"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.

theyresocool, 9 months ago

They hate being woke so they love being asleep.

Bobo_Palermo, 10 months ago

Simply don't go to that magazine? Fuck, people....censorship is bad, but it sounds like kbin is committed to it. Is there a community I can join that has full free speech? This is a serious question.

knatsch, 10 months ago

If you want to have a tolerant community you need to filter those out who are intolerant to others.

gonzo0815, 10 months ago

4chan

szczur, 10 months ago

They don't exist, because everytime someone mistakes hate speech for free speech it turns the community into a giant cesspool.

Zagorath, 10 months ago

It’s the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerate intolerant views in a space, quickly only the intolerant will feel welcome in a space. The series of now-removed Tweets screenshotted in this article do a great job of illustrating the point.

sombrero, 10 months ago

Complete freedom is called anarchy.

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 ☺️

Ghona76, 10 months ago

The entire point about federation is that these issues largely solve themselves.

Don't like the community...block it.

Instance is going to shit...defederate it.

The people on the anti-woke community can continue screaming into their echo chamber and no one who doesn't want to has to listen to it without resorting to censorship and banning. Let assholes be assholes in their own instance and the rest of us can just close our sound-proof windows and not have to listen to them.

Lifecoach5000, 10 months ago

Hard agree. I myself like to keep an eye on people with opposing political views just to know what’s being said in their circles.

jazzbox, 10 months ago

Allowing fascist/bigoted echo chambers to exist at all just facilitates more hate being brought into the world. Obviously one can only do so much, but I think there is some sort of obligation there for both an individual and a community to stop the spread of hate.

HerrLewakaas, 10 months ago

You can't censor people's opinions on the internet. If you lock them out everywhere they set up their own site, and they've got every right to do so. Banning certain unwanted opinions has never and will never work, that's not how you deal with extremism effectively.

jazzbox, 10 months ago

Sure, but the goal here is not necessarily to eliminate hate-speech entirely, since that is obviously impossible; the goal is to make it hard to find. You do that by not allowing hateful communities on your website. I don't want an impressionable teenager, for example, to get sucked into a fascist echo chamber on the same sites they use to talk about video games. That was (still is?) a huuuge problem in the YouTube gaming scene.

Ideally there would be systems in place to stop the fascists from creating their own echo chamber instance, but I understand why people would be scared of that power being abused. So fine, let them then. But they should never see the light of day.

Genuinely - if you do not think this is effective, how do you think we can deal with extremism effectively?

panda_paddle, 10 months ago

I disagree. You can't eliminate hate by shoving it in a corner. You have to try to fight speech with speech. Your proposal only splits the group into 2 opposing echo chambers. The one that you consider right and the one they consider right. Neither will ever have their opinions questioned and both will have their opinions reinforced by the peers around them. I had friends absolutely shocked by a 2021 gallop poll showing only 34% of Americans supported trans youth playing sports for their preferred gender. They spent so much time listening to people on reddit agree with them, that they couldn't fathom they were in the minority. Creating an insulated safe space only fosters ignorance.

aceshigh, 10 months ago

You have to try to fight speech with speech.

not person you were talking to. people are emotional, not logical. you can't use logic to talk to someone who has illogical beliefs.

TheLurker, 10 months ago

I get what you are saying but what you are suggesting is not technically feasible with this type of technology.

Only the admin of an instance can shut it down. Best we can do is block instances which allow such content.

This network isn't centrally controlled, It is like email. You can't stop someone from having an email address, all you can do is block the sending address or the server as a whole. And even then, that person or server you blocked can still email other people who want such content.

You could defederate every other instance in the world which uses ActivityPub and those other instances will still exist. In that scenario you haven't stopped the spread of anything, you just can't see it anymore.

jazzbox, 10 months ago

Definitely, and that is one of my main fears/critiques of this whole fediverse thing. Ideally there will be a system in place to help mitigate that, if there isn't already. Defederating is also effective.

I guess my point is that any instance (or website in general) that was not started with the inherent goal of being a fascist echo chamber should be completely intolerant of fascist/bigoted ideas. Especially the big ones, like lemmy.world and Kbin. And they should do everything within their power to not let those ideas exist. The paradox of tolerance and all that.

Some people are too far gone and will just run away into the shadows, sure. I'm more concerned about the "regular" people who are exposed to those ideas against their own will and get sucked into this cycle of hatred.

CaptObvious, 10 months ago

Since you clearly don’t, and seemingly don’t want to, understand the fediverse or free speech, why not just go back to Reddit where you can be happier?

Censorship has never and will never prevent ideas from existing, being discussed, and spreading. It doesn’t even slow them down. It just drives them into spaces where you can’t see. Lookup Soviet-era samizdat for a better discussion.

jazzbox, 10 months ago

Since you clearly don’t, and seemingly don’t want to, understand the fediverse or free speech, why not just go back to Reddit where you can be happier?

Okay let's deescalate a bit... One can enjoy something and still criticize it. I did not think expressing a worry about the spread of fascist ideology and hate-speech would invite backlash. Can you seriously not relate to that? There has got to be some kind of miscommunication going on here.

Censorship has never and will never prevent ideas from existing, being discussed, and spreading. It doesn’t even slow them down. It just drives them into spaces where you can’t see.

Yes, I want to drive Nazis and bigots into spaces where they are hard to find. They degenerate whatever space they're allowed in. I'm not naive enough to think this will extinguish them, and I wasn't trying to even imply that, but the alternative is to do what - just give them a platform to spew hatred? Do you have a solution? Or are you just going to spit out baseless accusations and tell people to leave if they're not complacent with hate-speech in a space they enjoy?

I'm down to have a discussion but show some kindness.

CaptObvious, 10 months ago

...There has got to be some kind of miscommunication going on here....

Perhaps. To paraphrase, I hear your position as "I don't like what they're saying. Exile them." Is that accurate?

Extremism of all stripes is dangerous. If you don't like what someone is saying, be a grown up and ignore them.

I'm a former journalist. I won't endorse censorship, even (especially) when it's speech I dislike. You win a debate by presenting a better argument, not by gagging your opponent.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall

jazzbox, 10 months ago

Perhaps. To paraphrase, I hear your position as “I don’t like what they’re saying. Exile them.” Is that accurate?

That is my solution, but I think the communication issue may lie in the intent. I want forum sites such as Lemmy or Kbin to encourage dialogue from a diverse user base, and I think that allowing fascist and bigoted rhetoric inhibits that goal. Those kinds of people have proven that they almost never discuss in good faith, and I think they will push away individuals who are looking for a space to have good faith discussions. You may have heard of the paradox of tolerance. If you haven't, I'd encourage you to read about it. I’d like to hear what you think.

Also, I know that you were paraphrasing, but I want to be completely clear that this is not because “I don’t like what they’re saying.” Obviously, I think it is healthy to encounter differing opinions. But I believe the rhetoric I’m talking about is more than mere “differing opinions” … it is hurtful, dangerous, and attempts to both justify and normalize discrimination. All while providing no value whatsoever.

Extremism of all stripes is dangerous. If you don’t like what someone is saying, be a grown up and ignore them.

You and I might be able to parse through the dogshit on the internet, but there are people who can’t. I think there is an obligation to keep alt-right propaganda out of the same space that an impressionable teenager would use to talk about Minecraft. Especially now, there have been far too many kids radicalized in that way. It’s far too easy to weaponize someone’s hatred and insecurities.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall

If you broaden the scope, I wholeheartedly agree. But websites are not countries, moderators are not governments, and content policies are not laws. To be banned from a website does not deprive one of their rights. I really don’t think you need to compromise your morals to have a space, or participate in a space, that has no toleratence bigotry and discrimination. Plus, there are already established limits to free speech that attempt to keep peace and order, like the “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” clause. I don't see my desires here as much different than that.

CaptObvious, 10 months ago

Let me try to respond.

I want forum sites such as Lemmy or Kbin to encourage dialogue from a diverse user base....

But only so long as you approve of their message.

Those kinds of people....

Rules for thee but not for me. That's where this line of bigotry inevitably leads.

I'm well aware of the Paradox of Tolerance. What you're complaining about is nowhere near that limit.

...the rhetoric I’m talking about is... hurtful, dangerous, and attempts to both justify and normalize discrimination. All while providing no value whatsoever.

From my perspective, you're the one attempting to justify and normalize discrimination while, by extension of your own argument, removing the value of an opposing viewpoint from the discussion.

Bigotry and discrimination, like art, are in the eye of the beholder. How is your eye more qualified than anyone else's?

There are a very small number of limitations on First Amendment rights in the US: obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words (American Library Association). Which of these covers the speech you would have the admin ban for you?

TheLurker, 10 months ago

There is no way to "mitigate" what I have described. To use a cliche, it is a feature not a bug.

It is a decentralised system. To have a centralised control mechanism would fundamentally change it from a decentralised to a centralised system.

Blocking and defederating from communities and instances which break community guidelines is the best we can do. It won't make the problem go away but it does help to limit the reach of it.

jazzbox, 10 months ago

Yeah :/ It's quite unfortunate. I love the idea of ActivityPub/the Fediverse and think it is a net positive, but the fact that Nazis can use it to easily platform their ideas just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I'm hoping that admins of all instances (or at least the biggest instances) will be vigilant against combating hate speech so that "Fediverse" or "Lemmy" won't have the same connotations as 4chan for example. I guess time will tell

TheLurker, 10 months ago

They will. There were similar problem with email in the late 90s with the proliferation of open mail relays which just allowed bulk spamming and scamming communications.

Pretty much all of them were universally blocked. But we still get spam and scam emails. So there is a good use case that highlights the problem.

10A, 10 months ago

Welcome to the real world, where people disagree with you, and sometimes they're right and you're wrong. You can learn from everyone's perspective.

Is kbin meant to be a far-leftist echo chamber?

matthieu_xyz, 10 months ago

@kbinMeta
@10A
Considering the issue about tankies on some lemmy instances, I think we understand how much left is too far left. And what you describe as "woke" isn’t it.

10A, 10 months ago

I concede that's a very good point. The term "far-left" (just like "far-right") is problematic because there's such a wide spectrum. In the center-left, you have old-school leftists like Bill Maher. On the far left you have tankies. In between them you have the woke. So what do we call that? I can't pretend to answer the question, but I recognize that you have a very good point. Personally I'll continue calling woke far-left until I learn a more appropriate term.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

As a member of that group, we prefer to call ourselves "progressives".

10A, 10 months ago

Fair, but so does the center-left.

Noki, 10 months ago

its a far right talking point, do you want extremist on kbin.social?

Edit: Funny, your the guy agreeing with "ps".

"No normal person who obeys the laws of sexual morality calls himself a "cis". It's a slur used by those who hate being called something they don't call themselves (their God-given gender), but have too much cognitive dissonance and too much hatred for normal people to let that stop them. We need to reopen the asylums yesterday" - this you ?

more hatefull stuff from you "We may not all have been Christian back then, but almost all of us were, and everyone supported Judeo-Christian values without question. Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp, so it was extremely rare for anyone to think such behavior was acceptable."

VerifiablyMrWonka, 10 months ago

Thank you for doing the investigation so I don't have to. He'll be going on many peoples block lists at this point.

10A, 10 months ago

Woke is far-leftist neo-Marxism. What you call "far right" and "extremist" is actually normal, conservative, and Christian. What you call "hateful" is actually just truth telling.

Downvote me all you want, but you sound like naive child who hasn't learned how to engage with competing worldviews.

bushOfBerries, 10 months ago

I think you mistyped truth social in your URL bar. This place will not welcome you, I think.

ElleChaise, 10 months ago

Who are ya gonna believe, me; or your own eyes?

FfaerieOxide, 10 months ago

I think the people downvoting you know exactly how to engage hate.

10A, 10 months ago

Hatred is not speech you disagree with. It's not speech that hurts your delicate feelings. It's not speech that contradicts your values. It's none of that.

I'm fine with downvotes, although I miss old-school reddiquette back when we upvoted content that should be seen, regardless of whether or not we agreed with it. But this discussion is about banning people and magazines, not downvotes.

FfaerieOxide, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

Do you remember when I called you an asshole?

I'd like to expand that you're a mi-sogynist , homophobe, and your support for fascists leaves me with no compunctions presuming you hold racist beliefs as well.

In short, I want to make clear this is not a case of what you may have read in Mathew 10:22. You are not being persecuted, and it is not "for righteousness' sake". You are a hate filled asshole who pursues policies which will harm society, and you seek to insert and establish the dominance of (what you believe to be) the word of your god while desiring safe space free from the calling out of your hate.

I also suspect you might be closeted.

That last line is not served as a "gotcha". I want you to know community and acceptance can exist outside what you seem to have found convening with some very dangerous ideology on the right. I suspect at some level you want to be lead away as as you say yourself there are places you could hang out that would not challenge your beliefs. You are here in a "den of sin".

I will commune with a few gods (not yhwh; different better gods) to see if they can bless you with the conviction to choose kindness over cantankerousness.
Change is possible.
You are not broken beyond repair.
I Love You.

I have faith in your ability to be a better person than you have thus-far demonstrated yourself to be.

10A, 10 months ago

Wow, this is such a well composed comment that I almost want to upvote it. Nice work with all of the links and research. You deserve a better reply than I have the energy to write, as I'm tired of this conversation. Sorry.

To address a few of your accusations:

1. I am not racist. I'd like to remind you that the southern slaveholders were all Democrats, and the Republican party has always opposed slavery. To this day, Democrats are obsessed with skin color, in their CRT and BLM, while Republicans advocate for color-blind meritocracy. Let's not argue about politics here, please, but no, I am not a racist.
2. I am not closeted. I do confess that I endure other sorts of evil temptations on occasion, though, just like any human being does, so I can certainly relate to those who suffer from SSA. But as a Christian, I pray that I may be shielded from such temptation when I encounter it, and prayer works.

And lastly, quickly, to address two other high-level points you made:

1. I'm here because there are a large majority of non-Christians here, many of whom have no exposure to the word of God or anyone who praises it. I believe the Great Commission tells me to be here, if the community will accept me. I may get plenty of downvotes (seriously, look at my reputation score!), but if I can plant a seed in the fertile heart of even just one other person, the Holy Spirit will do His work.
2. Despite your rejection of the one true living God, I truly appreciate your expression of love, however sarcastic it may have been (I can't tell). I am certainly not broken, though I was a broken, drugged out nihilist in my youth before I found Jesus. I love you too, @FfaerieOxide.

FfaerieOxide, 10 months ago

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption I am interested in debating you.

I am not. Nor do I care to hear you loudly proselytizing as a certain other group of people do.

I invite you to consider why you get the reaction you universally seem to to your posts, and proffer that it is not because everyone is jealous that Jesus loves you more than them.
I am not however here to convert you, nor do I intend to platform fascist talking points by treating them as worthy or needing of debate.

I will leave you with the words of one of the prophets of my faith,

"You ain't a vampire; you don't have to suck."

Bipta, 10 months ago

Hatred is not speech you disagree with. It's not speech that hurts your delicate feelings. It's not speech that contradicts your values. It's none of that.

Right. It's speech that tells people they're not worthy of or welcome to exist.

Thanks for playing.

10A, 10 months ago

That's not exactly what hate speech is, but it's also not what I said. Standing up for conservative Christian behavior is wholly different from telling anyone they're not worthy or welcome to exist. We are all made in God's image, all of us able to repent, be forgiven, and live according to God's will.

effingjoe, 10 months ago

Which god? Zeus?

Cyzaine, 10 months ago

Zeus!??! Blasphemy. All father or no father I say. Odin for best God.

GizmoLion, 10 months ago

Your sky daddy is fake, and I, for one, will not live under your people's delusions of truth.

Ski, 10 months ago

What if they don't believe in the Christian God because the Christian God is demonstrably not real?

HelixDab, 10 months ago

Mmmmm, it's more like no one can reasonably demonstrate the truth of any god, rather than any specific god being demonstrably false. It's an important distinction. You can't disprove a thing, but you can prove that alternate explanations are far more probable, or that the thing doesn't fit the evidence.

szczur, 10 months ago

So perhaps you should repent for actively hurting your fellow children of God. Because unless you're not a hardcore old-school christian, freedom of choice on how to live ones life if it doesn't hurt anybody is a God given right. And you actively want to take that away.

10A, 10 months ago

I absolutely do not want anyone's freedom of choice taken away. That's one of my core principles. God gives us free will so that we may choose. Without the ability to choose, we cannot be saved. So you are grossly misinterpreting me.

Noki, 10 months ago

I am downvoting you because nobody should get eye cancer from your bullshit

AnonTwo, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

Can you explain how a post that was aimed towards "trans lobby harms our society" is not hatred?

I mean I somewhat blame the OP for not linking the posts for some context, but after a bit of looking around it sounds like the posts in question are in fact hate speech and not just things to disagree with.

10A, 10 months ago

What if an article was titled "Christian lobby harms our society"? Would you consider that hateful? Personally, as a Christian, I certainly wouldn't upvote such an article, but I wouldn't try to get it banned either. People have viewpoints based on personal experiences, and some people find harm in some political lobbies. It's not hatred to speak what one believes to be true.

yarr, 10 months ago

What about Leviticus 20:13? Is that hate speech?

10A, 10 months ago

I have no doubt most of the heathens in this thread would say "yes, it is". For anyone who believes it is, that should be your indication that your definition of "hate speech" needs severe adjustment.

HelixDab, 10 months ago

For Leviticus 20:13 to not be hate-speech, you have to start by proving, first, that any god at all exists, and second, that the Hebrew bible is the word of that god. The approach advocated in Leviticus assumes that morality is predicated on the will of a god; if a god wills a thing, then that thing must be moral, because that god creates morality. So unless you can demonstrate that a god exists, and that the translation that we have of Leviticus is the will of that god, then it should not be assumed to be moral. Perhaps you could prove the morality of it in some other way, but you haven't made that attempt yet.

The Hebrew bible also explicitly condones slavery and rape, which implies that god says those things are moral. Would you then agree that slavery in the American south prior to 1860 was a moral practice? Would it be a moral practice if it started again? The bible advocates for genocide; is genocide moral?

BTW there's disagreement about the meaning of that verse, from rabbinical scholars no less. Seems to me that evangelicals might want to do a little more studying to understand context before they make assumptions about the foundations of their religion.

10A, 10 months ago

One of our main lessons from the Bible is the primary importance of faith in God. Faith really matters to God, and it's extraordinarily healthy for us to maintain faith. That fact impacts most of what you wrote, so it's important for you to spend some time understanding it.

I do not need to "prove" God exists (although there's proof everywhere you look, and many well-known philosophers have written book-length formal proofs, but also scientific theories can only be disproven, not proven) because we know God exists via faith, which is stronger than any proof. Likewise, we know that the Bible is the true inerrant word of God because we have faith. It's unshakable. God gets to establish the rules, not us.

Once you understand faith, and you allow yourself to develop it, ask Christ for forgiveness and salvation, and you will be filled with the Holy Spirit. You will no longer doubt God, nor His word. You will realize you've been blind all these years to the copious evidence of God everywhere we look.

You come across as if you're struggling with a giant void in your heart, and you're plagued by demons. I was there once too. Nihilism and emptiness seemed normal, especially when you've surrounded yourself with others who are just as lost. But you are a child of God, and He wants you to turn towards Him. Once you stop doubting and questioning Him, and gain His salvation, you will be given the strength to overcome your sins.

Froyn, 10 months ago

Jesus wore dresses, get over it.

Infiltrated_ad8271, 10 months ago

Since you read in context, could you tell me where the hate speech is?

I only see one article where they spend most of the time making a disclaimer in favor of trans rights, followed by a critique of non-diagnosis and surgery on children, or how nothing is allowed to be questioned. That last one we can see in this thread, people are foaming at the mouth over a title (which includes "extreme, btw...), it's crazy.

kestrel7, 10 months ago

No one needs to see this, you are throwing out extremely basic arguments that all of us encounter every day in this regressive society. You aren't speaking truth to power, you're just being part of the power right now. You aren't making yourself look good and you aren't making the world a better, freer, more nuanced, or happier place.

People: Hey, stop being a jackass.

Conservatives: OMG, yoU WANT TO CREATE A FAR LeFTIST ECHO CHAMBER

Every fucking time.

Infiltrated_ad8271, 10 months ago

OMG, yoU WANT TO CREATE A FAR LeFTIST ECHO CHAMBER

You do realize that this post is specifically about ideological censorship, right?

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

Hatred invites and deserves censorship.

yarr, 10 months ago

But if I block everyone I disagree with, I won’t have to censor anyone!

Lells, 10 months ago

"Far Right" and "Extremist" are not Christian. Christian is John 13:34

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."

That's what being woke is. Loving one another, regardless of how we may or may not have sinned.

yarr, 10 months ago

Christian is:

Matthew 10:34-36: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’”

2 John 1:10-11: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.”

mrnotoriousman, 10 months ago

Woke is far-leftist neo-Marxism

Lmaoooo with the buzzwords. Define far-left neo marxism and give some examples of it being promoted by US politicians.

10A, 10 months ago

I'd be happy to do that, but not in the context of this thread. If m/antiwoke survives, maybe we can have a mutually respectful disagreement about it there in a few days.

geoffervescent, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

We are all happy to engage with competing worldviews

What you call "far right" and "extremist" is actually normal, conservative, and Christian. What you call "hateful" is actually just truth telling.

This isn't a competing worldview, or rather, it's a competing worldview in the same way that phrenology and alchemy are competing ways to view anatomy and chemistry. Like, it's possible to genuinely believe in these things if your conditions of childhood existence are so constrained, isolated, or manipulated that you are happier living life in your own personal 'Truman show.' But the rest of us don't have an obligation to play along with your fantasy.

Most of us here on the internet have at some point met someone we've had a reasonable political disagreement with but could walk away understanding each other better due to those disagreements. Most of us would even say thise diagreements have gone in both political directions. The same cannot honestly be said for folks with your version of a 'world view.' It's like a method actor but worse because it lacks any goal, it's like a person suffering mental but worse because the cause (Patriarchal models of religion) is external, intentional, and had been prosthlytizing delusion as a worldview for millenia.

AnonTwo, 10 months ago

You know, calling everyone not on your political compass "Not Normal" is kindof not coming off as mature as you think it is....

Basically rather than "disagree" with people, you're creating strawmen to debase anyone speaking to you, so you don't have to disagree with them.

10A, 10 months ago

I'm sorry. That sounds reasonable. I'm really trying to avoid political debate here, and just stand up for kbin allowing a diversity of perspectives. I understand how that might come across as you describe.

jclinares, 10 months ago

If you answer "yes", you just might be repeating the whisper of a demon."

So, wait... people who have a competing world view from yours are listening to demons? Now who's naive? xD

10A, 10 months ago

Demons absolutely do exist, and I'm happy to discuss that in a different context. It's pretty off-topic here, though.

pancakesyrupyum, 10 months ago

“Demons absolutely do exist” lol

10A, 10 months ago

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.

—Verbal Kint

pancakesyrupyum, 10 months ago

Haha hell yeah, hail Satan, am I right?

Animoscity, 10 months ago

Trust me, this guy told some people a thing and they wrote it down, and while no one has seen or has proof, its real.

jalda, 10 months ago

I don't usually go to through other people's comment history, but this one is a goldmine

"It made sense back when everyone was, more or less, on board with the program of western civilization. We may not all have been Christian back then, but almost all of us were, and everyone supported Judeo-Christian values without question. Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp, so it was extremely rare for anyone to think such behavior was acceptable. At this point we need to ask ourselves what the purpose of freedom is. Are we a free people so we can exercise perverted pleasures of the flesh, the slaughter of innocent babies, and genital mutilation of children without their parents knowledge? If you answer "yes", you just might be repeating the whisper of a demon."

"woke neo-marxism claims that any normal person is bad. That means its practitioners openly discriminate against conservative white Christian men, especially if they practice heterosexual behavior in a traditional marriage."

"Ironically, secession is about the most American thing we could do at this point"

Noki, 10 months ago

keep digging, your doing "gods work" ;)

strange to see someone as crazy as 10A on kbin.social, feels more like a Fox-Viewer who chose the wrong server.

GizmoLion, 10 months ago

His name's 10A... he may well be as sovcit too. Par for the course.

10A, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

So happens I'm the moderator of m/FoxNews so, in a way, you're right!

minnieo, 10 months ago

mod of the foxnews mag lmfao. oh man, it keeps getting better and better

Osa-Eris-Xero512, 10 months ago

Guess it was only a matter of time before the Nazis colonized here with the server being open sign-up

10A, 10 months ago

You have clearly never been to m/FoxNews.

10A, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

Click on the link to the magazine. I promise you you'll be happy you did.

minnieo, 10 months ago

i'm not in the mood for comedy so i'll pass, but thanks C:

10A, 10 months ago

I mean, it's literally news about foxes.

mmmplak, 10 months ago

I mean who can argue with that. Things got weirder on the second page of this thread. I just can’t take this seriously.

deelightful, 10 months ago

Unfortunately I don't know how to report magazines/users so I can't help you there but I just want to add my support to what you're asking because this sort of thing is against the kbin terms of service:

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.

10A, 10 months ago

The communist far-left calls all disagreement "hate speech". It is not hateful to speak the truth.

jalda, 10 months ago

You are longing for the times when "Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp". Isn't this hateful?

10A, 10 months ago

It would be if that's what I said, but I never said I was longing for anything, and I never threatened to harm anyone.

Bizarroland, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

That's called masturpraying.

You're not hurting anyone (in the physical sense) but you're getting off on the idea that bad things should happen to other people, people you consider to not be in your "in group", and this is usually done in the name of and for the glory of God.

It's a fancy sin that preachers don't tell people about because they're usually guilty of it themselves.

Masturpraying is direct service to and worship of Satan, and he really enjoys it because the people who do it do it in God's name as they commit spiritual violence against the kingdom of God and its occupants while thinking that they are doing good.

10A, 10 months ago

Okay except no, I wasn't doing that whatsoever.

jalda, 10 months ago

Whatever, I copied your whole paragraph in another comment, and the context is pretty clear for anyone who cares to read it. I didn't claim that you personally were threatening to do the beating, only that you thought that the beating was desiderable for the "program of western civilization". If you really don't want homosexual people to be beaten to a pulp, then you should seriously reconsider how you express your ideas.

10A, 10 months ago

Even taking that paragraph out of context is misleading. The whole comment was about the purpose of freedom.

jalda, 10 months ago

You still haven't addressed my point. Do you think it is desiderable that homosexual people are beaten to a pulp? Is a YES/NO question, it shouldn't be difficult to answer.

10A, 10 months ago

No, I do not advocate for violence (except in self-defense situations where there's no other option).

ThunderingJerboa, 10 months ago

It made sense back when everyone was, more or less, on board with the program of western civilization. We may not all have been Christian back then, but almost all of us were, and everyone supported Judeo-Christian values without question. Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp, so it was extremely rare for anyone to think such behavior was acceptable.

At this point we need to ask ourselves what the purpose of freedom is. Are we a free people so we can exercise perverted pleasures of the flesh, the slaughter of innocent babies, and genital mutilation of children without their parents knowledge? If you answer "yes", you just might be repeating the whisper of a demon.

The purpose of our freedom is to worship God as we see fit, and to do His will. In the past we never needed to spell that out, because it went without saying. Different people have different views and belief systems, and they're all valid provided they all worship God.

As secular society grows, we lose the underlying reason for our freedom. Freedom is still a valid concept for anyone who knows how to use it correctly, and who understands that the ultimate freedom is the freedom from sin, which is achieved by accepting Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior.

But for those who think the purpose of freedom is to follow Satan, to abuse themselves and others, to commit endless sins, and then, most evil of all, to celebrate pride in their sin (as if they don't even understand that pride itself is a sin), no, I no longer agree that people are entitled to live their lives in the way that they want. They're entitled to repent, and once they do that we can discuss freedom.

Here is your exact quote, there is no "misrepresentation" here. You are firstly suggesting that the gays are worshiping (indirectly or directly) Satan and have no right to "freedom" because your fictionally sky daddy said so. Lets take a step backwards, so you are suggesting your all loving god, basically has doomed 3/5s (if not more until the white people came) of the world because he decided to only care about Europe and part of the middle east for hundreds to thousands of years because this all knowing being somehow couldn't have stable and growing amount of worshipers in Asia, the Americas, Australia, the pacific, etc dooming them all to hell (or purgatory depending on your denomination) because they as you say can't be able to accept "Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior."

You yearn for a day when everyone (in your neighborhood) had your stupid sky daddy's beliefs and if they didn't you wouldn't pull the trigger or what not but you aren't opposed because now we live in a world of sin and whatnot and you want them to repent because they decide to have their freedom that is instill upon them because they are born a fucking human not because a fucking fictional sky daddy said you have it.

It god damn hilarious you are also reiterating god damn fanfic, the cardinal 7 sins weren't a major concept until they were first enumerated by Pope Gregory I in the 6th century and further expanded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Then to top it all off, we as a modern society mostly know the configuration of hell by a god damn self insert fanfic by Dante Alighieri in "Divine Comedy" or to be more specific Dante's Inferno.

Also seems you aren't very godly if you aren't even following Jesus' own words

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:39),

Your love seems very conditional on the concept that they have to worship your god before they deserve any love. Its honestly disgusting and you are the posterchild of why people hate religious nuts. People can worship what they want if they aren't hurting people but holy shit the shit you are willfully allowing by decree people deserve no freedom if they don't have Judeo-Christians.

Bipta, 10 months ago

You keep to coded language. Congratulations. Don't think we can't read it.

10A, 10 months ago

No, actually I say what I mean. You might try taking the context of the entire comment into account. It was about the purpose of freedom.

ElleChaise, 10 months ago

The tolerance of intolerance leads to the loss of all freedom. You'd have to be either a fraud or a fool to try and sell the opposite as truth. So which are you?

10A, 10 months ago

If you are intolerant of intolerance, then you are intolerant. Full stop. If those are my only two available options, I must be a fool.

webghost0101, 10 months ago

Thats why its called the paradox of intolerance:

“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.”

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

To be fair, i have no problems with the existence off a far-right or even a pro-pedo separate Lemmy instance as long as the harm is limited to just written words on said instance. If we don’t allow those opinions anywhere then they will just be had in secret and spiral even more out of control. Instances that want to fully protect themselves to intolerant sickos can do so by defederating.

10A, 10 months ago

You may be unfamiliar with the work of Daryl Davis, who has convinced over 200 KKK members to leave the KKK. He's achieved this through talking with them. When people are isolated in echo chambers, their numbers grow. It is only through open dialog that we can overcome irrational intolerance. There is no paradox.

webghost0101, 10 months ago

That’s exactly what i meant with my second paragraph. We should provide safe spaces for all kinds of people, fascist included. And those people should be able to interact with other places on the federation (they will anyway, with multiple accounts if they so want) but by allowing their own instance were they enjoy proper free speech we can see who they are, study their rhetoric and engage ourselves to convince them otherwise.

But we still cant allow the toxicity in public where they can cause real harm. So these communities should be their own instance so other instances that might be targeted by hate can defederate.

A quick search reveals Daryl Davis befriended them, spoke privately, invite them to his home (his own instance) Spoke on their rallys (their own instances), he didn’t take them to a local event (public comment thread) while they are donning a swastika on their shirt.

10A, 10 months ago

TBH, I'd love to hear Daryl Davis's perspective on this discussion. I strongly suspect he'd write compelling sage advice, and then receive a hundred downvotes and replies calling him a nazi.

I'm probably older than most of the people here. When I grew up, a commonly repeated phrase we all learned was "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." I'm sure you'd be shocked and offended if I were to type out the names we used to call each other. The result was that it toughened us up, which is one of the most important lessons of childhood. My point is that I respectfully disagree with you that open dialog could possibly "cause real harm", ever, under any circumstances. You would need to be emotionally fragile to think getting your "feelings hurt" is real harm, and honestly I never encountered such people until the last few decades. I hope it's a short-lived phase.

It's so easy to shut down what you perceive as "toxicity in public" when it doesn't impact you. But that's a mighty subjective phrase, and you can very easily find yourself getting shut down. I understand that you're thinking about this in terms of instances, but we're in public here, and all instances with open signups are public. It's crucially important to always allow anyone to say anything in public, because as soon as we silence a person, we are likely to find ourselves silenced. The result would be an oppressive authoritarian society, which has happened repeatedly throughout history when people didn't stand up for free speech.

webghost0101, 10 months ago

I definitely understand and largely agree with your sentiment. But this is the internet, hate is not limited by just name calling. What starts with just a verbal argument can snowball into cyber stalking and bullying. An lgbt artist could see every artwork downvoted to oblivion. Bots can send subscribers of targeted communities daily death treats. Public data can often be de-anonymized (no matter how carefull you are) to extend the bullying to the real world.

Its not just about growing a thick skin to a few slurs now and then but the exhaustion of the daily reminder people want you dead. Personally i am rarely the target of such hate but ive seen in action how quickly a fandom can destroy itself just because someone well known. changes their own name to match their person.

For lemmy: If facist make their own instance and largly keep their racist opinion for their own safe space then the big public servers dont need to defederate or block them so they are welcome to join in on the public space just like the Minority insrances can. Even if they defederated eachother. Most people would see and be able to interact with anyone, only the intolerant and their potential targets would not with eachother.

But take for example what OPs post is about the large public server allows a facist community on its own instance. Now the only way for a minority to protect themselves is to defederate with the larger instance excluding themselves from the bigger public while the facists roam free as a subgroup within it. which is exactly how they like it.

There might be many other solutions, but as for now this one seems to be the only i can think off with the tools provided.

10A, 10 months ago

TBH, I also grew up when bullying was considered a normal part of childhood, and I was ruthlessly bullied. The result was it toughened me up. Back then it was extremely rare to hear of bullying leading to suicide, as you hear now. Bullying was just completely normal, and I can attest there are definite benefits from having lived with it.

Now don't get me wrong: I do understand your concern that online animosity can become a real-world attack, and I don't want anyone to get assaulted. But I also think the concern is grossly overblown, amplified by a culture of emotionally delicate individuals who were never toughened up as kids. In practice, this sort of IRL attack is extraordinarily rare.

And besides, if the solution to preventing assault is to shut down free speech, then frankly I'd rather live in a world of rampant assault. Not that I want assault for myself or anyone else, but weighing the options, a firm stance supporting free speech should not be negotiable.

I'm sorry that you kinda lost me after that. Please forgive me if I misunderstand, but you seem to be calling normal conservatives "fascists", and as a result I struggle to see your point. The vast majority of normal people are fed up with wokeness, which is the topic of the magazine in dispute. I don't say that to pick a fight, just to acknowledge that I find your usage of "fascist" confusing to the point that I struggle to interpret your last few paragraphs.

webghost0101, 10 months ago

My point is not about censoring speech neither is it about disallowing usa republicans from having a public community. I am not from the us and my public intolerance is towards the active displays of hate and discrimination often associated with fascist ideology.

Il provide some examples of what I personally would say is ok/not ok in real life public spaces (in general not just politics) But the real challenge we need to solve on lemmy is how to translats it to a digital space.

Ok:

• civil disagreement
• having a heated argument
• stating you are personally pro-x, anti-y
• having a body tattoo of any strong ideological symbol

Questionable:

• using a slur in a heated argument.
• wearing clothes with strong ideological symbols to an everyday outing.

Not ok:

• marching around the streets with a nazi flag
• stalking
• reading detailed pornographic literature aloud towards a group of children.
• seeking out public events with the goal to intimidate non political organizers and event visitors.
• any kind of instigating of violence towards people or their personal property.

10A, 10 months ago

I appreciate that you point out you're not in the US, because our various cultural perspectives and expectations certainly do inform our opinions. (Although there's quite a range of variance within the US too.)

While I believe my self-designation as "conservative" is quite accurate, at least in an American context, my personal rearrangement of your lists would be far more liberal. The only items I'd put under "not okay" are porn for kids and instigating violence. (Thankfully we don't need to deal with literal violence on an online platform.) It's interesting how ideas can get categorized as left or right depending on the context and viewpoint.

If we were to survey the greater federated community here, I'm sure we'd get a variety of answers as to what's okay, questionable, and not okay. My position is that's a good thing, as our diversity of ideas enriches the community, and we can all learn from each other.

webghost0101, 10 months ago

This was a reasonably insightful discussion that i am not sure we can tame much further. We align on the core value of freedom of speech but are opposites on the semantics of where to draw a line.

I have to ask though.

Stalking is not, “not ok”? I’ve understood stalking as a serious crime all my life. I am very curious to hear of any possible justification to allow it.

For contexts when i say stalking i mean groups/someone following you every where you go in public for a reasonable time. Or continued and constant breaching of personal space after trying to get away.

10A, 10 months ago

Yep. Personally I'd put stalking under questionable.

It's usually a creepy thing to do, but there might be cases where you just want to look out for someone's safety, so you follow them. Usually that's not a stalker's goal, but it varies. If the stalking results in an assault, robbery, or any other crime, that's certainly not okay! But the stalking itself was just questionable until that happened.

Note that if you follow someone online, which is a feature built into kbin, that's stalking. And there's really nothing wrong with it, unless you follow someone just to downvote all of their contributions.

4am, 10 months ago

You don’t win arguments with word games. “Not tolerating intolerance is intolerant!” Is a glitch of language, not sound logic on which you mold your behavior.

Nazi punks fuck off.

RadicalHomosapien, 10 months ago

There is no disagreement when it comes to gender identity. You don't get to disagree with how someone lives their life when it doesn't effect you. It is not a "communist" ideology to support trans folks and you're exposing how little you actually understand about politics with these types of assertions.

10A, 10 months ago

It's off-topic to debate that here, so I'll refrain. But suppose you're right, and I understand nothing. And suppose the antiwoke mod knows nothing either. Would that be suitable grounds to ban a magazine and/or ban us as users?

kestrel7, 10 months ago

Unequivocally yes. You are clearly not engaging in good faith and tolerance of malicious disinfo is basically the main problem currently facing our culture.

10A, 10 months ago

I heartily disagree, and that's mighty authoritarian of you. Your personal values and opinions might happen to align well with the majority of kbin users, but that doesn't make them any more valid than anyone else's personal values and opinions.

szczur, 10 months ago

Thing is, you are the one advocating for limiting the rights of someone that doesn't actively harm you. YOU are the aggressor here.

Vamanos, 10 months ago

No no no. You’ve got it all wrong. We must be tolerant to intolerant people. You know how the woke agenda is affecting us. Yesterday the woke agenda slashed my tires. The woke agenda tripped me when I was walking!

All this woke agenda is harming us man. I heard the woke agenda said it was going to kick your ass.

This is an argument in bad faith. It’s taking a concept as simple as respecting people and trying to strawman this into some bullshit about freedom of expression.

Harlan_Cloverseed, 10 months ago

No, the objective truth is that you’re an asshole.

GizmoLion, 10 months ago

Well that depends, you've been pretty thoroughly educated in this post, so now what will you do about it? I fully expect you'll return to your far right anti-woke hatemongering, in which case yes you should be blocked.

Or you can retract it, and maybe there's hope for you yet.

Jo, 10 months ago

When they're seeking to have people beaten to a pulp? Yes, obviously. Freedom for a few fascist bullies is unfreedom for everyone else. They can fuck off to Gab or Truth Social or somewhere else they'd be welcome. Not here.

bane_killgrind, 10 months ago

"We need to reopen the asylums yesterday" isn't the truth, it's your opinion.

In my opinion, words like this are propaganda intended for radicalisation, and dehumanize people that don't fit into rigid definitions of acceptable lifestyle. Your opinion states that these people should be deprived of liberty and free movement, and deprived of autonomy over their own bodies.

In my opinion, I don't need to tolerate you in my social circles, and Ernest doesn't need to use his own computing resources to enable your shit take on what freedom is.

Kindly go and have your "free speech" using resources that come out of your own pocket, not an unwilling person's.

10A, 10 months ago

I respect most of what you wrote. Yes, that one sentence you quoted at the top is nothing more than my opinion. Yes, you could consider it propaganda. But I didn't intend it to be for radicalization, and I wouldn't hope that to be its effect.

I don't mean to dehumanize anyone, no matter what. But I do agree that I have advocated for a somewhat rigid definition of acceptable lifestyle.

With regard to depriving anyone of liberty, free movement, and autonomy, that's specifically for those who need mental help. For many years we used asylums to contain such people. Many of our current social ills began when we closed the asylums down, and changed the DSM to redefine conditions formerly considered types of insanity to now be considered perfectly healthy. This too is just my opinion, but I'm trying to clarify that it only addresses people who need mental help.

You most certainly don't need to tolerate me in your social circles, and I won't be offended if you choose to block me.

Ernest doesn't need to do anything at all, and I think we can all agree we're grateful for what he's done. Personally I hope he establishes a free speech policy, but in any case we'll see what happens.

With regard to money, I've bought Ernest coffee and I hope you have too! That doesn't entitle me to anything, of course. But it's just to say that yes, I have contributed.

Aesthesiaphilia, 10 months ago

and changed the DSM

Side note, that's more an indictment of the DSM and the rigor of psychology than anything else. Whether something is a disorder or not depends on how popular it is, the whole thing reeks of quackery

GunnarRunnar, 10 months ago

Fuck off or grow up.

Yasuke, 10 months ago

Idk about truth and right and wrong but a place where because if you ask me sometimes that can be super subjective. What I do know is I want a place where people can state how they feel and to each his own. That’s true free speech as long as you aren’t being super disrespectful and rude. As long as you aren’t using harmful and destructive speech. This is the real world. People aren’t always going to think and be just like you. This is why sometimes you really do need thick skin. Because “rules” won’t always be there to protect you in the first place.

Naich, 10 months ago

If you genuinely can't see that it's hate speech, then you need to be blocked and not debated because you are immune to reasoning.

10A, 10 months ago

Amusing. If I can't accept your obviously incorrect position, then you must shut down conversation because I'm immune to reasoning? Take a look in the mirror.

yarr, 10 months ago

Bahaha… “Anything I can’t argue my way out of” = hate speech

Naich, 10 months ago

This is not a conversation. Nothing of value will be lost by shutting it down.

IncognitoErgoSum, 10 months ago

I don't want kbin to be a far-leftist echo chamber. I also don't want kbin to be a far-right echo chamber. I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to protect a community from extreme and hateful views, regardless of which side they come from, because those views tend to attract the type of horrible, toxic people such as yourself who advocate beating the shit out of people for being different in a harmless way.

Welcome to the real world, where people who are different from you exist and mind their own business. If you can't put up with people who don't affect you in any way, I don't think the rest of us owe it to you to put up with you, either. Go find a cesspit to wallow in.

10A, 10 months ago

I upvoted you because your response was based on a misunderstanding of me. I never advocating for harming anyone, and I would never do that.

IncognitoErgoSum, 10 months ago

Oh, and about sexual morality, here's how that works:

If it doesn't involve children, animals, the deceased, or non-consenting people, it's none of your business. Persecuting people who have done nothing to you is immoral.

10A, 10 months ago

Your notion of how that works is not rooted in the Bible.

IncognitoErgoSum, 10 months ago

Matthew 7:5 -You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.

Maybe worry about yourself first, guy who pines for the "good old days" when gay people used to get the shit beat out of them. Nobody corrupts the God's word like loud, intolerant far-right Christians.

10A, 10 months ago

Do you know how many times in this thread I've explained that I never expressed a desire for harm to come to anyone? And each time I'm just downvoted and mocked with a "we know what you really mean" attitude. No, really, I don't pine for that. Some people just really love to hate on Christians.

effingjoe, 10 months ago

What if your god told you to?

Bipta, 10 months ago

You present the false choice between hateful extremists and left wing extremists.

10A, 10 months ago

I agree that would be a false dichotomy. I disagree that I presented that choice. But I appreciate that you're actually engaging with ideas here.

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.

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.

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.

Rusticus, 10 months ago

Woke: “the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.” This definition is from Ron DeSantis lead counsel.

I don’t understand how anyone can argue with the concept of woke. If you are “anti-woke” you are a racist mother fucker.

fluxion, 10 months ago

To happily support authoritarian overthrows and corporate corruption of government you need to literally be anti-woke, so it makes sense. Full on mask-off, yet still veiled.

Tenthrow, 10 months ago

At least five people who voted on this comment are "anti-woke"

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.

tenaciouswisdom, 10 months ago

@Noki @ernest I dunno. Sounds like they are trying to spread some interesting ideas which might have a positive impact on society.

It is called freedom of speech. So either provide a meaningful debate with an opposing view, or block them by yourself to create your own "safe space".

Harlan_Cloverseed, 10 months ago

No, I’m not interested in engaging with bigots. We’re going to defederate.

tenaciouswisdom, 10 months ago

@Harlan_Cloverseed @ernest @Noki Awe, poor baby... Point on the doll where the bad words from the mean people hurt you.

Good luck in your safe space echo chamber full of circle jerking sessions.

The fediverse is enlightening, raw, brutal, honest, horrifying, and beautiful. Full of unbridled knowledge and wisdom. Real instances let users decide what content to block and mute.

Should you ever discover your overies, or testicles again. The uncensored fediverse will be here waiting for you.

minnieo, 10 months ago

ovaries* lol

GataZapata, 10 months ago

You think climate change is made up

tenaciouswisdom, 10 months ago

@GataZapata @ernest @Noki Sorry, I do not subscribe to the climate change grifters religion.

Too many dozens of false predictions that have come and passed over the course of the past hundred years for it to be believable anymore.

GataZapata, 10 months ago

Right. That, to me, says you are not a reasonable person

tenaciouswisdom, 10 months ago

@GataZapata @ernest @Noki I'm actually one of the most reasonable and open minded individuals you'll ever meet.

I'm also very highly skilled in conducting independent investigations for researching subject matters that interest me.

Climate change interested me. I learned as much as I could. Practically every historical climate change deadline prediction has come, gone, and been proven wrong.

Climate change is the boy who cried wolf story for me now. It's a grift for power, money, and control.

GataZapata, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

You thinking your own independent research weighs more than the conclusions of all the professionals of the topic combined screams you are not reasonable. That is easily in the top 5 retarded takes.

Also no. Not all predictions have been disproven. It is far more likely you just don't understand shit. I will now stop engaging with you as if you had a point. I don't want to validate you.

tenaciouswisdom, 10 months ago

@GataZapata @ernest @Noki Awe, I am sorry that you don't have the patience, investigative ability, evidence, and/or willingness to openly debate me on this subject matter.

Don't worry, most climate change believers won't either. They are like you. Right after my opening arguments they say a few clever words with little to no point that attack my character. Then walk away like they won.

In reality this how you come off to any logical person observing our conversation.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/b7ebed85bb75a3519a0ed37b0bf68e8c/tenor.gif?itemid=6138481

GataZapata, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

You are a retarded person. Discussing this with you, with you taking pride in rejecting unified scientific finding, shows you are not just ignorant but proud of it. Discussion with you is futile, because you do not want to discuss or change your mind. You want your weird little shit ideas to be right, in spite of all the evidence presented to you by society over many years.

You are not an intelligent man. You are not reasonable. Your position is not right, or even defensible anymore. By clinging to it, you disqualify yourself from rational conversation at the adults table.

There is no point discussing with you if you make your own facts and live in your own imagined world where right is wrong. I implore you, stop being such an asinine person and look at IPCC data projection. Look at them and think about what they mean for your life and the world around you. As long as you refuse to recognize the data before you, you cannot be reasoned with. Goodbye. I hope you get better.

tenaciouswisdom, 10 months ago

@GataZapata @ernest @Noki Thank you for proving my point in my previous post. This time with more bravado and gusto. Bravo.... (Lmao)

Attacking my personal character.

Unwilling to do an open, honest, and fair debate.

Flips the table, rage quits, and storms off like they've won.

It is both hilarious, childish, and beyond pathetic.

Here's to hoping that you mature and grow up, but we both know that probably will never happen.

Cheers!

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/61/fe/66/61fe66908afe87f7a5c520835eb6c8c0.jpg

GataZapata, 10 months ago

I don't attack your character. I attack the pride with which you hold on to easily disproven ideas. It makes you dumb.

I cannot do a real argument with you- you have no point. All the evidence is stacked against you. There is simply no point in you repeating lies to me.

You have also not provided a single argument in this exchange-what climate change theories have been disproven, for example. Your first coent says 'all of them' but you never specify, never cite a source or anything else. Because you can't. You pull it out of your ass to ragebait and then act like a high and mighty intellectual. But you are the opposite-you deny knowledge and hold on to your weird ideas in spite of facts being repeated to you from all sides. There is no productive discourse to be had with you.

tenaciouswisdom, 10 months ago

@GataZapata @ernest @Noki You didn't ask for evidence. You didn't even want to hear what I had to say.

You just said the evidence is stacked against you so why would I listen to what one person has to say? Then attacked me personally, not my pride (lol).

This is the attitude of a child who isn't capable of an adult argument. A person who treats science as a religion, but can't be scientific themselves. A scientist, or open minded person would be interested to see any evidence could I provide.

GataZapata, 10 months ago

Provide then. I would be astounded if you could produce a scientifically sound and peer reviewed source that disproves climate change. In fact, I think producing such resultds would net you several honor-tenures and or Nobel prizes.

If you cannot, I am happy to send you a veritable library of recognized scholars who say the exact opposite of your take.

tenaciouswisdom, 10 months ago

@GataZapata @ernest @Noki Now that I called you out on your shit you want to try and act like an adult to save face for being childish?

Nope, you don't get the satisfaction. Not, because I can't have a debate with you, but rather you no longer deserve it.

Everyone in the Fediverse saw your true nature and depths of patheticness today.

You had your chance to have an open, honest, and civil debate. You fucked up. Now I'm going to treat you like the child you are and tell you to go to your room.

GataZapata, 10 months ago

So you have no sources for your wild takes. When pressed you cannot provide a single one and deflect like an 8th grader without homework lol.

The accusations you have launched at me during this exchange are projections of what you argue like.

Thanks for clearing up that you don't actually have a point. Bye

minnieo, 10 months ago

spoken like someone who dropped out of HS

tenaciouswisdom, 10 months ago

@minnieo @ernest @Noki @GataZapata Ironically you're right, but my story didn't end there.

Dropped out out of high school, went back, and got a diploma.

Then went onto college to get a bachelors degree in science.

Then several more certifications in industries ranging from medical, botany, and business development.

Founded 5 businesses and a nonprofit.

Got into stock trading and real estate for shits and giggles.

Now I am a semi-retired inventor until my prototypes are ready for investors.

szczur, 10 months ago

Again. Wanting to actively hurt people you think are unworthy of living in peace is not freedom of speech. It's hate speech. And it's a whole different thing.

tenaciouswisdom, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

@szczur @ernest @Noki The problem with hate speech is that hate is in the eye of the beholder. What is hate speech to one person is truth to someone else.

You can misconstrue anything into hate speech, fascism, racism, or biggotry if your mental gymnastics game is on point enough too.

This is why cognitive dissonance, brainwashing, and social decay is at epidemic levels world wide.

Words can't hurt you, or anyone. Only you allow words to affect yourself. Master your own thoughts and emotions.

szczur, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

Words are a vessel of emotions and general narrative. And they can hurt, especially when targeted at a minority fighting for rights. Not only does it make the people in question less "valid", it also affects them in making their fight for rights more difficult.

And about hate speech, no. Hate speech is hate speech. Always. For instance, you can deny climate change and even call it "religion" and that's fine. It's your opinion, it's something you believe in. I can think it's a dumb opinion and try to make you think otherwise, but ultimately, presecuting you for thinking that way and voicing your opinions is a violation of free speech. Because climate change, while it affects a lot of people, is not generally tied to people being one way or the other.

Transphobia, though, just like racism and antisemitism, are not interested in disagreeing with what trans people do or believe in. It has to do with disagreeing with their fundamental right to be and exist. Just like racism is not interested in criticizing what people of colour do. That's where that "mental gymnastics" bullshit comes in, and it's important. Thinking climate change is a hoax is an opinion. Thinking red onions are better than white ones is an opinion. Thinking it's okay to provide platform for people spreading dehumanising rhetoric posing an actual existential threat to a marginalized group is not an opinion. It has to do what it targets. If your rhetoric targets people for no other reason than your bigotry, I'm sorry, but it's hate speech. And it's really different than freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. Of course, you could criticize certain aspects of what trans people actually do in a civil manner. It's alright. But once you start to question the very way of them being trans it's over with free speech.

Hope you get that now.

tenaciouswisdom, 10 months ago

@szczur @ernest @Noki How I view trans people falls into 2 categories. Not a phobia (lol).

1.) Legitimately mentally ill. Pity them for succumbing to gender dysphoria. By means of bad influences and diet. Unbalanced hormones, ideas, and emotions causes gender confusion. Deserves help to recover.

2.) Groomer pedophiles. Using the LGB community as a shield for acts of evil.

As for hate speech, my previous post still stands. Master your own thoughts and emotions. I won't censor to cater to them.

szczur, 10 months ago

Thanks for proving my point!

tenaciouswisdom, 10 months ago

@szczur @ernest @Noki

https://giphy.com/gifs/satisfactionusanetwork-5xtDaroWxp3mcuDC4Le

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.

Snapz, 10 months ago

Let's all agree that of its many issues, locking/deleted 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 faucet 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, then what are we doing here?

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.

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.