the same thing as transsexualism. transsexualism was removed, and gender identity disorder was added.
So what you're describing is pre 1994,
Doctors today still diagnose people with transsexualism. What I'm talking about is factual biology. If organizations or doctors don't have such labels, then they're not very good doctors.
This may be why you run into hostility.
If the issue is with "old terminology" then not one of these people taking offense has actually provided a newer term to refer to transsexualism.
I don't wish to discriminate against any transsexual people. Quite the opposite, I want society to have a clear, scientifically rigorous understanding of transsexualism that is recognized and respected.
I've blocked a handful of people for spouting far right rhetoric and trans/homophobia so far, as well as three or so xtian instances (am I using 'instances' right?) that have shown up in the 'new' feed.
I like being able to block bigots and hateful subs, it's really weird to me that ither sites (squabbles) don't have this feature.
@Ignacio I've found not only tankies, I've found right wing homophobia and antisemitism too. But it was not very problematic, since always come from the very same instances.
The only site I was aware about that has those problems is that one with a frog as its brand. But despite using Mastodon code, it doesn't belong to the fediverse. Not in my opinion. I tend to be very settled when I join an instance, not changing unless I feel uncomfortable or find something better.
@Ignacio believe me, there are a lot more. Sorry if I don't give names here, I don't want to make publicity for them, but some of them are listed here: https://joinfediverse.wiki/FediBlock (I don't necessarily agree with the list).
In the fediverse? Sure! There are some very problematic mastodon instances out there. But they all get fediblocked and de-federated by others, so that's a relief. I have spotted at least one lemmy instance owned by folks from Indian far-right full of casteist and xenophobic content. I hope such places get quickly defederated from us once federation is fixed. If you scroll down the #Fediblock hashtag, you will come across examples of some really horrible instances (some folks tend to report instances there without any substantial reason, ignore those). Also be warned that you could come across screenshots of some extremely vile content if you scroll through that hashtag.
Not really. I've seen instances on replies to people I follow but nothing major. I tend not to venture into political battlegrounds though so it is rare I see that stuff anyways.
I saw that too so I'm sure it's around these websites just like anywhere else. I've seen some really weird comments here and there too. It's honestly probably just a natural symptom of expanding. The internet can be a nasty place in general so it's hard to ever have anywhere untouched by these idiots. Especially somewhere like here which is brand new.
Should've been a post of a guy pissing in the burn flavored starbucks coffee machine. People are way too obsessed with the stances of corporations that could give less of a shit about you. I'm seeing less of the "support small business" stuff nowadays and I don't like it.
It's there, just like anywhere. The fediverse is more like the internet than it is a platform. I'm on mastodon.art and they (the admins) put a lot of work in managing which federated instances .art federates with and the settings that instance uses.
It's a lot of politics -- too much for me personally -- but that's the beauty of the fediverse. Instance admins get to decide how to deal with the internet as a whole, what to filter, etc. Users can choose platforms that take a very "no hands" approach to administration or are very active in moderation. It's all about the instances and what they choose. Also the software (Mastodon/etc) has to provide the filtering options too, of course.
Haven't seen them on lemmy/kbin yet but... it's quite an established issue on the Fediverse. There are literal Nazis and far-right people on corners of fedi. @oliphant and a whole bunch of people have put invaluable effort to create several tiers of instance block lists because of precisely this reason.
I'm not familiar enough with lemmy/kbin to know how instance blocks work on here so... we'll see!
A couple years ago, when Mastodon started rising in popularity, some far-right instances popped out among others, the most notable being Gab.
But the nice thing about the Fediverse is that you can exclude the connection your instance has with those harmful environments. And that's what most instances does actively.
If you want to look deeper, I suggest this video that gives a better overview on this particular case.
I have not seen it yet, though I have no doubt that it exists.
I believe that in real life as in the fediverse, hate speech and bigotry of all kinds needs to be very firmly shot down. Immediately downvote and block that shit. It has no place here, or anywhere.
That being said, debating or even engaging with these pricks is worse than pointless because you’ll never change their minds and will only give them a platform.
To change someone's mind, the person needs to respect you. Bigotry largely comes from a place of disrespect, so the targets of bigotry cannot change that person's mind.
Now, when my mom was starting down a pretty homophobic path, I had the opportunity to talk to her, to explain that her misconceptions weren't what most gay people were like. Because she respected me more than she respected internet strangers, I was able to change her mind.
But to strangers, no matter how much I type, or how convincing I am, I'm never going to convince someone who's racist or homophobic to stop being that way. They simply do not respect me enough to believe what I say, to trust me over their own friends, family or news sources. I don't have the time to build the trust and rapport with someone to be able to change their mind, so the best thing to do is just minimize the trouble they can cause me by blocking them.
Yeah, and then once they are banned from the public places they find the hell holes with the other racists and form groups that dress as nazis and march on washington. We literally drive them into echo chambers where people will agree with them, whereas we should be heckling them and showing them that the general public at large disagrees with them. It's impossible to show that your community is the general public when you ban people right away. Then they think they aren't allowed to be there and it's not because they're wrong, it's because you're woke or whatever. You can't concentrate the evil, you have to dilute it.
The problem with this assessment is that we've tried the approach of reasoning with people like this and all it does is allow them to proselytise. They don't want a polite debate, they want a pulpit.
A neo-Nazi who's stuffed in a box talking to other neo-Nazis is a neo-Nazi who's not infesting some other place trying to spread shit about "race realism". They'll find it a lot harder to "march on Washington" when it's just a couple hundred Nazis and not a couple hundred Nazis plus thousands of others they've radicalised.
Sunlight's a shitty disinfectant. I prefer bleach.
No, you don't argue with them. You berate them. You harass them. Treat them with their own medicine. They aren't intelligent enough to get got with knowledge. That's why it hasn't worked. You've tried to outsmart people without brains.
Racist is racist. Fuck them. I have no interest in appeasing these people, and even if I did, it wouldn’t calm them down or make their hatred tolerable. Sexists, racists, homophobes and the lot should be shunned without compromise. As the saying somewhat goes, there should be no tolerance for intolerance.
Only caveat I'd add is to differentiate between A racist/homophobe/misogynist/whatever, and someone who just expressed an ignorant viewpoint. Whether or not there's actual malicious thinking behind things is important in figuring out if you can reason with someone or not.
Quickest example I can give off the top of my head: I'm gay, and one of my best friends is a straight man who, when I met him, had some reasonably-significant issues with his own masculinity, probably stemming from being short and slim and the resulting treatment he'd often get from both women and other men (which also lessened as we got older and out of the early 20s). That occasionally extended to things like worrying that other people would perceive him as gay because of hanging out with a bunch of LGBTQ+ people and women from work, or his slightly defensive reaction when I told him he looked good one day where he had a particularly nice outfit on and had styled his hair well, as if I'd propositioned him. Both things are a little insulting, but he also was never one of the types who views us as basically child-molesting mentally-ill deviants who don't deserve equal rights.
We got closer, enough that he was willing to open up on the subjects, and I was able to explain how that kind of thing looked from my perspective and, in turn, kinda figured out where it was coming from on his end, but it was always from a place where he just didn't understand why what he was saying or doing was wrong or hurtful, not because he intended to cause hurt. And he's significantly better about that sort of thing now in general, because it made him do some introspection, and he got better at doing that for other things as well. And in all fairness, I learned a bit, too; I knew short guys often got made fun of for it, but being average size myself it wasn't something I really had to deal with and I didn't understand just how pervasive and wearing it is, so now I better understand how he might have gotten there in the first place.
I wholeheartedly agree, and it was the use of the word “fool” that was my only minor problem with the article, which is also what I expressed in the thread by @Kupo_Knight, to whom I’m grateful for posting the article in the first place.
As for your experience with your friend, that’s a touching story and I think you’re both lucky to share such close bonds of friendship. You handled it perfectly. Congrats.
Yes, it's really unfortunate when I see people of a given oppressed group start attacking an ally simply because the person hasn't kept up to date on the latest preferred words. I know there is an angry subsegment of people that feel that everyone should spend all their time keeping completely up-to-date on the latest terminology, but it's a really unrealistic and damaging expectation.
There are often people who want to do the right thing and are simply out of date, or not well enough informed. These sorts of people can and should be educated as they generally want to help. When they get canceled for minor transgressions it's not constructive.
The internet has a big problem with people forgetting to read things with nuance, which leads to the behaviour you described. In the past decade, social media has convinced millions of people that all-or-nothing thinking is acceptable (because it causes conflict, and conflict is cash).
Tolerance is a peace treaty between society's sub-groups. When one group breaks that treaty it's moral and necessary to respond in kind and not tolerate them.
If a country rolls tanks into your country it's not immoral to respond in kind to defend yourself. Same idea applies to intolerance.
Oh I'm not saying about being offended by everything. There's a difference between disagreeing with someone's PoV, or even them saying something disagreeable without malice, vs. Someone being a plain old hateful bigot.
Like my Mum will say things that aren't necessarily PC, but I know she doesn't mean anything hateful by it. I wouldn't even think of reporting anything of that nature.
But someone disseminating hateful ideologies or being bigoted towards other people, then you need to shut that down.
this honestly. There's a huge difference between "waaah this person disagreed with me!!" and someone actually being fucking rude and hateful. People who are progressive in their politics tend to conflate them for whatever reason.
Like, yeah, no one likes when someone is going around shouting slurs at people and generally just saying blatantly hateful shit (death threats, slurs, etc style content). But so many people end up crying that "oh you're pro-life therefore you're a sexist and misogynist and pushing hate speech you bigot!" like wtf?
I get this a lot as someone who is transsexual. I'll merely talk about my transsexualism, explain the science and biology behind my condition, and then suddenly I'm a "hateful transphobic bigot" because I had the audacity to agree with the scientific literature rather than some random person's political beliefs. Like no, I'm not being hateful towards you simply by talking about my medical condition and the science around that. What's happening is that you're disagreeing with me.
Whenever people place huge emphasis on "combatting hate speech" unfortunately it's always this "disagreeing with me is hate speech" shit, and not actually dealing with hateful content.
Saying shit like "if you're a gay man who doesn't want to fuck someone with a vagina, you're a bigot and you're choosing to be like that" is blatantly homophobic and hateful (my phrasing here is nicer than some I've seen), yet it gets praised and rewarded and declared "not hate speech" because it happens to align politically with those constantly crying about "hate speech".
This is the great part of the fediverse - if one server isn't moderating a magazine well, another server can step in to help blacklist that other server's instance pretty easily.
You're phrasing this as if it's something great about the fediverse, but centralized sites can just ban the magazine-equivalent directly (since they only have what we'd call local magazines). In fact, the fediverse may be worse. What's stopping bad faith actors from constantly creating new servers pushing bad content? Centralized sites can generally do more to control who can use them with things like captchas, but federation can't have such measures.
Saw some in the comments of a post yesterday about Starbucks and Target. It'll likely pick up as more and more people come onto these spaces just by virtue of a larger population.
It also sucks that reporting it did nothing, and despite being heavily downvoted, it was at or near the top of the default sort. That wasn't a productive conversation, it was just a modern version of blood libel. I don't have high hopes for this platform if it can't nip overt bigotry in the bud.
Proverbs 26:4
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."
Sometimes the fool has a platform already, or starting to gather attention. It's important to diffuse inflammatory noise with truth. To handle it properly, we must be careful not to fall to their level by responding with an insult.
Responding with truth is the best path to expose their inflammatory deceit.
Ephesians 5:11
"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them."
Proverbs 15:1
"A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."
I don't entirely agree it's pointless to debate or engage. While there's something to be said about not feeding trolls, at the same time, there is value in making sure trolls don't get an unopposed platform to spread bullshit.
If their posts aren't being quickly removed, then I think it's ideal if their post has a response that at least makes it clear that the troll post is bullshit. This isn't to convince the troll. You'll never convince them. This is for other readers. How does it feel for someone to read a homophobic comment? It feels like shit. But when there's comments opposing it, it gives it some feeling of hope. A reminder that there's people who not only disagree with the homophobia, but also don't just ignore it.
As well, while you're not gonna change the troll's mind, there are other, more reasonable people who are basically on the fence. They might agree with the troll, but can be persuaded against it. If the troll's comment is allowed to stay up unopposed, then only the bad opinion gets expressed, which allows that opinion to spread.
I'm not saying you or anyone else has to respond to trolls and bad faith actors. The ideal is that their comments are removed very quickly. But there is some value in replying to them, especially in places where the troll comment won't get removed.
PS: replying to trolls can be seriously bad for your mental health. I appreciate people putting up the good fight, but don't put others before your own mental health. It's entirely valid to not want to deal with that bullshit.
Nope. I did some research. I know which ones to avoid. This one and Beehaw have been pretty smooth sailing so far and I'm not planning to visit other instances for now.
Personally I think kbin and @ernest should take a more backseat approach to this stuff, apart from very radical exceptions. If you don't like content/people/magazines that you see, simply block it. If you want to join a community that will outright ban people who disagree with you, check out Tildes (left) or SaidIt (right) which are more 1:1 Reddit replacements (not in the fediverse though)
Time will tell what the overall approach for this is on kbin, but the great thing about the fediverse is if things get out of hand or take a turn here you don't like, you can simply find another instance or a different fediverse site altogether and still interact with mostly the same people/content. But I personally very much like the relaxed and not-very-political space kbin has been so far
It's up to the owners of the magazines to build good moderation teams. And if the mods don't do well - switch to another instance's version of that magazine's topic.
I think individual instances should take whatever stance they want. If you don't like it, you can choose a different instance. And if you DO prefer a space without bigots (as most people do), you can use an instance which takes a hard stance against bigotry.
I personally couldn't engage long-term with any instance which doesn't stamp out bigotry. There's no reason to expose myself to bile like that on the regular.
I like to surround myself with non-toxic, chaotic good types. But, I'm also a huge proponent of education and see the value in looking in on toxic spaces to see where their head is at and what they are planning. It is the only way to stay safe-ish and not entirely caught off guard. Luckily, they like to be loud, so they aren't hard to find. Also luckily, they tend to prefer their own the best, so they are easy to avoid as well.
The problem instantly becomes "who decides what counts as a bigot?" to me, the "transgender movement" is filled with transphobic and homophobic bigots. but if you ask large social media companies, they think any opposition to that movement is bigotry. These are two conflicting views about who is considered a "bigot". They can't both be right.
@ernest can only control what happens on the instances he controls, i.e. kbin.social and the others. If you're on an instance, and find a magazine that is poorly moderated, that would be an issue to take up with That Instance and their Ownership/Moderation team. It's not an issue for the software developer to be stepping in on.
Ernest can still block people on other instances, and whole instances themselves. If hateful people from hateful instances are intruding, we shouldn't let that happen
No, he actually can't. You're confusing kbin, and kbin.social
He can absolutely choose to block people at the instance administration level, or defederate an instance, as the Owner and Administrator of kbin.social, or karab.in, or whatever other instances he might run.
There is no reasonable way, as the developer of the kbin software, that he can magically write into the source code that "nazis aren't allowed" for instance. How would you even test for that, when somebody downloads the software, and tosses it up on their own server? He can't control what people do with the software he writes, as long as they're otherwise complying with the license he releases it under.
Could he put "nazis, bigots, and other assholes aren't allowed to use this software" into the license? Probably, if he chose to, but it's basically unenforceable.
It sounds like @Kara is just talking about defederation. Any instance in the fediverse can block connections to/from any other instance that they find to be excessively problematic. It should be used sparingly, but there are definitely cases where it is appropriate.
I strongly disagree. If there are a bunch of magazines here with racist / anti-LGBTQ+ / etc content, the site as a whole will get a reputation for it, other instances will block it, and people who don’t want to deal with that stuff will go elsewhere
While I tend to agree with your opinion, that people should be allowed to express their political view of the world, I also think that intolerance is not a political view. It's just the heritage of a mob mentality that's more suitable for the dark ages, rather than the globalized world we live into.
So if you want to spout about dumb non-facts like "ethnic replacement" and such, you can take a walk and come back when you'll have a mindset more appropriate for this century.
At a certain point speech does become so trash it's illegal but it has to go pretty far. Instance owners would likely need to stop that just to avoid legal hassles. Instance owners may dip their toes into bans for things approaching that but people who want to engage in things like that will just run their own instances which cannot be controlled by devs. Other instance owners may choose to not federate with those instances. Although they might not actually notice much of a problem if it stays on those other instances. I could see those communities being blocked off preemptively when it becomes common for people from an instance to cause trouble.
Like other platforms instance owners will depend on mods to control what goes on. I think most magazines will have good enough moderation to ban things like racism or sexism as a lot of people aren't up for that. The instances owner probably won't be able to police within communities that much. For communities that don't ban for isms it will probably be fairly obvious after a certain point. It would be reasonable for the instance owner to choose not to host that kind of content. Some might choose a more wild west approach for whatever reason.
What people consider "intolerance" is not a consensus. I consider some people to be very intolerant, while they think they aren't intolerant at all. when you say intolerance shouldn't be allowed, you have to say which one of us is right. who is getting kicked off for their "intolerance"? because whichever one you pick, they'll be upset and think you are intolerant.
Dude we all know what "intolerance" or "racism" mean, don't build an elaborate system of mirrors and pulleys to fuck yourself in your own ass.
Playing devil's advocate on this matter is what allowed this kind of behaviour to exist in the first place
You say "we all know what they mean" but it really isn't clear. I've met people saying "racist" just refers to all white people. I've seen "intolerence" refer to transsexuals merely saying we exist, while hating on transsexuals is "tolerance".
Perhaps I've been in political discussions too long. The words on the surface are obvious. Be chill, don't attack people for the way they were born, etc. but people who strongly vocally oppose "intolerance and racism" often don't mean that. they take "racist" to mean "simply commenting on race in a way they disagree with" and "intolerance" to mean "disagree with them".
I'm always wary of when people are crying to censor someone, because historically those doing the censoring have not used their power fairly.
I agree with your first sentence and that's what I meant when I said "radical exceptions". I think the issue is many people coming from Reddit will equate anything that is right-leaning as racism or hate speech. Like I don't want ernest to be in here during the US elections banning magazines supporting the Republican candidate
Sure, get rid of the users talking about how the Jews control the world or are going on frequent racist tangents. But I think there's a lot more to gain about getting perspective from a place I might not necessarily agree with than just getting rid of it altogether. I hope people can be mature enough here to feel the same
Yeah for sure, political debate (done in a constructive way) is always helpful for both sides.
Extremism are to keep separated from political views, from both sides and that's why I don't hang out in Lemmy's main instance too: because (while most people in there are cool) there are a bunch of self proclaimed "communists" that takes the sides of Russia in the war of Ukraine or denies the genocide of the Uyghur ethnic groups operated by the Chinese government.
And they use the same catchphrase the far-right extremists use: "don't believe what mainstream media tell you".
That's because extremism is not a political problem, is a social issue. Extremists only use politics to have a justifiable outlet.
Like I don't want ernest to be in here during the US elections banning magazines supporting the Republican candidate
Just to be clear the last time this happened anywhere online was r/The_Donald, which was objectively a radical exception promoting racism and hate speech while also being a sub "supporting the Republican candidate". You are being misleading.
when you declare something "racist and hate speech" there's not a consensus on what that means. For example, I think affirmative action is very racist, yet people who strongly oppose "racism and hate speech" openly and happily support it.
Add comment