"Antiwoke" magazin on kbin.social posting bullshit like "how to end Wokeness" and "Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society" How to report ? he is the moderator of that magazin.

ernest, 10 months ago

I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author.

cacheson, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly.

I have been wondering how instance-wide moderation will end up looking on kbin, once you've had a chance to get a team in place for that. While it is (I assume) a "generalist" instance, it's important to keep in mind that you can't please everyone. Trying to have too broad of an audience will just result in retaining those with a high tolerance for toxicity (usually highly toxic themselves), while everyone else leaves in favor of better-managed spaces.

Communities in general, and particularly on the internet, need to understand what their purpose is, and be proactive about filtering out those that are incompatible with that purpose. This doesn't mean judging those people as wrong, or "bad people", it just means recognizing that not everyone is going to get along, and that some level of group cohesion needs to be maintained.

atypicaloddity, 10 months ago

Agreed, that's part of my problem with generalist instances. They're so broad that they serve multiple communities with differing expectations, and it forces admins to take sides.

cacheson, 10 months ago

I think there is value in having both generalist and specialized instances, and the big landing spots for new users should probably strive to be more generalist. As you point out though, there are limits to how broad of an audience one can practically cater to.

Noki, 10 months ago

thank you!

I appreciate all you do and your quick respond.

Multipile Things I noticed as a creater of this thread:
can I close comments ?
can I hide comments ?
can I pin a response?
can I quickly see from what server peope are interacting?

I am no coder but would love to support you with all the work that is done.

At least some of the costs can be taken of your shoulders:

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/kbin

Edit: Can you close this thread for me ?

!deleted100457, 10 months ago

deleted_by_author

wahming, 10 months ago

Oh go start your own malignant instance.

garrettw87, 10 months ago

deleted_by_author

wahming, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

It's a bad attitude to tell an unapologetic transphobe to get lost?

Edit: In case you didn't realise, that's the user this entire post is complaining about.

garrettw87, 10 months ago

No, I didn’t realize that. Sorry.

poo, 10 months ago

Kindly go spread your nazi bullshit somewhere else, thanks buck.

ernest, 10 months ago

All the things you mentioned are in the roadmap. However, we can either do it quickly and potentially encounter issues in a few weeks or months, or take a bit more time for a more thorough approach. I've decided to move away from playful prototyping. From now on, every change will be tested before it's approved for kbin.social - it's no longer just my code (https://lab2.kbin.pub/). I'd like to close this thread for you... but can we just agree not to respond in it anymore? ;p

bane_killgrind, 10 months ago

Thank you for being thorough

Hobovision, 10 months ago

I don't think closing threads is a great idea or in keeping with how this all works. I think it'd be nice to be able to mute a thread as an individual, but by its nature these discussions are open and shared with many instances. If we close it on kbin.social, other kbin instances, lemmy instances, and even places like mastodon and pixelfed could keep discussing, if I understand activity pub correctly.

ernest, 10 months ago

In such important tasks, I would like to engage in community-driven development. When I start planning these tasks, I will come to you with my whiteboard and sketch out the individual stages. Together, we will look for the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution, the weak and strong points. This is to jointly make a decision on whether the change makes sense on kbin.social but also in the perspective of the entire federation. It can be a great fun ;)

Snapz, 10 months ago

Let's all agree that of its many issues, locking/deleting open threats to targeted minority groups and pro supremacist propaganda meant to hurt or influence vulnerable people was NOT a drawback of the Reddit experience.

Yes, it's a difficult thing to enforce a subjective line of a basic standard of decency, but it's also what a society is and one of the main reasons we gather as people. The quality of a group is shown in how they accommodate the weakest and most vulnerable among them.

If we aren't prioritizing a way to send this CHUD and people liked them to the hypothetical edge of town, to be sure they can't bombard the young person struggling with their gender identity with targeted hate at their weakest moment, then what are we doing here?

Infiltrated_ad8271, 10 months ago

Could you clarify what you would do in cases like this? Censor based on misinterpretation of the clickbait headline, even if it does not contain hate content at all?

TheDudeAbiding, 10 months ago

That's the best bait you could come up with? Come on, you can do better.

LoafyLemon, 10 months ago

A friendly reminder; Please don't forget to take your time and step away from Kbin whenever you need a break. Your mental health is just as important, if not most important, for the project to succeed.

albinanigans, 10 months ago

You are correct.

I'm bookmarking this page to return to later. Time to pull up some weeds!

slicedcheesegremlin, 10 months ago

Everyone appreciates your effort here, ernest. Spez hasn't gotten 92 upvotes on a comment in years lmao despite Reddit having millions of users, it really shows how the difference.

KTVX94, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

I joined kbin recently and I'm kind of concerned about the implications of this. I don't support those posts at all, but who gets to say what's worth banning and what not? Wouldn't that go against the decentralized nature of the site? Or is it the specific instance that magazine is on that has the authority to ban what's inside? How does all of this work?

Edit: my bad, I got kbin and kbin.social mixed up. Noob mistake.

lazy, 10 months ago

@KTVX94

While I kind of agree with you in being concerned about who gets to control what we see and don't see and the censorship aspect, there is also "the paradox of tolerance" to be considered and maybe in that light it is correct to not tolerate that subs intolerance.

Regarding the Paradox of Tolerance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

MrMonkey, 10 months ago

The Paradox of Tolerance is hot garbage:

https://lemm.ee/comment/481170

aleph, 10 months ago

That link doesn't get anywhere close to showing why it is "hot garbage".

Perhaps if you used your words to express a coherent argument, it would be more productive.

Kierunkowy74, 10 months ago

kbin.social administration controls only what is published on kbin.social, and what content from elsewhere kbin.social users can see. An user banned from kbin.social can make another account, on another site and start recreate there his banned community. kbin.social will be able to ban this remote user and remote community, but this restricts only what kbin.social users can see.

Exactly the same for another /kbin or lemmy site - just replace the domain name accordingly.

updawg, 10 months ago

It actually is one of the strengths of the decentralized nature of the Fediverse. But there are still growing pains associated with it.

harmonea, 10 months ago

Wouldn't that go against the decentralized nature of the site?

No, it's exactly the opposite. The entire point of a decentralized federation is that while yes, the admin is in complete control of what content is allowed on his or her own instance, users who don't like what the admin is doing can just spin up their own new instances.

Ernest can ban this type of content if he likes. Others can take the kbin software and make a new instance where it's welcome. Ernest can choose not to federate with that instance if they continue to push content that's against his rules, but Ernest doesn't have the power to dictate the direction for hundreds of millions of users' experience like a certain centralized site's mad CEO or admin board does.

What would be against the nature of ActivityPub is if Ernest built something into the software to prevent it being used for types of content he doesn't like, even on other instances.

WhiskyTangoFoxtrot, 10 months ago

The Fediverse is decentralized. The individual instances are not. Decentralization means that there's no one person or organization with power over the entire network, but people absolutely can and should moderate their own instances. If you don't like the moderation policies of once instance you can move to another.

livus, 10 months ago

Remember, kbin.social is just one instance of kbin. Ernest banning something on kbin.social does not mean banning it from the fediverse.

It could pop up on another fediverse site or even another kbin site.

HidingCat, 10 months ago

Wow, more new servers! Looks like the growth has been really explosive. It wasn't that long ago you migrated Kbin to Fastly right?

spicy_biscuits, 10 months ago

Thank you Ernest, we appreciate you ☺️

magnetosphere, 10 months ago

Those “antiwoke” people disgust me. I encourage disagreements. I don’t encourage thinly veiled hate disguised with code words. Tolerance isn’t “far left”.

10A, 10 months ago

Tolerance of evil kind of is far left.

Linebeck, 10 months ago

Tolerance of evil is AuthLeft

10A, 10 months ago

Agreed, though that's not a common term, and the non-authoritarian left is approximately center-left. The center-left is opposed to wokeism, like Bill Maher. The center-left is pro-free-speech. All of the desire to ban speech that you see throughout this thread is extreme AuthLeft, to use that terminology.

artisanrox, 10 months ago

not really lol far lefties just want to use the bathroom without getting harassed or murdered

jonion, 10 months ago

Mhm..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJsf5QY12rg

00, 10 months ago

How is one guy saying (to extremely paraphrase) "some people have used the label of freedom to exploit vulnerable people" relevant to this? Like, thats a given, that some people will use this as a guise. Now, is there a systematic problem of leftists arguing for the freedom to assault children? No, only in the imagination of projecting right-libertarians.

jonion, 10 months ago

Michel Foucault, Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler aren't just "some people", they are three of the most influential thought leaders of the (post-)modern Left. Foucault of course being joined by heavyweights like Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze, de Beauvoir, Sartre, Barthes etc. etc. and so on and so forth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

The point of course being that this thread is full of idiots who have never even heard of the likes of Foucault or truly appreciate how badly they jumped the gun here (turns out there was still some "intolerance" left). Your cult of transgression and tolerance is not philosophically sound.

livus, 10 months ago

With all due respect poststructuralist academics (many of whom are dead) are not the sociocultural leaders of anyone.

That 1977 petition is heinous, but I don't think that being influenced by poststructuralism some 47 years later means anyone has to agree with those politics.

jonion, 10 months ago

Survived just fine through Judith Butler though.

When I took a couple of critical theory oriented literary courses at uni these were the names that came up again and again, but there was no mention of their ultimate transgression. This is how the myth of an entirely dangerous right and an entirely harmless left is propagated. Just don't mention the bad parts of the left and create one continuous antagonist group out of everyone from Ted Cruz to Heinrich Himmler. Every rightist is implicated in the actions of their most radical thought leaders, but leftists are afforded the luxury of not associating with characters like Foucault, Lenin or Mao at their own leisure.

And I know that you know this but a "thought leader" doesn't need to be alive, so that's not really an argument. These people are tremendously influential and popular in our time (and Butler and Rubin aren't even dead), as demonstrated by the negative response to the Derrick Jensen lecture clip linked above.

livus, 10 months ago

Tangential but it's wild to me that you studied Gayle Rubin repeatedly and the pedophilia angle somehow didn't come up. It's literally right there in her writing. Her work was only referenced in one postgrad course I took and 99% of the class totally hated on her for it.

I have to say I don't think this "rightist"/"leftist" paradigm is really working in this discussion. It's way too simplistic and implies that there are two monolithic worldviews at different ends of a linear compendium. But that's just not the case. Many of the theorists don't even agree with each other, or with their own past selves, etc etc.

And in the grassroots a lot of it doesn't even filter down. Soup kitchen workers who never read any of Butler's word salads, junior investment partners who haven't even read Adam Smith...

Sapere aude. The world is too interesting and complex to narrow down to two "ideologies".

jonion, 10 months ago

The main crit lit course was undergrad and at a European uni (with an American professor) so it was all pretty superficial, but the prof didn't exactly volunteer the ugly sides of these thinkers (as he most certainly would have done with a Carl Schmitt or a Heidegger). The other course (also undergrad) was even less rigorous, just a quick once-over of the basics of oppression and yada yada, namedropping Marcuse/Foucault/Derrida but never dissecting them.

The point of mentioning this wasn't to say that I'm some kind of particular expert on these thinkers (I am not) but rather that my experience with their presentation is that they are left as likeable as possible (there were years between me hearing of Foucault and realizing he was a nonce, whereas people usually learn that someone like Heidegger was a nazi before they even know how his name is pronounced).

I 100% agree on the uselessness of the left/right-dichotomy as it stands, particularly because the radical right gets lumped in with liberal individualists like Adam Smith/Ayn Rand/Ronald Reagan etc., which makes no sense at all.

Still, there are some essential axioms that can be used to distinguish the left and the right, those being equality+liberalism vs. disparity+illiberalism. There is a natural reason that the pedophiles aren't garnering support among the ranks of the far right and that white nationalists won't find much love among the far left.

livus, 10 months ago

Your experience sounds unfortunate. It was pretty darn weird of them to gloss over Foucault and not Heidegger! Irresponsible, even.

I'm not American, and find some of their conflations between politics, social policy, and economic policy a little hard to get behind. It's far from universal.

jonion, 10 months ago

Yeah, irresponsible is the best word for it.
It's very tiresome to observe at length.

slicedcheesegremlin, 10 months ago

yeah "far left" in the US is just wanting basic human rights, something something overton window.

stillnotahero, 10 months ago

The far-right brings messages of hate, violence, intolerance, and attempts to pass legislation to justify their views. The far-left has brought us the weekend, the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, etc…

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

Not to mention the insidious evil of clean drinking water and food that won't poison you.

jonion, 10 months ago

the far-right

who?

messages of hate, violence

such as?

intolerance

the tu quoque is almost too tempting here

pass legislation to justify their views

this is a joke, right?

Oh, and I didn't know people like Henry Ford and the 2nd Baron Trent were "far-left". I guess the horseshoe really does exist after all.
Stop beating strawmen, your ideological muscles are only gonna atrophy further.

exscape, 10 months ago

the tu quoque is almost too tempting here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

We can't be tolerant of people who are intolerant towards e.g. LGBT people; it doesn't work out in the end.

Alstjbin, 10 months ago

The apparent paradox is solved by viewing tolerance as a social contract. Only those who adhere to the contract and are tolerant of others can have a claim to receive that same tolerance. Similarly those who are intolerant should have no expectation to be tolerated since they do not adhere to the social contract which should provide that tolerance.

jonion, 10 months ago

Nonsense, we most certainly can. In fact, most countries "worked out" without ever needing to be tolerant in the first place.

Popper doesn't even acknowledge that this notion can be universalized, and then you're just back to square one with Carl Schmitt and the Concept of the Political.

Take your LGBT example. For that to work, you must be intolerant of, say, Salafis. Then the Salafi can respond that his in-group (the faithful, true to God, whatever) are being threatened by those who must necessarily be intolerant of him by nature of their own allegiance.

Thus you still end up with a value judgment despite Popper's veneer of neutralization and depoliticization. That's where the real philosophizing begins. How do you justify allegiance to one side of the friend/enemy distinction over the other?

curiosityLynx, 10 months ago

Except you don't have to be intolerant of Salafis. They can be Salafis or not for all I or anyone else cares, what matters is whether they hate people for who they are and spread or communicate that hate.

I'm personally not entirely sure about male to female trans athletes being allowed to compete in female-only leagues and am concerned about the wisdom of allowing sex change procedures for minors that weren't born intersex. I wouldn't marry a trans person and if a close family member suddenly came out as trans I might have long discussions with said family member for a while,

But that's it. I wouldn't even dream of hating someone for being trans or demonizing people who are. Even if I had religious beliefs against that kind of stuff it would at worst make me worry about such a person or make me pray for them.

If I were a moderator of a public space, I'd allow them to talk there without fear so long as they're not actively attacking others, same as any other group.

Likewise, you can believe that trans people are wrong and will go to whatever equivalent of hell your belief system has and I would tolerate you as long as you are civil about it, come from a position of compassion and empathy and don't try to force people to listen to you (like by using multiple accounts to circumvent blocks and/or bans) who have clearly communicated that they don't want to hear you anymore (same goes in the other direction, btw) and don't try to incite others to treat them as anything other than fellow human beings.

If someone from either side can't do that, that person lacks tolerance and in turn can expect the same level of tolerance being directed to them.

jonion, 10 months ago

Salafism kind of requires you to be intolerant of people for who they are, but let's not pretend these people would lend the same "live and let live" thinking to a Catholic bishop who espoused the views of a Salafi mullah when it comes to homosexuals.

But I get where you're coming from and your position is entirely reasonable. The problem is just that your attitude is not that of this thread and the OP. If you actually look at this 10A guy's posts you'll find nothing that merits the response you see in this thread. I'd say there's a long way to overstepping the threshold of civility on that part, but in this thread people already want heads on spikes, so to speak.

stillnotahero, 10 months ago

Alright you caught me in a good mood, so I’ll throw some articles out here to explain my line of thinking. I hope you’ll see I’m not arguing with strawmen.

Article from October of last year describing right wing outrage to drag shows.

Fast forward to recent months and it appears that words have turned to action, in the form of legislation

I believe some else mentioned the Paradox of Tolerance, but I will link it again just in case you missed it.

I hope this clears up my line of thinking. No invisible boogymen here - just some examples of,
In my opinion, things changing for the worst. And if you were not arguing in good faith… oh well.

MrMonkey, 10 months ago

The "Paradox of Tolerance" is garbage. An interesting thought experiment where Popper came to the wrong conclusions. You can't believe in "Freedom of Speech" AND "The Paradox of Tolerance". They're incompatible.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/

I'll take "freedom of speech" over "governmental censorship" any day.

Because nobody thinks about what happens if a fundie takes power and decides that abortion is "intolerable" and arrests people who make pro-choice arguments because they're being offensive. Or if anyone makes fun of religion, that's intolerance and you must go to jail.

TLDR: Fuck "The Paradox of Tolerance". It's dumb.

jonion, 10 months ago

Yeah I get where you're coming from but this all hinges on the concept of Popper's Open Society taken to its most extreme.
Have you ever considered why this whole "children must be able to see drag shows" notion didn't show up just 20 years ago?

Idk, this kind of devil-on-the-wall "this is trans GENOCIDE" rhetoric when it comes to shit like increasing penalties for indecent exposure and not allowing children to attend drag shows really just says the quiet part out loud.

Infiltrated_ad8271, 10 months ago

It belongs to the extremes, it is really worrying if you think that only in one of them.

Kill_joy, 10 months ago

It's a fucking circle, mate

DarkGamer, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

Tolerance of evil kind of is far left.

@10A Hatred, bigotry, scapegoating of vulnerable minorities, lies, gaslighting, opposition to democracy and the rule of law is what defines the modern right. That is textbook evil, and you seem very committed to defending it. Look around, those left of you do not tolerate it. Almost every other comment is from people who want to block you or show you the door. Features are being added to this platform to specifically block your hate speech.

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

fedosyndicate, 10 months ago

I agree, I think it's good to have a discussion, and polite disagreement is quite acceptable. But like you said, encouraging violence and hatred is not acceptable to me.

Aloomineum, 10 months ago

If there's more people here like 10A it would be great if you could speak up so I could keep building my block list

Voyajer, 10 months ago

It's kind of impressive that that already have -2000 rep

stillnotahero, 10 months ago

I just took a peek at that user’s profile. Saw what magazines they moderate. Not surprised we have a different point of view.

10A, 10 months ago

Yes, but m/FoxNews is not what you probably think it is.

ThrowawayPermanente, 10 months ago

It's news about foxes, JUST AS I SUSPECTED

stillnotahero, 10 months ago

Ok you got me there.

Hyacathusarullistad, 10 months ago

I think you're a malevolent, hateful, backwards bigot who shouldn't be welcome here... but I also genuinely appreciate the comedy in how you've been handling any references to your presence on m/FoxNews.

Fuck you, for sure, but also well done.

10A, 10 months ago

Aww, shucks, that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day!

BlackCoffee, 10 months ago

The more people who will get on the platform the easier it will be to shut the intolerant and bullshitters out.

ArugulaZ, 10 months ago

I've got a pretty good idea of what the "A" in "10A" stands for.

genoxidedev1, 10 months ago

10 assholes?

Xeelee, 10 months ago

10xAdolf

10A, 10 months ago

Amendment, if you must know.

Manifish_Destiny, 10 months ago

You seem like the type of person who drives weirdly slow past preschools. It's always you types of fuckers projecting their shit onto people they want excuses to hate.

Trans people are pedos? Find me 10 articles of incidents of a trans person getting arrested for pedophilia in the last year.

I bet I can find 10 articles of priests and Christians raping kids in the past fucking month.

Quit projecting, get off the internet, look inward, and shut your fucking mouth.

jonion, 10 months ago

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12223171/First-responders-horrified-children-trans-drag-party-dead-body-drugs-sex-toys.html

https://news.sky.com/story/transgender-butcher-admits-abducting-and-sexually-abusing-schoolgirl-12883405

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/daycare-worker-arrested-child-porn-charges-same-probe-involving-ex-democrat-transgender-state-lawmaker

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article263759218.html

https://nypost.com/2022/11/02/prominent-new-york-trans-activist-arrested-for-allegedly-soliciting-a-minor/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11482001/Transgender-paedophile-25-identified-woman-groom-14-year-old-girl-got-pregnant.html

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/transgender-sex-offender-who-attacked-29765751

https://www.westernstandard.news/news/bc-transgender-pedophile-put-in-a-women-s-prison-with-a-mother-baby-unit/article_333ba790-ad3a-11ed-bf5e-1b58e162b92b.html

https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1651861965235539969?lang=en

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/woman-who-allegedly-told-cops-she-identifies-as-15-year-old-boy-arrested-for-sexting-runaway-teens/ar-AA1bGZLW

There you go, now hit me with the priests of the past month.

HelixDab, 10 months ago

Daily Mail
Fox News
NY Post
...And a Twitter account that doesn't link to a credible news source.

Would you like to try again without the sources that continually fail fact checks and exhibit a far right bias?

jonion, 10 months ago

How predictable. Do you have any actual arguments beyond smearing the sources? Don't believe your lying eyes, right? Can you point to any factual inaccuracies in the articles linked or does your reasoning end at "they report inconvenient facts that don't show up on the NYT/CNN/MSNBC/BBC front pages so they must be biased".

And here's the source for the tweet. Didn't take a whole lot of effort to find (not that you even bothered ofc): https://www.cronicaviva.com.pe/pnp-arresta-a-sujeto-vestido-de-alumna-en-colegio-de-mujeres-en-huancayo-videos/

HelixDab, 10 months ago

I don't have to; you have to provide good sources to back up your claim. If I say that god exists, and then claim that the bible proves is, well, I'm not proving my point because I haven't yet given any solid evidence to my claims. This is how a debate works when your arguing like a rational adult.

And, for the record, CNN/NYT/et al. are also biased, but they're (usually) more factually based. Bias is not the same as factually incorrect; bias is reflected in which stories you choose to report, and what language you use in reporting. And example of a source that would be both unbiased and highly factual would be Reuters News Service, or the Christian Science Monitor. Similarly, Jabocin is strongly left-biased, but also highly factual.

Three of the sources you cited are not credible because they continually play fast and loose with facts and don't bother verifying information. One of them was unsourced entirely, and the backup you provide is not in English--or based in the US--which makes determining the veracity difficult.

In short, you aren't acting in good faith.

jonion, 10 months ago

"not in English--or based in the US--which makes determining the veracity difficult."
Not my fault that you can't read Spanish, and are you seriously implying that a Peruvian source should be automatically regarded as dubious? Un gringo tipico...

"you aren't acting in good faith"
lol

I get that you'd like nothing but Pravda articles confirming that the revolution is going swimmingly, but when you can't even provide a single example of a factual inaccuracy in any of the articles provided it's really hard to take you seriously.

mark, 10 months ago

exscape, 10 months ago

Please look up the facts. Doctors don't "cut off sex organs" or do ANY other physical changes to trans children.

albinanigans, 10 months ago

Sheesh, I know who that is already! I had them blocked ages ago. What a tool.

Tigbitties, 10 months ago

Yeah, I really hope that shit gets nipped in the bud.

VerifiablyMrWonka, 10 months ago

Ha, I blocked the worst offender in the comments here, refreshed the page and now there are like... 6.

aegisgfx877, 10 months ago

Ive decided not to block him so I can follow him around annoying him and downvoting everything he says

10A, 10 months ago

<3

minnieo, 10 months ago

i disagree with him obviously, but this just makes us (the people opposing him) look bad, dont do that

FIST_FILLET, 10 months ago

plus, engaging with assholes usually just prompts them to continue being assholes. it's a lose-lose

HamSwagwich, 10 months ago

Ive decided not to block him so I can follow him around annoying him and downvoting everything he says

Perfect example of why voting should be public!

Blocking him is the right answer, it's the right thing to do and solves the problem of him presenting posts you don't want to see.

rastilin, 10 months ago

Block them too. They're not going to engage in good faith anyway.

VerifiablyMrWonka, 10 months ago

Oh, no no. It was that I blocked one person and there were only 6 other comments left (all fine) :D

Blocking a person seems to remove any comment tree they're a branch in (i.e. their posts and all responses to those posts)

10A, 10 months ago

Hello, you who cannot see me. I'm all for blocks over bans.

static, 10 months ago

A single shitposter, with only downvoted posts. without attention they would have stopped posting, but now it has attention.

While the content is stupid and vile, is he breaking any rules?

sadreality, 10 months ago

clowns always trying to censor somebody... hunting for some low level degenerate to turn him into "antihero"

these people can't seem to just enjoy a place with out starting a witch hunt

10A, 10 months ago

m/Clowns would like a word with you.

wahming, 10 months ago

Respectful Behavior

We expect all users to treat each other with respect and kindness. Harassment, hate speech, or any other form of harmful behavior will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to remove any content or user that violates these guidelines.

Isn't this standard for anywhere that doesn't want to end up as T_D or 4chan?

static, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

The posts itself are not rulebreaking, but i could be wrong.
But the reply here is breaking the rules
https://kbin.social/m/antiwoke/t/101045/Time-to-reject-the-extreme-trans-lobby-harming-our-society

That's mostly the problem with those posts, while not rule breaking, they are hate magnets.

If the moderator refuses to properly moderate the comments this would be a proper reason for a ban.

smokinjoe, 10 months ago

What a fuckin psychopath.

wahming, 10 months ago

they are hate magnets.

And they were posted with the intent to be so. That suffices in my opinion. It's not the lone post itself, but the context of the magazine as a whole.

If the moderator refuses to properly moderate the comments

Yes, the mod of antiwoke is about to exercise proper judgement

AnonTwo, 10 months ago

Incidentally the person breaking the rules is making the biggest stir in this thread about not banning people.

Guy literally is advocating beating people to death as a good Christian moral while also trying to advocate he shouldn't be banned for it.

10A, 10 months ago

No, I did not advocate for beating people to death, and I would never advocate for that. Try reading the whole post and not taking a few words out of context.

AnonTwo, 10 months ago

The whole post was even more disgusting. Others are welcome to read it, Static linked it, but I stand by what I said.

If the devil did exist, he resides in your church, raising monsters.

jonion, 10 months ago

And these are the people who would lecture about prejudice... Nothing but prejudicial bad faith in this entire thread.

Being a filthy reactionary, I was really hoping that the fediverse could become something like the reddit of 10 years ago, but it seems like the dyed-in-the-wool redditors couldn't help but bring their intolerance with them.

Thank you for actually bothering to stand your ground. God bless.

czech, 10 months ago

They will always advocate for blocking over banning because they can easily make new accounts to spread their hateful message. To block a user you must first read their message; their mission is accomplished.

Should the community have to continually deal with this baggage so that hateful people can intentionally misinterpret what "free speech" means?

AnonTwo, 10 months ago

I mean, one of those examples is

"Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society"

That is a global rule violation on most sites. Hate speech.

PenguinJuice, 10 months ago

Genuinely curious what is hateful about that? Rejecting something does not equal hate or I guess I need to file a claim against universities and friends who rejected me.

Ragnell, 10 months ago

"extreme trans lobby" is a conspiratorial misrepresentation of a group of people who would just like to live their lives.

PenguinJuice, 10 months ago

Source?

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Chcc_Ci36Vw&pp=ygUVZmVpc3Qgc2VhIGxpb24gd29tYW4g

AnonTwo, 10 months ago

Let me take one excerpt from that thread and I want you to ask that again

Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp, so it was extremely rare for anyone to think such behavior was acceptable.

And to summarize: He's basically advocating "good Christian morals" as being transphobic.

But also to the original post: It is wording the advocates for trans people as being extremists who are harming our society.

HopeOfTheGunblade, 10 months ago

Did they claim that you were harming society?

Balssh, 10 months ago

I disagree: better to kill the evil in its infancy, rather than let it spread and hope it goes away by its own.

albinanigans, 10 months ago

Nah, we're nipping this shit in the bud because the shitposting is only the Trojan horse.

This shit's already here. Now we gotta shine a light on it and deal with it.

SpacemanSpiff, 10 months ago

Streisand effect for sure. There seems to be run of these types of posts in the fediverse lately. People don’t seem to realize that sometimes they’re better off letting these situations take their natural course (and die), and not intervene unless it grows beyond manageability.

AnonTwo, 10 months ago

So here's my issue here.

This guy is clearly not a small issue. He's being as loud and obnoxious as possible.

If there's nothing in place to deal with one huge troublemaker, what's to stop a dozen who come to Kbin and start making hateful communities?

My concern at this point is that Kbin itself gets defederated because the other instances don't think it's taking moderation seriously.

SpacemanSpiff, 10 months ago

In what way is it a huge deal? In what way was it loud? (Until now)

This person had a handful of heavily downvoted posts and interactions so they never made it to the “hot” or “active” pages.

(Are we talking about the same person?)

If you take a poll of everyone in this thread I would bet almost everyone hadn’t seen these posts or heard of the username.

But now they have, with the help of this post.

AshDene, 10 months ago

Speaking for myself I've seen both 10A and ps making these comments. 10A has managed to amass at least -2732 downvotes, ps -653, that's not a trivial amount of interaction. I came across an antiwoke post on the front page (I think just right after it was posted, so bad luck). And I'm holding off advocating people move to kbin until I see a moderating policy that results in banning them.

SpacemanSpiff, 10 months ago

It sounds like you were viewing the “new” tab?The hot/active tabs on Kbin wouldn’t receive that content so early. It will always be a wackamole game, no platform will ever succeed 100%. Once there are more advanced moderation tools, I would suggest silently removing objectionable content or users.

Also, I’ll have to disagree slightly, thats not a lot of interaction. This single post alone has over 300 upvotes since posted. The volume of either is simply an indication of how strongly people react.

AshDene, 10 months ago

It sounds like you were viewing the “new” tab?

I don't think so, but I couldn't swear to it.

thats not a lot of interaction

Probably we just have different thresholds for a lot. People seeing hate 3000 times on the platform seems like a lot to me.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

You missed the whole point.

He said,

what's to stop a dozen who come to Kbin and start making hateful communities?

SpacemanSpiff, 10 months ago

That’s exactly my point. Even when there are better moderating tools and the site admins have time to delete magazines, they will still pop-up faster then you can stop them. No site on the internet has ever fully solved this issue.

Since that is the reality, by avoiding inadvertently promoting them before they’re removed, a site is much more efficient at managing the workload.

Posts like this can have the unintended consequence of spawning more trolls or objectionable actors, this can and does actually make the site management harder.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

I think with better moderation tools, it's absolutely possible to silence hate speech. The modern sanitized internet has managed to do it with child porn, which was EVERYWHERE in the wild west days. It's possible with motivation.

Hate speech is profitable, so companies generally have a profit incentive to keep it around. The fediverse doesn't.

10A, 10 months ago

Wisdom ^

kestrel7, 10 months ago

So you advocate your own posting taking its natural course and dying off? I can think of a way you can hurry up this process.

mcgravier, 10 months ago

Dude, he's mocking you all and you don't even get it. The more you scream the more attention you're bringning to his magazine.

You people are hopless.

00, 10 months ago

Dude, he's mocking you all and you don't even get it. The more you scream the more attention you're bringning to his magazine.

Other people are not as stupid as you think. But the question between not giving it attention to challenge it and possibly giving it food to fester or not giving it attention and also not challenging it is not easily answered. Looking at the repulsive backlash, drawing attention to it was the right choice. Sure, some more people might flock there, but the vast majority strongly disapproves and now knows that kbin.social (unsurprisingly) has awful people on it as well.

mack123, 10 months ago

The rules of the internet remains unchanged, regardless of platform. Do not feed the trolls.

Dagnet, 10 months ago

You are replying to the troll yourself lol

mack123, 10 months ago

Sometimes the mobile U/I wins, but I decided to let it stand regardless of replying to the wrong comment. Maybe the troll learns something, though I doubt it.

smokinjoe, 10 months ago

and not intervene unless it grows beyond manageability.

I'd rather nip it in the bud. You're just letting things fester.

SpacemanSpiff, 10 months ago

I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but it will become impossible to accomplish, practically speaking, as the fediverse grows. There’s only so much that can be done with volunteers, and it’s not like armies of paid staffers work much better (as we’ve seen the major tech corps try to do).

There is a sociological aspect to this, numerous studies have confirmed the effects of highlighting bad actors. There’s a copycat effect (as studies on mass shootings show) as well as what we call the Streisand effect. Both inadvertently encourage others to perpetuate the behaviour rather than serving to limit it.

smokinjoe, 10 months ago

So your solution is to just give up and let hate fester? When has appeasement ever worked?

SpacemanSpiff, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

Not at all. I think you're conflating what I said with someone else. I’m only suggested we don’t inadvertently promote this content by creating a front-page post denouncing it.

The point about it being impossible to accomplish is about perfection. It’s a wack-a-mole game. Since this content and people will always be there until found, it’s better to not give them more of an audience.

No site will ever perfectly remove objectionable content. It’s one reason why the upvote downvote system is so valuable for a site like this.

wahming, 10 months ago

I think the problem is that at the moment, the system is new enough that there's no way to get this sort of content removed. Hence this front page post. It's not about calling attention to the magazine, it's about calling attention to the entire issue..

smokinjoe, 10 months ago

You can't avoid hate and hope it recedes. You have to take it directly head on and stomp it out immediately.

If they decide to move elsewhere, then follow them there and continue rooting them out.

Just "letting people decide" is useless and will only enable them to continue.

SpacemanSpiff, 10 months ago

Agreed, I think you’re still conflating things I never said. Nothing was in the “let the people decide” vein.

Thats why I think it’s better to silently remove them rather then making posts saying “look at this bad guy right there”.

icydefiance, 10 months ago

Allowing bad actors to advertise themselves is highlighting them. Banning them and deleting their communities is the opposite of highlighting them.

SpacemanSpiff, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

Exactly. We agree? Thats what I said/mean. This post doesn’t ban them, it’s inadvertently advertising their content. There have been several post like this recently. While they may mean well they likely have the opposite effect.

AnonTwo, 10 months ago

Where does this sentiment come from? Reddit for the most part already does this. Twitter before Elon showed up did this. Most modern sites already do this

The only place I can think of where this is commonplace is 4chan, because they don't moderate.

Yes, highlighting bad actors over a course of time can be problematic. But the point in this case is the point out that we don't have the tools to deal with said bad actor. The tools that other sites have. It's not being said in vain, the goal is to make aware that something needs to be done so that people don't even see the bad actor to bring attention to them.

There is a purpose to the current efforts. I think everyone understands that constantly bringing attention to them will do no good, but the goal here is to bring attention to tools that are needed, so that it doesn't happen again, or at the very least to this extent.

SpacemanSpiff, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

You’d might be conflating my comment with someone else? I’m not against moderating. I just think it’s a bad idea to blast these communities or users onto the front page when they’re found.

No example has been able to squash out bad actors and unwanted content completely. That’s the impossible task I’m referring to. Neither volunteers, nor paid staff have accomplished this for any site. In all your example there are still areas flying under the radar.

As such, it’s better to not inadvertently fan the flames when you find the fire, don’t make their soapbox bigger. Instead put it out quietly so it doesn’t harm anyone else.

AnonTwo, 10 months ago

Examples are good when trying to point out a problem actually exists and not have certain people trying to tone it down and make it not seem like as big a problem as it is, despite even the devs acknowledging there's a problem.

The final point is more tools are being worked on, the thread did do something, so trying to argue a point that would basically have prevented it just seems...poor taste.

SpacemanSpiff, 10 months ago

Everything you’re talking is perception, friend. You chose to take my comment that way. The dev tools were being worked on long before this post.

As I said before, I’m not making this up, the phenomenon is studied and the effect is proven.

slicedcheesegremlin, 10 months ago

The biggest thing im afraid of happening to Kbin/the lemmyverse is that it will end up like Ruqqus, especially now that it seems to be swamped with trolls.

grahamsz, 10 months ago

I expect that instances will get more locked down, perhaps those of us on an instance can vouch for new users who might join, but I can't see how a volunteer admin could police a million user instance. I used to run a 10k user discussion site and while that wasn't a fulltime job it was still a giant pain in the ass at times. If we can get in a steady state where an instance has a core of active posters and lurkers then that seems better than infinite growth.

That then surely leads to federated instances that each represent the tolerances of their admin(s) and they presumably federate or not with other instances with similar sensibilities.

In the end the nazis will get their nazi instance and federate with likeminded types - they get defederated everywhere else and wont really be a problem (maybe for the FBI). (Though I'm not certain that all internet nazis truly are, i think there a group of trolls that get their kicks from being controversial and will get no joy by being surrounded by people who accept them)

The problems are going to be in the gray areas. For example, the argument that trans people don't deserve to exist... I find that abhorrent, but there are people who will happily say that on TV, and there are CEOs of $44B social networks that appear to agree. Some instances will tolerate that on the grounds of free speech and others will not, then the admins are left trying to decide what's grounds for defederation.

However in my limited experience, the thing that kills projects like this is too much navel gazing. There will always be some trolling and noise, but if the remaining users expend all their energy talking about it then the whole thing collapses in on itself. I feel like this is starting to happen on reddit where lots of subs are consumed by meta, but the best thing we can do here is get out and create active communities.

rastilin, 10 months ago

The problem is that by that point it will have grown beyond manageability. You know the "Nazi bar" saying.

There's a bunch of people (who are Nazis) and they seem cool, quiet, well spoken, just having a drink. And they bring their friends and those guys are cool too. Then those guys bring their friends and those guys are less cool and now normal people don't drink at the bar anymore and you look around and it's a Nazi bar and you can't make them leave or they'll start causing "problems". So. I'm all for just using the brutal hammer of censorship.

It's not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was.

genoxidedev1, 10 months ago

Hate speech is not part of free speech anyways. Fuck nazis. Everyone that gets offended by that can get fucked as well.

rastilin, 10 months ago

Something else that occurred to me. If someone posted something that was pro-woke in /r/conservative or on Parler or any of those other apps, they'd get banned immediately. "Free Speech" only seems to be a concern when it's right-wingers posting on left-leaning forums, never the reverse.

I think that taking the free speech argument at face value in the present day just means you're gullible.

magnetosphere, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

I think hardcore conservatives simply don’t have an inherent sense of empathy. That’s why they don’t really care about the victims of a crime, disaster, etc. until it happens to them personally. They do not have the perspective to put themselves in another person’s shoes.

It’s NOT an intelligence issue. It’s easy to write people off as stupid, but that’s not the case. For them, being unable to think with empathy is as natural as being unable to see infrared light.

They’ve figured out that making themselves appear to be victims can sometimes make people listen, but they can’t fully explain why. That lack of understanding is why they don’t see the hypocrisy in banning people from their platforms, but then whining loudly when they’re treated the same way.

This is all just guesswork, but it’s the best explanation I’ve been able to come up with that doesn’t make my head explode.

genoxidedev1, 10 months ago

Cross out the "hardcore", lack of empathy is very much a core part of conservatism no matter which side of conservatism, social | fiscal, you lean into and by how much. If you're socially conservative you want every social aspect to stay as it is which proves inherently a lack of empathy. If you're fiscally conservative you want monetary value to stay as is (in terms of inflation and cost-cutting etc.) no matter whom it hurts (as long as it doesn't hurt you, of course).

Which is why I personally think it actually is (also) an intelligence issue, because the people that are not socially conservative and only fiscally conservative usually vote for the party of big government and military spending (R) which goes against anything fiscally conservative and as a "cool" side effect also proves to be detrimental to social values of different people and groups.

You probably know the quote by George Carlin, as its a told tale as old as day. I think the quote nicely illustrates the voting game in the US.

AshDene, 10 months ago

With the very rare exception, absolutely.

h34d, 10 months ago

Reminds me of a quote by Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels from 1935, after the Nazis took power:

"Wenn unsere Gegner sagen: Ja, wir haben Euch doch früher die […] Freiheit der Meinung zugebilligt – –, ja, Ihr uns, das ist doch kein Beweis, daß wir das Euch auch tuen sollen! […] Daß Ihr das uns gegeben habt, – das ist ja ein Beweis dafür, wie dumm Ihr seid!"

-- source

Rough translation:

"When our enemies say: But we've granted you [...] freedom of opinion back in the day – –, well, yes, you granted it to us, but that is no proof that we should do likewise! [...] The fact that you granted it to us, – that is only proof for how stupid you are!"

For fascists at least talking about freedom of speech and the like is just another tool they try to wield in their quest to gain power, nothing else.

AshDene, 10 months ago

It depends on your definition of free speech, the US constitution does consider it part of free speech.

The US constitution also considers free speech a right that protect a websites right not to repeat hate speech, not a users "right" to force a website to host their speech. In the constitutions view of the world free speech is protection against the government, not a tool to force other people to host your speech.

genoxidedev1, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

I really do not care about your constitution. I'm from Germany not the US.

'"Germany places strict limits on speech and expression when it comes to right-wing extremism" or anything reminiscent of Nazism. Hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity also is banned in Germany.'

And I think this is the way all countries should handle it. No need to defend people promoting hate speech by debating me or your definition of free speach, I do not adhere by it.

Edit: I will wear 10A(ssholes') downvote as a badge of honor, thank you!

AshDene, 10 months ago

I'm actually not from the US, I was just giving it as an example because it is the most famous one that unequivocally does include it.

What I'm really saying is "free speech" isn't really one thing. It means different things in different contexts. For instance the breadth of "free speech" you should allow in what you promise to repeat (that's what hosting something is) is much smaller than the breadth of "free speech" that you should not think less of someone for saying is in turn much smaller than the breadth of "free speech" that you should not wield the power of government to punish. And people legitimately disagree on where each of those boundaries lie.

I do think I missed the mark with the comment you replied to rereading it. I raised it because when someone says "It's not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was" they are using the american republican-troll's definition of free speech that means "anything but child porn", and I think your reply was misunderstanding their comment as a result. But I don't think I successfully conveyed my point.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

Everything else aside, how you gonna say you don't care about the US Constitution and then bring up the German Constitution? No one cares about that one either.

backseat, 10 months ago

What is the relevance of the US constitution? This is not a US platform.

updawg, 10 months ago

It depends on your definition of free speech

It's one definition that is different than the definition that had been provided in the parent comment.

albinanigans, 10 months ago

Appending:

Free speech also doesn't mean "freedom from consequences." And sometimes those include getting your shit deleted from a website or dragged up and down social media.

10A, 10 months ago

I'm no Nazi, but I get your point. What you don't realize is once the bar kicks the Nazis out, they start their own bar, and there their numbers grow. A more intelligent approach is to rationally talk with them, as Daryl Davis has with KKK members.

hypelightfly, 10 months ago

Your post history already proves your a nazi. You aren't doing a good job of pretending otherwise.

unsophisticated, 10 months ago

I went through 3 pages of their comments and what I‘ve read were respectful and well articulated comments from someone quite religious and with conservative values.

Maybe I missed some extreme stuff but I wouldn’t be surprised if you guys are completely making this up.

hypelightfly, 10 months ago

Go further, where they reminisce about the time when "homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp" which made it rare for anyone to think such behavior (being homosexual) was acceptable.

Their view that freedom shouldn't include the freedom to "exercise perverted pleasures of the flesh".

They are a modern nazi going full fascist to destroy the others they hate.

cottonmon, 10 months ago

Holy shit, he has a post that basically equates being gay with murderers and thieves. He also refuses to look at evidence from sources that he perceives as left-leaning. That person is unhinged.

aegisgfx877, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

Just a general rule of thumb there little guy, when it comes to anything political if you find the nazis are on your side, you are on the wrong side.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

Kumbaya

AnonTwo, 10 months ago

They want the bar for the traffic. They can start their own bar but the extreme nature of it deters people from even setting foot.

They want to sit in places that look neutral or even friendly.

effingjoe, 10 months ago

You can't reason a person out of a stance they didn't reason themselves into.

For instance: How would you even begin to reason with someone that believes in demons? Where could any discussion even go if one side can waive away anything they don't agree with by claiming it is a trick from a demon?

SpacemanSpiff, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

True, agreed. I’m only commenting on the idea that these people or groups shouldn’t get free advertising when people find them. These posts that are blasting their way to the top of “hot” just like a trending news article are counter-productive. On the Internet, which is fundamentally always at least partially an uncontrolled environment, it’s better take actions for these things that are as invisible as possible.

zedtronic, 10 months ago

#1 rule on the internet: don't feed the trolls. Downvote them, block them, move on. They're not here to engage in good faith.

10A, 10 months ago

As someone who genuinely does enjoy trolling on rare occasion, I think you misunderstand what a troll is. Speaking sincerely held ideas from across the political spectrum does not make someone a troll. A troll is insincere yet playful. That's not to say I shouldn't be blocked by anyone who wants to block me, but it's not for being a troll in this context.

mark, 10 months ago

No such thing as free speech on these "niche" social platforms. Pitchforks and torches, if this was real-life they'd be throwing you in a pond tied up and waiting for you to float...

blightbow, 10 months ago

14 day old account on its home instance, its only posting activity is within this thread, and both comments are low effort outrage farming with images.

The emotionally evocative hyperbole in the second sentence was pretty good though. Is it your own material? If so, can you write some more persecution porn for us? You don't need images as your crutch, you've got some real writing talent going for you here.

mark, 10 months ago

A picture is worth a thousand words and just sums up this toxic thread and witch hunt.

blightbow, 10 months ago

Nah, it's just your addiction to outrage farming on Twitter/Facebook showing. :)

blightbow, 10 months ago

A troll is insincere yet playful.

I chuckled at least. A troll's motivation for the rise that they seek is largely inconsequential, as is the delivery mechanism. ;) Let's not go and disenfranchise the majority of the internet's trolling population with narrow typecasting!

While we're on the topic of trolling, are you familiar with Sealioning?

Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate", and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".

It's a rhetorical question, no need to respond. Someone else might learn something they didn't know before today. :)

TipRing, 10 months ago

Respectfully, I disagree. If you are running a bar and a nazi comes in with all their nazi periphranalia and orders a drink and behaves. You still kick them out. Because if you don't the next time they will bring all their nazi friends and it will be much harder to kick them out and then your other patrons stop showing up because of all the nazis around and now you are running a nazi bar.

Ban hate trolls. Ban them immediately. Because if that content festers on the site it will be much harder to ban later.

LollerCorleone, 10 months ago

Its nice to see all the bigots popping up in one place. Makes it easier to block them. And we really need to get some instance level mods.

ArugulaZ, 10 months ago

The frothing hysteria over "wokeness" (ie treating your fellow humans with respect) is just a smokescreen by the oil industry, which hopes it will take some pressure off it for, you know, slowly killing us all with global warming. You do know this, don't you?

I went through a young Republican phase, too. Then I realized that the party had nothing to offer ordinary people but contempt and cynical manipulation. Like telling people that they can be good Christians by doing the exact opposite of what Christ did. Like pitting Americans against each other for their differences. Like convincing people that the former president, a monster by any objective standard, is this country's savior when it's clear that he's just shaking the nation for loose change.

It's called "wokeness" because we finally opened our eyes, saw what was happening all around us, and decided to do something about it. You can either recognize the evil in this world, or become another oblivious victim of it.

unsophisticated, 10 months ago

This is a literal conspiracy theory.

10A, 10 months ago

And quite a creative one at that.

bane_killgrind, 10 months ago

It's not really. There is millions visibly spent on lobbying efforts against climate change, and invisibly stockholders invested in energy are board members of media companies. For example Jack Cockwell has over a billion dollars in Brookfield hedge fund, and that fund has been increasing it's holdings in energy for the last decade. There's some BCE board member that has millions of dollars in Wajax stocks (industrial equipment manufacturer), about half his net worth.
If you talk about industries with influence on one another from the perspective of ownership, you'll find it's all very incestuous as the richest people will diversify.
Weirdly, the people involved in Fox News only seem to own stock in FOX, but cash contributions to those people aren't shown in the market data I'm looking at. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I'm not a finance person.

esc27, 10 months ago

Real progress and change takes work and money. Inflated social issues can be "solved" with policy. This whole mess is just policial theater that creates the illusion of governance at the expense of minorities.

ArugulaZ, 10 months ago

Every downvote is a sweet, sweet tear trickling down from the chubby cheek of an incel sociopath who was pre-emptively blocked. Delicious! Your agony sustains me!

reitoei, 10 months ago

deleted_by_author

szczur, 10 months ago

Oh boy, an enlightened centrist!

If you cannot differentiate between people actively stepping up to a literal anti-human propaganda from people posting it, perhaps you should fuck off, too.

hydro033, 10 months ago

Oh boy, here we go with the enlightened centrists label. Disagree with somethings on the left and right and now you're also a huge problem. Bravo

szczur, 10 months ago

You are, because the guy we are talking about literally chose the appeasement rhetoric. And that's pretty enlightement centrist-y.

Both sides are equally bad bullshit.

ondoyant, 10 months ago

get fucked. politics shapes our lives, if you hate it so much don't use the fucking internet.

Borgzilla, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

As a non-american, I find americans to be very intense when it comes to politics. I just hope that we don’t start importing their culture war bullshit into our country.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

This you?

bumbly, 10 months ago

"free speech" absolutists can host their stuff on their own instance. No need to do it here.

minnieo, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

agreed. im left wing and i dont agree with totally shutting conservatives down, or we will just seem like a censoring platform. i want them away from the general public, away from me, and their little communities (which will no doubt feed into itself and become more and more hateful) need to be heavily monitored and properly moderated for violent as well as hate speech, because theyre literally the only ones who ever have that issue of devolving into a straight up cult-like hate group anywhere they go. they for sure need to make their own instance and fuck off, supervised like children of course

GataZapata, 10 months ago

That seems a little overzealous. Conservatives can hang and get ribbed on, just no acfual fascists

minnieo, 10 months ago

as long as they are a normal, rational person who isn't in a cult-like trance, i don't care. but they consistently devolve into alt-right extremists, especially when allowed to gather. so, when and if they do gather, they do need to be monitored. 4chan is a perfect example of what happens when they go mostly unmonitored. if they want their 'fReE spEeCh' they should go there and enjoy the various "n word rekt' and 'tr*nny hate' threads.

HubertManne, 10 months ago

I mean I don't know or even care to censur on that level but thanks for the heads up so I can block. Im thinking it would be nice to have a recommened block magazine

szczur, 10 months ago

It's not censorship, it's self-defence.

FfaerieOxide, 10 months ago

When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin[e]?

When someone reported one of my posts (they thought it was spam) in my magazine I got a notification in my magazine panel, yes. No alert telling me there was a notification, but a notification.

Am unsure if admin likewise get a ping but almost certain they would be too busy to notice if they did.

wampastompa, 10 months ago

this entire thread is such a massive waste of time & an embarassing dogpile of pessimistic blanket assumptions.

“X will inevitably turn into Y if we don’t do something now!”

or maybe facilitating the existence of two fediverses on opposite, equally-corrupt ends of the political spectrum will only lead to the maximum possible amount of hate in the end (from both sides). sounds fun!

pessimism versus optimism. the latter exposes us to more risk (someone could be a shit, racist person down to their very core), but i think the potential reward is better for giving people the benefit of the doubt that they just don’t understand. that’s just me though. feel free to disagree. i won’t think you’re rotten for doing so.

in general, people don’t just wake up and decide to change their opinion on X out of nowhere. and telling someone to think something is useless… at best.

people need to be surrounded by different people just living their lives in order to open their own eyes and form their own opinions. otherwise everything they see on TV/FB/etc is true in their minds.

“nipping this in the bud” early just prevents self-discovery that can lead to less racism/hate existing in the grand scheme of things.

not all people who have a bad/hateful opinion are bad/evil/right-wing. i reckon it’s better for all of us if these people gain passive/active exposure to those they’re biased against and realize the media is wrong, rather than reinforce that opinion by hiding away in this thread, spending countless hours peering into our glass ball and seeing the future that will 100% without a doubt inevitably come to pass (because all far right ppl are exactly the same and deeply motivated by hate on a daily basis and are not only unwilling to change but unable!)

we need more cross-political-spectrum crossover in the world. not less. if you/someone doesnt have the mental energy to interact with or see certain people, that’s totally fine. mental heath matters. block/mute & go about your day. but i think letting everyone else continue to interact positively/neutrally in the meantime is desirable. some people aren’t bothered by certain things and can discuss them with “the other side” to positive effect. let them do so?

interacting with somebody who has differing/bad opinions shouldn’t be seen as support for those opinions, though i think sometimes it’s seen that way.

walls are bad when they’re between different types of people, but they’re desirable when they’re protecting you from the elements or providing privacy. live within your own walls when you need to, for your own well-being/sanity. but we shouldn’t encourage walls to be built that keep out hundreds of good people just because there’s a handful of bad apples in the bunch. that’s pessimistic as hell & sounds like something straight from a certain US Presidential campaign trail.

if the goal of an instance is just to co-exist exclusively with like-minded people, that’s fine i guess, but if the goal is to encourage diversity, personal/societal growth, creativity, then defederating with anyone the moment they have a different/uninformed opinion is a bit bonkers.

not every hateful sentence (from the reader’s perspective) stems from a hateful thought. nobody can read minds.

sometimes the hate is assumed because of our own biases (which is kinda ironic).

sometimes it’s just an uninformed or ignorant thought (until everyone goes and proves them “right” by fighting ignorance with fire).

if everyone just engaged with others as their mental/emotional capacity permitted without expecting the same from others, we’d be better off in my opinion. we don’t need instance god-admins to protect us.

<not proofread at all. sent from my Nintendo Wii>

MelonTheMan, 10 months ago

I agree that walling off achieves nothing. Content should be blocked when it originates from bad faith.

That being said I think these mags are in bad faith.

Zebrazilla, 10 months ago

Well said.

KIM_JONG_JUICEBOX, 10 months ago

Can’t you just block users and communities you don’t want to read from?

ArghZombies, 10 months ago

Alternatively, instead of allowing all sorts of bigotted comments to be posted and letting people make up there own minds whether they agree with bigots or not, let's just not let bigoted comments be posted.

You can't 'both sides' bigotry.

KingStrafeIV, 10 months ago

It’s not about political disagreement though, it’s about the fundamental rights of people to exist.

The defederation questions are not over disagreements on “how much should we pay in taxes”, it’s “should this group of people be allowed to publicly exist”.

Is it “healthy political discourse” to allow antisemitic propaganda in furtherance of fascism? I’ve noticed the vast majority of “free speech absolutists” belong to groups that are not currently being targeted by hate groups.

wampastompa, 10 months ago

who decides what is hate speech? and why must it always be handled for the individuals by the authorities? sometimes i think people post harmful things because they’re confused/scared/ignorant. in fact, i’d venture to guess that’s what happens a majority of the time. in these cases, their mind isn’t set in stone, making it a prime time for someone to step in and engage in a hopefully-fruitful conversation with said person. even if they dont change their mind, they just had +1 neutral/pleasant conversation with someone they would normally write off (thanks to mainstream media) as unreasonable/aggressive/whatever.

stopping these engagements from happening is worth the risk that a truly bad apple exists in the public eye (before being banned or whatever), because these seemingly inconsequential interactions can lead to a better social ecosystem that is more self-sustaining. one that balances itself out from within, by individuals’ efforts, not the efforts of admins. admins should focus on keeping obviously illegal activity at a minimum, not on deciding what is morally good or bad. individuals have the block/mute button for that?

it’s impossible to erect walls, virtual or physical, that keep only bad actors at bay. inevitably, vulnerable individuals/people will find themselves trapped on the wrong side of enemy lines. in real life, that’s much scarier than online. defederating from one’s neighborhood isn’t a thing. online networks can indirectly (maybe??) help make those neighborhoods better by leading by example and providing evidence that everyone can get along and benefits from doing so. people in certain parts of the world will never physically interact with X or Y kind of people. the internet is people’s only exposure to certain cultures and ideas. might as well help make that exposure good instead of hoping whatever exposure they get elsewhere is positive.

i think the internet can be an incredibly powerful force for changing minds for the better (which can create a safer IRL space for all, indirectly), but that doesnt happen if zero discussion ever happens, even if that means including some differing/bad voices at times.

we aren’t fully aware of the powerful tool in our hands, especially when outside the grasp of centralized capitalist platforms. now’s the time to reimagine social media and not play by some megacorp’s growth-at-all-costs rules. hate fuels algorithms. hate keeps their social media platforms alive & monetized. we’ve been conditioned to believe hate must always beget hate… because it’s profitable. online, everyone is weirdly guilty until proven innocent. it’s easier to believe that’s true when people aren’t in front of you too. they’re just NPCs with funny names & avatars, not complex humans that have their share of good & bad days.

just because something is said, or discussed, doesn’t make it true or dangerous. the human mind is cool because it can can basically create VMs and toy around with ideas without risking damage to the rest of the mind. devil’s advocates aren’t devils when they take off their cosplay horns.

“free speech” to me isn’t being able to harass or incite violence. it means being free to say & think things without always meaning them. or being allowed to be wrong/uninformed. freedom of speech depends heavily on context, and i think that’s partially why encouraging free speech online is so hard (compared to with friends or in offline classrooms), but it’s worth attempting (i think). IRL, it’s far easier to see when someone is genuinely curious, joking, aggressive, confused, etc.

the alternative is for any and all controversial discussions to only happen behind closed doors, online or offline. but that seems likely to improve nothing from where it stands today.

it’s easy to de-federate from instances with content deemed hateful to some (yes, i worded that carefully), but that means that certain individuals’ notions of those other people will never be challenged. this protects one’s fediverse but shifts the conflict IRL potentially. not everyone can just “turn off” the ignorant people around them.

do you know how hard it would be for a far right person to hate the queer community (for example) if they found themselves surrounded by non-combative, creative, talented, similar (in other ways lol) people? i think (i’m only guessing) that a similar thing happened back in the day with tattoos/piercings. seeing normal (& exceptional) people regularly that look a certain way can absolutely erode preconceived notions over time, like water drops carving the Grand Canyon.

that is what changes minds. seeing other people, kinda like you, also kinda unlike you, living life and being cool.

i think wodespread defederation ensures all negative preconceived notions largely stay in tact. federating and handling issues on a case-by-case basis (or letting individuals handle their own disagreements, gasp!) just seems like a better strategy to me. but i could very well he wrong. i have zero relevant credentials to speak on any of this.

i guess i just personally believe individual humans can & should look after themselves, their friends, and their communities without the need for overprotection by centralized powers — most of the time.

maybe i went off topic there a bit. sorry! this entire discussion fascinates me and frustrates me to no end. i truly think we could miss out on an opportunity to create a better Internet/network based on how this is all handled.

KingStrafeIV, 10 months ago

First of all, thanks for engaging in a thoughtful way. I’m going to try to respond to all your questions, apologies if I inadvertently group a few.

who decides what is hate speech?

Depends on the context. Often an individually community determines what falls into that category for them, but for example the UN defines it as “offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace.” source

and why must it always be handled for the individuals by the authorities?

It’s definitely not always handled for individuals by authorities. In case of private individuals (e.g. lemmy instance owners), they may simply not want to pay for / engage with that content. In case of public individuals (e.g. elected representatives), they have a duty to act on behalf of their constituents to enact protections to allow everyone to safely exist in society.

sometimes i think people post harmful things because they’re confused/scared/ignorant. in fact, i’d venture to guess that’s what happens a majority of the time. in these cases, their mind isn’t set in stone, making it a prime time for someone to step in and engage in a hopefully-fruitful conversation with said person. even if they dont change their mind, they just had +1 neutral/pleasant conversation with someone they would normally write off (thanks to mainstream media) as unreasonable/aggressive/whatever.

That probably represents some cases, but it is not the responsibility of impacted communities to deprogram hateful people. People change because of real relationships, built over real shared values, not over shitposting on the internet.

stopping these engagements from happening is worth the risk that a truly bad apple exists in the public eye (before being banned or whatever), because these seemingly inconsequential interactions can lead to a better social ecosystem that is more self-sustaining. one that balances itself out from within, by individuals’ efforts, not the efforts of admins.

“Can lead to a better social ecosystem” is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here. I think for the majority of people, the infinitesimal chance of maybe having a positive change is far outweighed by the negative consequenses of allowing unfettered harassment and abuse.

admins should focus on keeping obviously illegal activity at a minimum, not on deciding what is morally good or bad. individuals have the block/mute button for that?

Admins should focus on whatever they want, they are the ones managing the space. The inconvenience to you is having to visit another website, the inconvenience to users targeted by this harassement is a lot more than that.

it’s impossible to erect walls, virtual or physical, that keep only bad actors at bay. inevitably, vulnerable individuals/people will find themselves trapped on the wrong side of enemy lines.

People make choices. If you find yourself on the wrong side, time to switch sides. If you don’t, then maybe you don’t actually believe you’re on the wrong side.

in real life, that’s much scarier than online. defederating from one’s neighborhood isn’t a thing. online networks can indirectly (maybe??) help make those neighborhoods better by leading by example and providing evidence that everyone can get along and benefits from doing so. people in certain parts of the world will never physically interact with X or Y kind of people. the internet is people’s only exposure to certain cultures and ideas. might as well help make that exposure good instead of hoping whatever exposure they get elsewhere is positive. i think the internet can be an incredibly powerful force for changing minds for the better (which can create a safer IRL space for all, indirectly), but that doesnt happen if zero discussion ever happens, even if that means including some differing/bad voices at times.

A lot of people rely on their internet communities to be safe for exactly that reason. Can’t put up a pride flag on your apartment because last time you got a brick through your window? At least you can be safe to be yourself in the online communities you chose. Nobody is stopping folks from interacting with online communities, you just have to agree to follow the community rules.

we aren’t fully aware of the powerful tool in our hands, especially when outside the grasp of centralized capitalist platforms. now’s the time to reimagine social media and not play by some megacorp’s growth-at-all-costs rules. hate fuels algorithms. hate keeps their social media platforms alive & monetized. we’ve been conditioned to believe hate must always beget hate… because it’s profitable.

Ironically defederation is the biggest boon we’ve been given. No longer subject to “engagement” based algorithms, communities are free to decide what they want to engage with. Defederation is not hate.

online, everyone is weirdly guilty until proven innocent. it’s easier to believe that’s true when people aren’t in front of you too. they’re just NPCs with funny names & avatars, not complex humans that have their share of good & bad days.

Spend any time on IRL social networks (e.g. LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, etc), and you’ll see that people don’t give a shit even when presented with real names and faces.

just because something is said, or discussed, doesn’t make it true or dangerous. the human mind is cool because it can can basically create VMs and toy around with ideas without risking damage to the rest of the mind. devil’s advocates aren’t devils when they take off their cosplay horns.

Devil’s advocacy is only useful when used to strengthen arguments, otherwise it’s just an excuse for people to hold a position without taking responsibility for it.

“free speech” to me isn’t being able to harass or incite violence. it means being free to say & think things without always meaning them. or being allowed to be wrong/uninformed. freedom of speech depends heavily on context, and i think that’s partially why encouraging free speech online is so hard (compared to with friends or in offline classrooms), but it’s worth attempting (i think). IRL, it’s far easier to see when someone is genuinely curious, joking, aggressive, confused, etc.

Everyone is free to say what they want, however, they are not free from the consequences. This is true of all interactions, IRL or online. People vomiting out every thought in their head instead of carefully considering is part of what leads to so much conflict.

the alternative is for any and all controversial discussions to only happen behind closed doors, online or offline. but that seems likely to improve nothing from where it stands today.

Controversial discussions can happen wherever people want to support them, and under the rules they set.

it’s easy to de-federate from instances with content deemed hateful to some (yes, i worded that carefully), but that means that certain individuals’ notions of those other people will never be challenged. this protects one’s fediverse but shifts the conflict IRL potentially. not everyone can just “turn off” the ignorant people around them.

The conflict is already there IRL. It is the responsibility of the individual to learn and grow, not for communities to proselytize.

do you know how hard it would be for a far right person to hate the queer community (for example) if they found themselves surrounded by non-combative, creative, talented, similar (in other ways lol) people? i think (i’m only guessing) that a similar thing happened back in the day with tattoos/piercings. seeing normal (& exceptional) people regularly that look a certain way can absolutely erode preconceived notions over time, like water drops carving the Grand Canyon. that is what changes minds. seeing other people, kinda like you, also kinda unlike you, living life and being cool.

Hateful people self isolate by choice, only interacting to attack those communities. Queer people are not welcome in their churches, bars, neighborhoods, social circles, etc.

i think wodespread defederation ensures all negative preconceived notions largely stay in tact. federating and handling issues on a case-by-case basis (or letting individuals handle their own disagreements, gasp!) just seems like a better strategy to me. but i could very well he wrong. i have zero relevant credentials to speak on any of this.

If you look at any of the truely “open” communities, they are essentially cesspools of hate and violence. Yeah people can clean dog shit off their own lawns, but much better if the shit wasn’t there in the first place.

i guess i just personally believe individual humans can & should look after themselves, their friends, and their communities without the need for overprotection by centralized powers — most of the time.

Disagree. You even disagree with yourself in your own definition. What is the responsibility of an individual who looks after themselves, their friends, and their communities? Maybe taking action to protect those friends and communities, instead of forcing them to protect themselves?

maybe i went off topic there a bit. sorry! this entire discussion fascinates me and frustrates me to no end. i truly think we could miss out on an opportunity to create a better Internet/network based on how this is all handled.

The internet is people, it’s not some mystical new social order. I want the fuckheads to stay away from me, just like IRL.

MonsieurHedge, 10 months ago

The mostly "reduced" posts in this thread open up a good time to discuss the benefits of federation in regards to removing problem users. Can we federate banlists, such that if, for example, you're banned from kbin.social for creating a community for hate speech, it also bans you from likeminded instances automatically?

Would be nice to form "zine alliances" to share the burden a little bit. Anyone who posts "end wokeness" stuff doesn't need to exist on any platform.

PenguinJuice, 10 months ago

People are allowed to have a difference of opinion. You don't get to silence people just because you disagree with them. Please do not go down that dark path.

Believe it or not there are people who do not subscribe to certain views, bur that does not make them "hate mongerers" anymore than the extreme opposition. It's only extremists and people who try to silence others for their views that are assholes. You live in a great big world full of a lot of differing opinions and that's what makes it beautiful. Silencing opinions because of your personal beliefs is not acceptable.

fedosyndicate, 10 months ago

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] for it may easily turn out that [the intolerant] are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; [the intolerant] may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to [other crimes] as criminal.

spicy_biscuits, 10 months ago

Exactly this why is this so hard for these motherfuckers to understand

Harlan_Cloverseed, 10 months ago

No, we’re not going to let shitheads like this ruin our community.

HelixDab, 10 months ago

"Disagreements" are for things like tax milage, or whether or not a school needs a new football field. "Disagreements" are not for things like, "jews should be gassed", or "trans people are all pedophiles".

10A, 10 months ago

1. To be very clear, in my opinion, Jews should not be gassed (or otherwise murdered), and not all trans people are pedophiles (I don't know the stats, but I'd guess they're about the same as the rest of the population).
2. Anyone who disagrees on the preceding two points has every right to openly speak their mind in a free society. And whereas their free speech rights are our own free speech rights, we must defend their right to freely state their opinions in all public forums. Free speech is not for ideas we like, but precisely for the ideas we dislike.

yarr, 10 months ago

What if my ideas are so fragile that mere exposure to a contrasting opinion makes them crumble?

OKbinBuddyChicanery, 10 months ago

Transphobia, racism, etc aren't an opinion. They are hate speech. Full stop.

I am absolutely against silencing opinions. I am also absolutely in favor of silencing hate speech. Understand the difference.

PenguinJuice, 10 months ago

Racism is disgusting but transpobia? I don't believe that's hate speech. People can not like something but not wish death on the person or outright hate who they are as a person. People are allowed to dislike certain behaviors. It's not comparable to racism and its definitely not hate speech.

AnonTwo, 10 months ago

but transpobia? I don't believe that's hate speech.

Uhhh...no, that is hate speech. It's in definition damnit.

I'm going down this thread and holy crap did you 180 from normal conversation into downright bigot.

szczur, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

But you do not disagree with someone doing or believing something. By defending transphobia you disagree with someone being one thing or the other. Because transphobia isn't based on disagreeing with what trans people are doing or believe in. It disagrees with their fundamental right to exist and wants to take it away. It's no different from racism or antisemitism.

That's the difference you seem to miss.

10A, 10 months ago

Just as there is no "gay gene", there is no "transgender gene".

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

No "straight" gene either

10A, 10 months ago

That's true, and it's a good point. All of our behavior is rooted in our free will.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

Which of course brings up the question why you care if others choose to live differently than you, or if others choose to try to resolve their gender dysphoria by aligning their biology to match their brain's perception of what they should be? Or if they choose to enter relationships with other people of the same gender? How does that harm anyone?

10A, 10 months ago

God does not make mistakes. That principle was widely accepted as indisputable until recent times. Say it with me now, God does not make mistakes. It's not something we're allowed to doubt or question.

I care because this is spiritual warfare. Everyone who rejects God is choosing to follow Satan, whether or not they understand that. It is our moral duty to love one another as Jesus has loved us, which means to make our best effort to lead each other to God.

Please read your Bible. I want to point you to a single verse or two, but so much of the whole book deals with these topics that I find it overwhelming to think I could choose just one or two verses. We're discussing what God has repeatedly warned us against. If you care about humanity at all, you have a moral duty to make your best effort to stop this madness.

That's why.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

"Ah shit, I might have fucked up"

• Jesus (Matthew 27:46)

But anyway, religion isn't rational, there's no way to reason or logic with someone basing their worldview on an elaborate schizophrenic delusion, so this is a dead end conversation.

effingjoe, 10 months ago

How do you know it's not a "demon whispering this in your ear"?

fosho, 10 months ago

at the end of the day, you’re just an asshole for telling other people who they can and can’t be when it doesn’t affect you AT ALL.

minnieo, 10 months ago

transphobia literally = "outright hating who someone is as a person". are you okay???

hydro033, 10 months ago

What about when it's more nuanced like "I support trans people to do whatever they want, but I don't support transwomen in women's sports." Or "I am cautious about transitioning young children until we have a better medical understanding of gender dysphoria." Seems like many here would still consider my perspective to be "hate speech," which I, of course, find ridiculous.

CynAq, 10 months ago

That's not nuance, that's just ignorance and a knee-jerk reaction to a very complicated issue which has to be left to experts, who, in addition to being normal people with compassion and love like most of us towards their fellow humans, know the most about their topic of expertise than any of us.

hydro033, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

It is indeed nuance. Just because you're not well read or educated on the topic, doesn't mean I am not. I have been thinking about these things for years and years, and I do indeed have a formal education in biology. So, no, not a knee-jerk reaction, sorry. Again, I am all for letting trans individuals transition and exist how they want, and I am all for respecting pronoun usage, and whatever else - that is compassion towards fellow humans. I am just pointing out two aspects of this debate where I have my own thoughts that have some slight pushback on progressive perspectives.

CynAq, 10 months ago

If you were as "well read" as you think you are, you would know how much bullshit you're spewing right now. Especially about children getting the gender affirming care they need without any need interference from "well-mean" idiots like you.

Your "concern" is potentially killing young people, and you're here talking out of your ass, convinced you have compassion for people.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

Nuanced opinions are worthy of discussion. That's not what I've seen on the community in question.

effingjoe, 10 months ago

When you're discussing traits inherent to a person-- not things they do or believe, but things they are, it's almost certainly hate speech. A quick test would be to swap the inherent thing you're talking about with skin color, since that one seems obvious to most people. So, would you say that an opinion that you support people of color, you just don't support them playing sports with people that aren't POC, be nuanced opinion or hate speech?

As for your second hypothetical, that is a discussion for doctors and experts, and they've already had it, and that's why children can't get non-reversible procedures until they're 18. No one is transitioning children; they are blocking their development so they can have a choice on how to proceed when they're adults.

hydro033, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

False equivalence. XY humans destroy XX humans in sports, it's why we have men's and women's divisions - women are a protected class. Allowing XY individuals in women's sports is not fair to women, and undermines the entire purpose of sport and a women's division. Look at it this way : men's division is really an open division, but we created a women's division for the purpose of fairness.

Second point, let's just say you don't know how much I know about this topic or these issues. The question of reversibility by using hormone blockers is still being debated. We simply do not have enough data to know if its safe. You cannot treat hormone manipulation as some simple process. There are many feedback loops involved in the HPG axes.

AmidFuror, 10 months ago

Your logic means men (not trans women) should be able to compete in women's sports.

fosho, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

regarding the sports issue, i can understand the argument that this situation could be abused for an unfair advantage. and eventually it most likely would be by someone. however i don’t have any good solutions that aren’t shitty. even an absolutely sincere trans person could still have an unfair advantage but i would never advocate discrimination by banning them from competing. either option is unfair to someone. it’s a tough issue and one that has no easy answers.

yarr, 10 months ago

and eventually it most likely would be by someone

Err, this has already happened quite a few times.

hydro033, 10 months ago

Agreed - I think relabeling divisions as open and women (XX) divisions is the best solution. Other solutions I have heard include only regulating things at high levels of play, e.g., championships and other events that have prestigious awards. Joanna Harper has advocated the latter.

fosho, 10 months ago

hmm - i like the idea of removing gender from divisions and instead using another criteria that better defines an individual’s ability. that way when a trans woman goes to compete they aren’t specifically put into a category for men but rather a group of people who have relatively comparable abilities. sortof like weight classes. i mean - it’s still kinda shitty because now someone has to decide based on difficult criteria who belongs where, but i think that’s a step in the right direction. i’m would hope that for trans folks, the idea that they are put into a gendered category is what is the most discriminatory rather than a skill/ability category. however, the end result would likely be the same just with different labels. maybe that’s what matters most? i don’t know. no easy answers.

spicy_biscuits, 10 months ago

Look up the tolerance paradox and then suck my dick

slicedcheesegremlin, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

complexity does not inherently make your argument better. "Slavery is is horrible and evil but free black people shouldn't have the right to vote" is a "nuanced opinion," but that doesn't mean it isn't racist and terrible.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

I agree in principle but that's not a great example

Cylusthevirus, 10 months ago

If your "certain view" is that trans people, other queer people, and/or anyone left of Tucker Carlson shouldn't exist, you've opted out of the social contract of tolerance and should expect to be shunned.

Tolerance is either a two way street or a suicide pact and I'm not here to watch people die so the worst dregs of humanity can spew their garbage.

PenguinJuice, 10 months ago

Whoa, I would never wish someone wouldn't exist anymore, wtf? Most moderate people I know just don't like the behavior, they don't hate the people... I know assholes exist who actually want to kill people who disagree with them but that exists on both sides of the aisle.

z500, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

Yes, because certainly this time around people are going to stop at side eye and clucking their tongues. Because it's nothing but a difference of opinion, you see.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

It's not "behavior", it's who they are.

minnieo, 10 months ago

Most moderate people I know just don't like the behavior

what does that even mean? what is 'the behavior'? i'd like to see you try and tell me without generalizing literally millions of people

fosho, 10 months ago

you could always … you know … not care. your life would be so much more fulfilling and meaningful if you stopped sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong.

szczur, 10 months ago

Disagreeing with someone having the right to exist is not an opinion.