Are TERF-centric magazines allowed on this insurance?
https://kbin.social/m/modernmisogyny
I ran across that magazine recently and every post is transphobic af. Does that fit within kbin.social's code of conduct?
I’m just pointing out that the „fascist“ label got thrown around by people like you so inflationary that it lost every meaning or sense, making you sound similar desperate as those you seek to oppose. What this does have to do with the age of my account here is beyond me, on the other hand I sense a hint of alt tech elitism that fits the picture just right.
Funny how this escalated from you thinking that the socialpolitical movement of fascism has anything to do with a subtribe of modern, post–liberal 2nd wave feminists all the way to antisemitism - something, that wasn’t even remotely on the table. if you now manage to stir „racism“ into the mix, you can call it a day.
like, fuck terfs, fuck the anti-trans movement, but the connection between the anti-trans movement and fascism is framed in this suuuuper abstract way that no meaningful definition of fascism would allow. It kind of just makes fascism sound like "statism."
There are plenty of terfs (again, fuck terfs) who are not calling for government action, but trying to exclude trans women from feminist spaces on non-governmental levels, arguing for a limiting social or academic definition of feminism or of a woman and holding exclusionary events. Fascism is an incorrect label for that behavior.
Furthermore, to call terfs fascists implies that they are generally for other things fascists are for, like a command economy, which I don't think is common.
And to be clear, there is an overlap between terfs and fascists, and an even bigger overlap between anti-trans people in general and fascists. We all know the Nazis fucked up a lot of good gender research, but they were never pretending to be feminists.
... did you link to the wrong article by mistake? that article doesn't really have anything to do with fascism, except insofar as most fascists also happen to be racists.
I could link articles all day but I have better things to do than entertain (presumably) a cis guy while he plays devils advocate about the people who want my friends thrown in camps not being fascists.
that's literally the first article you linked to. Do you have a point at all? You can link to articles all day, but only two of them, and only one that argues for your point at all, which I've already addressed?
I'm not advocating for terfs or fascists, they're both villains, but to say they're the same is like saying the KKK and the muslim brotherhood are the same. Just because they're both evil and there are some common threads between their ideas doesn't mean they're the same. I think we should learn how to talk about the terrible groups out there instead of just equating all of them and dancing around our own ignorance. I'm not advocating them, I'm advocating against them as strongly as I can, and you're promoting ignorance instead of responding to the one damn point I've made.
I read it, and responded to it. You've been ignoring my response because you don't have an answer to it. So again. The core argument that terfs are fascists is:
To that end, Butler does a good job of laying out that the anti-trans movement ultimately is about strengthening government oversight — restricting access to medical care and generally seeking to ban LGBTQ+ people from the public sphere, which fits pretty neatly into just about every standard definition of fascism. That includes gender critical feminists, the self-professed “leftist” equivalent of the more extreme right-wing fundamentalists.
Which, again:
Pretends the entire social-focused aspect of the anti-trans movement doesn't exist, when it obviously does, and there are obviously many, many terfs focused on non-governmental oppression. The article itself describes governmental forms of oppression, but this does nothing to imply that the anti-trans movement is actually all about focusing on government oppression
identifies an extremely superficial relationship between two positions as both being statist and therefore being the same. The police state is also about increasing government oversight. A command economy is about increasing government oversight. The founding of the CFPB was about increasing government oversight. Having courts is about increasing government oversight. These are not all forms of fascism.
fails to describe fascism at all. Fascism is a specific thing with a specific definition, it's not just the idea of having an active government. Fascism is a form of nationalism with a dictatorial government, a strong military focus, a hard command economy that exists to support the state and the military, expansionist policies, suppression of opposition to the government, denigration of the individual in favor of the collective in the form of the state... Now, the terf movement, overall, is doing some of those things, but the article doesn't reference any of them.
fails to establish that most terfs, or the core proponents of the terf movement, or terfs in general, are fascists, let alone that a terf is categorically a type of fascists.
If you have a point, then instead of linking to the same article again or linking article that isn't about fascism, please make your point.
who gains from making up a new definition of fascism? why do you want people to be ignorant?
know thy enemy.
I'm not nitpicking here, I'm not being pedantic, your article didn't even vaguely touch on what fascism is. Maybe the underlying article did, but I'm having trouble imagining what the point is.
Does it piss you off you spend all this effort flailing about defending fascists and I still tell you (correctly) you're wrong and spend a fraction of the effort?
does it piss you off that you don't have any response to anything I've actually said? does it piss you off to discover that this publication you like just published a point it didn't understand at all? does it piss you off to see a person argue that we should attack terfs for being terfs and fascists for being fascists and not just assume that all bad people are the same kind of bad person?
is that why you're afraid to read any of my comments?
Having no time for a jackass in a month old thread dredging up his lack of reading comprehension and pathological need to defend fascists from true accusations of being fascists is very much different than being afraid.
You are correct that I am not reading your replies at this point, nor is anyone else.
you didn't read any of my replies, and you kept accusing me of shit I'm not doing, because you are, in fact, not interested in defending your bullshit. Blaming me for that is sad.
also... I just found this thread today, how did that happen?
I'm upset that you're promoting the Westboro Baptist Church!
I'm upset that decent people are being tricked into a stupid opinion about bad people. Just because fascists are evil and terfs are evil doesn't mean we should be making up confused bullshit about them, we should make coherent arguments and insult them for what they actually are. Making fun of terfs for being fascists is not effective because intelligent people will see that they're not fascists, and then not understand the actual issues with terfs. This is doubly problematic if your argument that terfs are fascists is as superficial and weak as the Them article you posted. You'll alienate people that absolutely want to be on our side.
Why are you so cut up about arguing in a thread you're not reading?
I'll be here for as long as you keep defending Tucker Carlson.
I'm not doing this for the fascists. The fascists love it when people get confused about who they are.
I'm doing this for your benefit, and for the benefit of any other decent people reading. Decent people don't like being lied to, decent people don't benefit when you tell them that cake is a type of potato, decent people don't suddenly get smarter when you tell them that Rush Limbaugh is a Scientologist. Labels have meanings and degrading those meanings is not a progressive act.
I spend my cis-ass time helping progressives avoid ignorant people like you who are helping terfs and fascists recruit. I spend my cis-ass time attacking terfs and fascists.
the worst thing you can do to a terf is tell the truth. The worst thing you can do to a fascist is tell the truth. They have no defense against the truth. Their ideas are genuinely that bad.
But when you lie, they party in the streets—that's their whole recruitment model. They say "look, libtards call us fascists just because we don't believe (insert some strawman version of the lies terfs tell)," and they laugh about how many "moderate" votes you gained them in their swing states.
I hope my fellow progressives don't think your ignorance is the norm among progressives.
I'm not talking to a group, I'm talking to a dumbass.
As a Jew, I feel fairly entitled to talk about fascism, and fairly entitled to be upset when people say insert group of assholes are Fascists without any understanding whatsoever of any definition of Fascism beyond "government." I do, in fact, have a stake in how you lie about my oppressors.
But it's also perfectly reasonable for me to be upset when you lie about your oppressors and try to trick trans people and allies like me into believing your lies. Why are you so strongly opposed to the truth?
I've already sent him a PM about that user & magazine a while ago. Still waiting and hoping to hear / see something.
Edit: I also think this is kinda disappointing. Kbin immediately defederated from nsfwlemmy over some bullshit allegations that weren't even true. Meanwhile this and other examples of toxicity remain to fester directly on this instance.
Any time I tried to get someone to check out Reddit, I hated having to preface it with, oh and you're going to want to block these 30 subs, they're horrible, and here's another 100 that are kinda gross, I'll email you my list......
There's stuff to block, but there's stuff that should be banned too. I remember recommending some of the SQL reddits to coworkers just weeks before the jailbait crap hit the national news. It's up to ernest how he wants to run this place, but I hope we don't let the bar go too low.
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall fight to the death to defend your right to say it.
When you ban people, you tell them to go form an echo chamber where they'll flourish.
A more intelligent approach is to imitate Daryl Davis, who has convinced hundreds of KKK members to leave the KKK, simply by respectfully talking with them.
You might actually learn a thing or two in the process.
That misunderstanding is why echo chambers grow. Your fear of being perceived as a Nazi only reveals that you're overly concerned what other people think of you, which strongly suggests that you're young and naive. As you grow up, you'll stop caring what others think of you (hopefully you will — no everyone does), and you'll learn to respectfully engage in conversation with people of divergent viewpoints (even if they happen to believe their personal level of melanin justifies their superiority complex).
The fact that you think that quote is about "owno, they'll think Imma Nazi ;_;" reveals sooo many flaws with your world view.
Absolute "I am 12 and this is deep" material, hilarious.
On one hand, Daryl Davis is a hero, and his method actually works to de-radicalize people. I prefer using this method when I encounter bigots irl.
On the other hand, allowing bigoted speech in your online platform has the potential to drive away normal folks and turn your platform into the echo-chamber where bigotry flourishes that you mentioned. This is basically what happened to Voat.
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall fight to the death to defend your right to say it.
I agree with this, but it's beside the point. This isn't a public space like a street corner, it's a managed public/private space like a bar, where the bouncer will kick you out for abusing other patrons.
A group of patrons sitting at a table in a bar, quietly discussing their TERF perspective, is entirely different from one of them walking up to a trans table and picking a fight. The former is an exercise of free speech, whereas the latter is cause for ejection.
I only know about them because I subscribe to m/kbinMeta. If you stick to your subscribed magazines, as I do, you only hear those to whom you intentionally listen.
I don't condone murder under any circumstances. But using 56 murders as an excuse to silence anyone online is a disgrace to the principle of free speech.
In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government.
As long as the government isn't arresting you for your opinions then nothing going on here has to do with "free speech". Individuals and corporations silencing you online is not a "disgrace to the principle of free speech".
You're conflating the principle of free speech with the US 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment is predicated on the principle of free speech. The 1st Amendment is completely inapplicable here. The principle of free speech is 100% applicable here, as it is foundational to western civilization.
You're talking about a "free speech" that only exists in /r/conservative echo chambers. You are free to say what you want but you are not free from the consequences. We do not have to listen. And it's not a "disgrace" that nobody cares to hear what you have to say.
Up until a few years ago, it was widely held by people of all political persuasions to be one of the foundations of western civilization. As the far left has moved progressively further leftward, they abandoned it. The only reason you think of it as conservative is because it's old-fashioned.
Wait, do you actually disagree with that? I thought that was common knowledge. If you don't mind my asking, which age-group are you in? (If you decline to state for anonymity, I understand. I just find this baffling. It's indisputably true in my personal, anecdotal, life experience.)
I could probably go out and search for a million random people who've experienced it too (like everyone older than 30), and some articles about it. But I said what I know to be true based not on having read it anywhere, but rather on what I've personally experienced over quite a few decades of life in America.
What are you, a librarian? Do you not go out into the world and experience anything in your life? Most of what we learn about the world does not come from citeable sources, but from actual real-world experience.
the principles of free speech do not guarantee you a platform upon which to spread hatred. They do not give you the right to force others to serve your positions over the internet.
there might be something to be said about "platform neutrality," but it's still a competition of rights that doesn't really justify forcing a platform—especially a small platform like kbin—to host content it views as extremist, or especially likely to result in violence. Maybe you can argue that we should have higher scrutiny in the case of a monopoly or similar large social network due to the power of strong network effects, but... I don't know how much scrutiny would you need to apply to say "aha, this company is banning terfs for insidious reasons!" no, they're obviously banning terfs because their bigotry is dangerous and hurtful and giving them a platform just feels incredibly shitty.
A while back, I thought—well, I still do think—that platform neutrality should be used to frame the issue of large social media sites that ban talk about their competitors, like when Twitter deprioritized Substack (facebook messenger has banned competitors as well). I'd also argue this principle could be used to ban, for example, Facebook from manipulating its algorithm overtly (expliciltly, specifically) to favor a particular political party or an advertiser (outside of the ad itself—that one is already illegal, ads need to be disclosed as ads). But applying such a rule to general political standards and where you think the norm or neutral position should be is dangerous and stupid.
He knows. That’s why he’s desperately trying to hold on to his little platform.
Pick almost any mass shooter at random and look at their online history and you’ll find the same story over and over again; “progressively radicalised by social media”.
They’re absolutely aware these domestic terrorists come from their midst. Find a far-right enough chat room and they openly celebrate it.
Sure thing little reactionary. I guess you’ll just have to hope that if any vulnerable people find this thread, they don’t spend 5 minutes checking before throwing their lives away for your cause.
No. You don't have the right to debate other people's right to exist. Such speech is an act of violence and should be treated as such.
I don't want a group of people sitting around "discussing" whether or not black people are inherently inferior either. That is not speech we should accept in the public sphere
Yes I support the use of violence to defend minorities against violent oppression. And yes, I have this interesting tendency to disagree with fascists and bigots. I'm glad we understand each other.
You don't have the right to say "I think we should literally legislate trans people out of existence because I don't like them," which is what we're actually talking about here, let's be clear
Well, if you're not actually interested in legislating to stop trans people from existing, then I guess it shouldn't be a problem for you to stop saying that's what you want to do then, huh?
Except really, nobody's ever debating anyone's right to exist. That's absurd.
Consider this: If a mass murderer was captured and imprisoned, he could claim that the justice system opposes his right to exist. The trouble with that is he'd be completely incorrect. The justice system opposes his behavior of murder. No matter how much he believes his very existence is inextricably bound to his behavior of murder, the reality is he murders by choice, and it is that intentional action which the justice system opposes.
Did it ever occur to you that it's "contentious" to express "disapproval" of trans people existing because...there's nothing WRONG with trans people existing?
“Speech is never an act of violence” mfs when I use a public platform to smear them as child molesters, while simultaneously encouraging acts of vigilantism against “paedos”: 😯
Daryl Davis does what he does in one-on-one contexts and other safe environments.
He doesn't go on extremist internet forums and try to convince a bunch of nutjobs and trolls and violent monsters all at the same time. He would have been downvoted into oblivion where people who are looking for somebody to troll would have found him and antagonized him until he left.
You sound like you've never argued with fascists online.
They only exist in echo chambers, anyway, and do not debate in good faith. There is nothing similar to what Daryl Davis did except in the most superficial way possible. Go visit /r/conservative and you might actually learn a thing or two.
If you’re getting called a fascist, take a look in the mirror. If you think being called a fascist explains why people become fascist you’re a fucking moron.
Are you saying there are no fascist conservatives at all?
I didn't ask you about the leftists you've encountered- you offered that information yourself. I asked you if you think there are any fascists who are conservative. You've got this!
I was active in r/Conservative, and here I'm the primary contributer to m/Conservative. Hi, nice to meet you. When I'm engaged in arguments involving the word "fascist", it's rarely me using that word (unless we're literally discussing Mussolini), and usually me who's called that for favoring levelheaded conservative principles. I enjoy mutually respectful debate, but I find most others prefer to fearfully call me a "fascist," downvote everything I've ever written, block me, and walk away feeling sanctimonious.
And did you give such flowery speeches about people’s “freedom of speech” over in r/Conservative when they routinely banned people for not just disagreeing, but for not agreeing enough?
Or, like them, is your sense of injustice reserved entirely for straight, white reactionaries?
Fascists haven't existed since 25 Luglio in 1943. You can find a tiny number of exceptions over the years, but as a broad statement it's true. I'm not old enough to have argued with fascists, and I bet you're not either.
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Yea wow, we've never seen that in the last 7 years!
I can see I really triggered you with that word. It's hilarious that you self-identified with it and got defensive.
It certainly does sound like typical leftists if you squint. Everyone in this thread opposing free speech is an authoritarian. But if you actually read that definition word for word, it's a position almost nobody supports. What's more, the definition has been changed from the original political affiliation. I'm not surprised Miriam-Webster's open to redefining words, but try as they might, words still mean what they originally meant. Still, their definition is close enough to the original to demonstrate my point that there are no fascists left, unless you squint and look at modern leftists.
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti)
Could be leftists, conservatives, or any other political group.
that exalts nation and often race above the individual
Well that excludes conservatives, because conservatism celebrates rugged individualism.
Leftism, by contrast, embraces groups above individualism. This is what conservatives usually refer to as neo-Marxism. It's also known as identity politics. It's this idea that we're all members of a group, and that group gives us our identity. Then with intersectionality, you have multiple groups defining identity.
Two caveats:
Christians are the exception to the rule, where many conservatives do embrace an identity that can be defined as a group.
Leftists do exalt groups above the individual, but those groups are not normally the nation (at least not in the US).
and that stands for a centralized autocratic government
Yes, in general, conservatives support small government, while leftists prefer government regulations over private business, government handouts for the poor, government taxation of the wealthy, and government control of every little thing in life — basically big government.
Centralized? In the US, centralized means federal control whereas decentralized means State and local control. Leftists generally prefer the former, whereas conservatives generally prefer the latter.
headed by a dictatorial leader
Not applicable in the US, but I wouldn't put it past the Left in the near future.
severe economic and social regimentation,
Yep, see this thread for instance. Leftist love regimented control over what we're allowed to think, and they love silencing the opposition.
and forcible suppression of opposition
Oh, you mean like when Biden has his primary opponent, Trump, tied up in court with accusations and a threat of imprisonment? Or, you mean like this very thread where leftists are trying to silence the TERFs? Yes, leftists absolutely love the forcible suppression of their opposition.
In conclusion, no, it's not a perfect fit for leftists, but it's loosely close — and it certainly doesn't fit conservatives even slightly.
You can't just make up whatever you want when you're not in /r/conservative. You are constrained by reality. Nobody is here to delete my posts and ban me for you.
Yes, well the MAGA crowd isn't very conservative if you ask me, and personally I support DeSantis. I think Democrats are strongly pushing for a Trump nomination because they know he's unelectable, and it's an easy play.
But to your point, I concede that most people do consider MAGA to be right wing, and that Trump has on several occasions said things suggesting he'd like an autocracy. I think we can agree that'd be undesirable. I just don't think it's very conservative.
Like Jan 6th.
All that was, was a group of jaded voters who believed (rightly or wrongly) that there was election fraud. Personally I see no evidence of fraud substantial enough to change the election. But at the same time, I recognize that for someone who truly did believe there was election fraud, they were upset and they wanted to protest about it. That's all it was — a protest that was legitimate based on what they believed.
You are constrained by reality. Nobody is here to delete my posts and ban me for you.
And I'm glad about that, 100%. I wouldn't want you banned.
But back to the definition, you can't just pluck a couple of words out of there and say it's a match. The whole definition fits the left way better than the right, and yet in truth doesn't fit either completely.
But back to the definition, you can't just pluck a couple of words out of there and say it's a match.
That's what you did. So I responded with actual examples, using the conservative front runner- and you replied with "no true Scotsman".
That makes absolutely no sense.
Or, you mean like this very thread where leftists are trying to silence the TERFs? Yes, leftists absolutely love the forcible suppression of their opposition.
Oh wow did somebody place you under arrest for posting your opinions online?? Or does this have absolutely nothing to do with free speech, again?
Well, if he didn’t selectively edit reality, he wouldn’t be conservative but my money is on “this is how he stays mask on”.
He doesn’t truly believe anything he’s just said. That’s why if you check his history, it’s littered with examples of Fascist Brand™ nationalism that he’s just claimed conservatives don’t believe in.
He knows his peers and politicians fit the fascist label better than anyone. That’s why self-confessed, swastika-waving fascists support them and more than likely why he supports them.
It took decades to dawn on them, but nobody gives a shit what fascists and neo-nazis think about the way society is run. Their gold standard is a genocide.
And so the alt-right was born. They had the same opinions as neo-nazis, the same key figures as neo-nazis and the same solutions as neo-nazis but they staunchly insisted they weren’t neo-nazis.
That plausible deniability earned them a platform they’d previously only dreamed of. Not just social media and it’s endless pool of disaffected young men and unmedicated schizophrenics but actual international news networks who hadn’t handed a mic to a Nazi since Hitler.
Of course, they couldn’t keep it in their pants for long. They triumphantly ripped off their masks at the “Unite The Right”, proudly displaying their swastika tattoos, white supremacist chants and domestic terrorism against innocent people deemed “leftist”.
Their plausible deniability vanished, as did some of their biggest, violentest, most slur-friendly platforms. So they retreated, regrouped and came back with a new strategy.
They’re just “conservatives” now. Still the same neo-nazi opinions, still the same neo-nazi figures, still the same neo-nazi solutions. But if you state the obvious, they’ll deny it. They’ll try and shame you for saying it. They’ll claim over and over again that the alt-right never existed and they’re just average conservatives. Maybe even moderates.
Not because they believe it, but because they know that going mask off loses them platforms.
This guy definitely knows it. His tactics aren’t just rehearsed, but traceable back to brain-storming sessions held by racists, sexists and extremists where they openly try and figure out how best to “red-pill” vulnerable people like children, the lonely, the stupid and the mentally ill.
If your instance admin can’t see that, it’s time to find a new instance. That one has cancer and thinks they can stop it metastasizing with polite discussion.
I'm not saying "no true Scotsman." I'm saying Mussolini was a legitimate fascist, and his party died a long time ago. Some people today have similar traits, especially on the Left, but nobody is really part of his party anymore.
Free speech is a delicate principle. It requires everyone to firmly agree that everyone is allowed to speak freely, and we're all prepared to fight to the death, literally, to defend their right to say it. It's delicate because as soon as people abandon it, the entire project of western civilization can be destabilized. What we are permitted to say on kbin and every other online platform is the essence of free speech.
Free speech is a delicate principle. It requires everyone to firmly agree that everyone is allowed to speak freely, and we're all prepared to fight to the death, literally, to defend their right to say it
What? Says who? This only exists in r/conservative echo chambers. You're free to say what you want but nobody has to listen.
The "prepared to fight to the death to defend it" is in reference to the "free speech" that the constitution protects. We literally had a war about it 300 years ago. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not saying "no true Scotsman." I'm saying Mussolini was a legitimate fascist, and his party died a long time ago. Some people today have similar traits, especially on the Left, but nobody is really part of his party anymore.
I'm saying Trump it the leader of the Conservative party in America and you are saying he's not a true conservative. It's the definition of "no true Scotsman". Stating it's not doesn't actually change anything.
Trump was a life-long Democrat until he switched parties. He's not a Christian. His personality could hardly be described as "conservative" by anyone. Trump may win the GOP primary again, just because Democrats control the mass media, but he does not represent the voice of conservative Americans, even if we end up voting for him in the general election. He's a political anomaly, which is why he has a fanbase, but is also why he shouldn't be a factor in this conversation.
Fox is only centrist by American conservative standards. The positions they support are considered far-right by most of the developed world outside of the middle-east and china.
Perhaps — I have no idea about the rest of the world — but Fox serves an American audience, so that's the context in which it's appropriate to evaluate it.
As a conservative, when I look at the Fox News website, I typically think all of the following: A) these stories are notably well-balanced compared to the other mass media outlets, B) man, they publish some really stupid articles on this site, C) Why do the articles all have huge videos that are completely unrelated to the articles on top of them?, and D) Yikes, the comment section sure does feature some openly racist remarks sometimes.
But outside of Fox, in the US, there are generally two types of news organizations: large-and-leftist and tiny-and-conservative.
I believe it. What I'm saying is that from your insular experience you wouldn't realize that what you consider "centrist" is actually "far-right".
In reality the largest news organization in America is "far-right" with some smaller extremist-right orgs. What you consider "leftist" is actually "centrist" by developed-nation standards. You can go on calling it what ever you like but it has no basis in reality outside of conservative echo chambers.
That can be true or false. I neither know nor care. I'm sorry to be dismissive, and I don't mean to be rude. You're just trying to make a point that seems irrelevant to me. I'm sure it's meaningful to you, but it's not to me.
No, I get it. You are not going to let facts get in the way of your conclusions. You don't sound dismissive you seem uninformed. That's fine and on brand with the positions you've shared.
I understand that some citizens of various other countries see themselves as part of an interconnected global world, where countries are fungible. And to be fair, a few Americans think that too. But in reality the US is far removed from all other countries, and we're blessed with being the greatest country possible, so a foreign perspective really doesn't impact us at all.
So you're right to say I'm uninformed — indeed we all are, somewhat, depending on the holes in our areas of focus — but you're wrong to say my conclusions are not based on facts. Because my conclusions are entirely factual within the context of the US.
If I'm incorrect outside of that context, well okay, I'll take your word on that. But so? It just seems like such an irrelevant point to make.
and we're blessed with being the greatest country possible
By what metric? Name one metric that US is number one in other than defense spending.
you're wrong to say my conclusions are not based on facts
You cannot back up a single thing you say; all you offer are personal anecdotes. I guess your point would be that you're not informed enough to know the difference? That doesn't make you correct it makes you ignorant. And that's fine, not everyone can be informed, just don't pretend that you are.
I'm cracking up that you're now downvoting my comments after writing:
I enjoy mutually respectful debate, but I find most others prefer to fearfully call me a "fascist," downvote everything I've ever written, block me, and walk away feeling sanctimonious.
Feeling sanctimonious, yet?
Please continue dazzling me with you personal anecdotes from the butt-crack of America.
Ha, it's not fascist to click downvote. You wrote something I believed to be false, so I downvoted. If it really hurts your feelings I can take it back. I do enjoy mutually respectful debate. I don't think a downvote is all that disrespectful, and I also don't think we're having much of a debate. (What's the topic exactly?)
By what metric?
By a ton of metrics, but a few that come to mind off the top of my head:
We're predominantly Christian, and that's not an official religion like in some other countries, but actual self-reported religious affiliation.
People flock here from all over the world for our freedom, and always have since our inception.
Our Constitution was the first to establish that God-given rights are the basis for a free people's self-governance, and that constitution has been imitated worldwide, though never paralleled.
Our culture of self-defense makes us impossible to invade, because most people are armed and more than ready to take down attackers.
We invented almost every useful technology that has been invented since our inception, including this here internet and the electrical generators that power it.
This interaction is done. You're obviously not a fan of the US, and if you don't live here anyway then you have every right not to be. It's no skin off my back. I wish you all the best. See ya around.
Here's the thing: I'm tired and headed to sleep. This has been a long and meandering conversation full of disagreements, with no real point. It's a bit exhausting. You're asking me about a topic that has been written about extensively in multiple books and articles. You can look up "American Exceptionalism" if you really want researched facts with academic citations. I was just giving you my honest thoughts, as a rather sleepy individual. I'm sorry those thoughts weren't up to snuff for you.
My point was that America is not number one in anything. It doesn't mean it's a bad place to live it's just delusional to think it's the "greatest" by any measurable metric. Research "nationalism" if you need more information.
I know what nationalism is, thank you. I also know what American Exceptionalism is, and it's a well established doctrine, well rooted in fact. I might have failed to explain it well, or maybe you just didn't want to question your preconceived beliefs. Either way, American Exceptionalism is the real deal, and no amount of bickering over it could change my mind. Thank you, though, for sharing your perspective with me.
It's a confluence of many factors, some of which I already listed, and instead of accepting and seeking knowledge, you rejected my explanation. I'm done replying to you here. Take care.
Your position is that America is "the greatest country possible" so the political spectrum used by the rest of the developed world is not relevant to us. We went through this exercise to illustrate that America actually doesn't lead the world in anything except defense spending and mass shootings.
So to bring it back full-circle, before you sent us down a tangent about your nationalism-
The largest news organization in America, Fox News, is far-right. What you consider "far-left" is considered centrist to right-leaning in the rest of the developed world. America is not "so great" that we can't consider these classifications because America doesn't actually lead the world in anything other than death.
lol. "He does not represent the voice of conservative Americans. I mean, conservative Americans love him and want to vote for him and boo anybody who wants to run against him, especailly in Republican-party-controlled spaces, but that's all liberals' fault, no true conservative likes Trump."
I've never heard anybody argue that fascism means "literally the Italian fascist party" before. Based on your previous comment, it seems that you're unaware—many people consider the Nazis fascists, as well. Particularly, everybody who knows the first thing about fascism.
"lol, I hate the main conservative group in the US because they're not the right kind of Scotsman conservative. Instead, I love the guy who been pushing the most extreme book-banning policy in the US."
did you forget that this was a conversation about fascism when you brought DeSantis up, or do you not know who he is?
(rightly or wrongly)
lol no
But at the same time, I recognize that for someone who truly did believe there was election fraud
who do you think tricked them into believing that? or do you think it was all one massive coincidence?
You just seem so smart and intelligent regarding how a marginalized group should defend itself against attacks on its existence, I was just wondering if—and I know this is ludicrous to even conceive—you turned out to be full of shit, would you bear the consequences of being wrong about how trans people should deal with people who want to murder them or will you be fine regardless?
It's not at all ludicrous to conceive that I may be wrong on any topic. I enjoy learning something new when I'm disproven. It's not easy to convince me (or anyone else for that matter) that I'm wrong, but I'm generally open to the possibility.
For every Daryl Davis who can successfully talk down 100 Klansmen, you'll find 100 Black people begging for their lives trying to reason with the Klan in their last moments. For every thought of "I can fix them!" that you may have, you have to weigh that against how many more people you'll need to fix if you platform their ideas and treat them as something worth "respectfully debating".
Convincing people to leave hate groups is a great thing to do, but if respectful debate were effective on the large scale, and we have no shortage of people respectfully arguing that hate is a bad thing, why is the far right a bigger threat now than it was ten years ago? Do not tolerate the intolerant, do not debate the undebatable, do not respect the unrespectable.
If I'm "radically far left", where would you place tankies and the likes then? Seriously, get your head checked and open your eyes as to what is happening in your idiotic country. If you don't like my harsh tone, then simply start to do better, be better, be a decent human being. Until then I'm not going to touch you with velvet gloves because your behavior and decisions over there have a crucial impact on the rest of the world. Until then you can continue to suck my pucker, because that somehow would still make your shit spewing mouth somehow cleaner. o7
Globally the Overton window has shifted drastically right these past few decades.
Not too long ago leftists were holding ceos hostage and fighting armed conflicts, it’s so watered down people think someone like Bernie Sanders is a radical communist when he’s basically centrist.
The far-right is growing because people like him are allowed platforms to groom people for extremism. And whenever that platform is at risk, they start trying to guilt people by bleating about “censorship” and “free speech” and “echo chambers”.
Just ban him. He will never contribute anything of value. We’re already aware what the opinions of assholes are, we don’t need reminding.
It's absolutely true. Look at the DNC policy from 20+ years ago, and you'd think it looks like RNC policy of today. Moving leftward is part and parcel of the notion of "Progressive" politics — moving progressively leftward.
You're confusing that "Voltaire" quote (which wasn't actually said by him) with the American First Amendment.
The American First Amendment is predicated on America's cultural basis in the principle of free speech, which is embodied by the quote. The American First Amendment indeed applies only to government, restricting its overreach. But the principle of free speech is one of the core principles of American culture. It goes far deeper than the First Amendment.
If you don't want to debate with them then don't subscribe to their magazine, and leave them alone.
I find it interesting that, at the heart of our differences, is a disagreement over the nature of the internet itself — whether it's public or private, more like a town square or more like our own living rooms. If you go back to the '90s, when the Web was nascent, I think technologists would have been surprised to learn that the issue is still so unsettled in 2023. I suppose it's a tough issue to settle. Ultimately, neither of our traditional notions of "public" and "private" fit it well.
We agree that people who want us dead should not be invited into our living rooms. My position is that by surfing kbin we are putting ourselves in the middle of a town square, and opening ourselves up to any and all perspectives, disagreeable as they may be. As an American, my sentiment is "bring it on."
Ugh, and 10A somehow also hasn't been banned yet (and a quick check to his profile shows that he isn't just still making bad-faith arguments about "free speech" but is also still spreading xenophobia, fake news about the last election, and so on).
I'm out. Anyone know of a kbin (not lemmy) instance with reasonably good moderation?
There are not a lot of Kbin instances yet, so it's hard to say at a glance whether an instance has actually good moderation or if it just doesn't have enough users to cause trouble to begin with.
Edit: I found a more expansive list of instances and fedi196.gay seems like a good one
Indeed. It's easy enough to back up your posts/threads/comments with "save page as" on each page of your profile, but you can't automatically transfer your followers, following, subscriptions, or moderated in a migration. You'd have to ask to be re-added as a moderator, have to contact your followers individually, have to add your subscriptions and following one by one to your new account... Has anybody made any sort of third-party tool to make migration easier?
And my comment. In a private window I can see that he replied to my comment as well, despite the fact that I blocked him, so blocks are still not working properly apparently.
You can advocate for free speech while downvoting the content of the speech. That's the whole principle of free speech. It's not just for the content we upvote; it's specifically for the content we downvote.
You're talking about old-school reddiquette, which even reddit itself forgot eons ago: upvote well thought-out comments even if you disagree with them. And I actually do that to a degree, even if I dislike the author's point. But if I think the comment is wrong in some way then I downvote it. That's not to say I want the author silenced, just that the down button is there to be used sometimes.
No you don’t. If you did you wouldn’t support giving terfs and fascists a platform. They use those platforms to erode and destroy free speech systematically.
The entire point of free speech is to support those with whom we disagree. It means absolutely nothing if you only support the speech of those with whom you agree. You need to be willing to say "Those ideas disgust me, yet I will gladly sacrifice my life in battle to defend the right of anyone to speak them." That's free speech.
Freedom of speech means the government can’t suppress your speech. We have this in place to protect everyone from anyone who wants to use government to suppress speech.
The speech you are “supporting” amounts to “Those minorities disgust me, I don’t think they should exist/have rights”. Some TERFers are going to support removing the freedom of speech from Transpeople. You’ll have trouble finding one who will state it directly, I imagine, but transphobes everywhere are working diligently to marginalize trans people, or even incite violence against them.
No private citizen (read: people who host kbin/lemmy servers) is obligated to host/platform/listen to anything. I certainly wouldn’t host TERF opinions if it was my server. I wouldn’t allow it at my dinner table. We must be intolerant of the intolerant to protect those whom the intolerant seek to attack.
It doesn’t mean I think the government should start suppressing TERF views, that’s not their place. This is what freedom of speech means.
No, like several others in this thread you are conflating the principle of the freedom of speech with the US First Amendment. They are not the same thing. The First Amendment was predicated on the principle of the freedom of speech. The principle of the freedom of speech is foundational to western civilization, and is applicable to kbin. The US First Amendment is inapplicable here, as it only applies to the government.
When you support free speech, the specific nature of the speech doesn't matter. I'm no TERF, or even close, but I'd gladly fight and die to protect their right to say whatever they believe, no matter how repulsive it may be.
No private citizen is obligated to support freedom of speech — legally that's correct. But for those of us who live in the West, we must fight to uphold western civilization lest it crumble around us. It's a moral duty, not a legal obligation. And once freedom of speech is abolished, goodbye kbin, and goodbye to all of our ability to express any of our thoughts in any context.
And once freedom of speech is abolished, goodbye kbin
Then wish it goodbye then, because even under it’s current operation this does not exist. Doing things like posting specific threats (threatening shootings, bombings), doxxing users, illegal porn, and other various behavior is still speech, we just all agree it’s harmful.
I am going to descend into hyperbole for a minute, apologies. I think it’s necessary because in my opinion you are already being hyperbolic. If Kbin.social chooses to ban this magazine, will you personally go fight kbin.social to unban it? Will you show up to this admin’s house with the intent to persuade them? You said you’d fight and die, gladly, for what you see as free speech, so would it apply here? I don’t think you would. This is why I am confused about whether you’re speaking about the first amendment or not. When we start talking this way I can only assume you are speaking about fighting against a fascist government, because I don’t think you mean to literally go threaten someone.
I support the idea that anyone should be able to say mostly whatever they want as long as they’re not advocating harm for other groups of people. I also support instances moderating things they don’t want to see on their platform. If a platform is too restrictive, I’ll leave, sure. I will point out you’re working awful hard to fight for a group a lot of other people think are deeply harmful to marginalized groups.
Yikes, thank you for calling out me out on this. I definitely did not mean to threaten anyone. I see how it could have been interpreted that way though, so thank you! What I meant is that if this dispute is eventually to devolve into a literal war, I will go to battle to fight in favor of free speech. So it's not quite right to say I was hyperbolic, but at the same time I was certainly not threatening anyone.
Based on your last paragraph, it honestly sounds like you and I mostly agree on this topic. And yes, if kbin started shutting down objectionable magazines, I'd close my account.
As your final point, thank you, I take that as a complement, though I'm no TERF, by any means, and I understand you didn't mean it as a complement. I really do support free speech that genuinely and completely.
I appreciate you being able to understand what I was trying to get at, even though it’s clear we disagree. I will restate that I don’t think forcing any private service to host content has anything to do with freedom of speech. This is doubly true for a service like Kbin, where anyone can host their own instance and host whatever they want.
Uh, no, that’s not the point of free speech. The point of free speech is that people can’t be arrested for saying something the government doesn’t like. That’s it. Free speech does not mean that anyone is entitled to a platform, and it never has. It doesn’t mean people have to tolerate shitty beliefs and treat them as equal to any other. It doesn’t mean that you can just say whatever you want wherever you want without being told to get the fuck out. People like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech is and what its purpose is, and as a result you roll out the red carpet for fascists and the like so they can walk all over you.
Like so many other people in this thread, you are conflating the principle of free speech with the US First Amendment. Do they not teach this stuff in Civics Class anymore? The First Amendment is predicated on free speech. Free speech is fundamental to western civilization. The first Amendment is only applicable to government, whereas the principle of free speech is applicable to everyone in western civilization. We must all uphold free speech for all people, lest western civilization collapses.
In a free society, we have the downvote button for content we personally dislike. You're free to criticize their beliefs, and you're free to try to change their minds. But as soon as you try to silence anyone, you become an enemy of free society. We must all work to uphold western civilization, while realizing that it most certainly will always provide a platform for people (including ourselves) to explore all manner of ideas freely.
That’s a nice flowery and poetic concept of free speech, but it wasn’t the reason the 1st amendment was made, that was made so that people running for office couldn’t silent their opposition and the people could voice their criticisms without fear of retaliation from the government.
But whatever, fine, I’ll humour you.
If you want to uphold your version of free speech, then don’t give people like fascists (and terfs, which are just fascists with a fake mustache on at this point) a platform. They will actively work to dismantle that free speech, and thus are antithetical to it. No amount of trying to counter their arguments with facts and logic or appealing to their emotions will do anything in a public forum, history has shown that only private intervention has any chance of success at deradicalizing people on an individual basis. If you let the movement gain more visibility and legitimacy by entertaining their views on your platform, then you are helping them destroy free speech, full-stop. They are the true enemies of free society, and if you actually care about it you have to protect it from bad faith actors taking advantage of and manipulating it to erode the rights of others.
In a free society nobody is obligated to give anyone a platform or to entertain insanity. I work to uphold all civilization, not just western, by telling nazis to fuck off. You wouldn’t let a guy flinging his own shit around to get up on stage, and that’s the equivalent of what nazis are, except they actively spread propaganda and recruit other shit flingers, which is a lot easier to do up on a stage where everyone can see them flinging shit, and their shit can reach a lot more people. If you let them in, eventually all that will be left is a bunch of people flinging their shit around, and everyone else will have either left to avoid getting hit, or will have already been covered in it and are now suffering because of that. And it will all be because you wanted to defend to the death that guy’s right to throw shit at people.
And then in the end your “free speech” is nothing but a feces covered nightmare, and the mob of poop tossers moves on to the next stage, their numbers greater than ever. Congratulations.
You are authoritarian and you don't even realize it. All of your details are irrelevant. Get off your high horse, and recognize that this is a marketplace of ideas, where all of our ideas are equally valid. Stop trying to silence people. It will end badly for all of us.
Like how hard would it be to say that the admin's behavior was unacceptable and it will be discussed internally. It seems clear to me (and most other posters there) that it was a one sided issue.
I'm not really sure where is good. It was nice to see some non-admins speaking up about it, but seeing the other admins circling the wagons when one of them is clearly in the wrong makes me weary of doing any more than lurking. 10A wouldn't last 5 minutes there, but you have to worry about being berated if you're not as far left as the admins even if you're respectful.
Your best bet for now would be a smaller instance with an active admin, though the overall problem will persist until the right features get added to the software.
This makes me wonder if adding some temporary restrictions to creating magazines here (based on account age or activity?) would be worth it to potentially help slow down ones like this being made (and to help slow down magazine squatting?).
I'm not expecting perfection, but there hasn't even been visible commitment to a strong moderation policy. ernst has as far as I can tell remained mostly silent on the matter, occasionally deflecting to "tools aren't ready yet", but also not really committing to what he wants to be done with the tools.
10A is a particularly prolific problematic user, and as a single user (unlike the flood of porn spam) it's a simple matter to ban him. It should not have been a hard decision to make by now.
Personally, a bit over a month ago, I defined banning 10A (as well as one other individual) as the canary that would let me consider recommending other people come here. I was willing to give it some time, but it hasn't happened yet. Whether this is an explicit policy of weak moderation, or simply an accidental one thanks to putting it at too low a priority, I don't know. But I don't particularly want to be on a site that I don't feel comfortable recommending other people use. So I'm taking my own (lack of) recommendation for now and going to take a long break from this site.
EH and grad at least were defederated at some point after I signed up, so that does seem to indicate that Ernest doesn't want those kinds of users/content on here.
I don't think your stance is wrong though, and you should do what you need to do. Kbin wasn't ready for the influx of redditors, and we're seeing the effects of that now. I'm still hopeful that things will get cleaned up eventually, but we'll see.
The term "TERF" stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Magazines or publications centered around TERF ideology may be considered controversial due to their stance on transgender issues, which could potentially lead to concerns about discrimination or inclusivity.
Whether such magazines are allowed on an insurance platform would likely depend on the policies and values of the insurance provider. Some insurance companies may have guidelines or restrictions regarding content that promotes discrimination or exclusion based on gender identity or other protected characteristics. For more information http://inglishe.com
The magazine name is Modern Misogyny and rule 1 is "No bigotry - misogyny...".
That is like dividing by zero.
Right now, it appears to exist only with one user posting to himself. It is not a big problem. However, if you don't clean these things up quickly, you end up with a Nazi bar. Voat started out very Libertarian, but by the time it closed, its front page was dominated by hard-core antisemitism, it literally became a Nazi hang-out. Tolerance of intolerance ends up allowing the intolerance to spread and become the majority. kbin.social can not end up like that.
Im a former right wing libertarian. The kind of libertarian that voat was. I left because I looked around the libertarian communities I was in and realized I was the only one there who wasn’t anti semitic. You say it started libertarian and became Nazi. Right wing libertarianism IS nazism. They took the good ideas of real libertarianism (left libertarian, anarchism) and layered on shitty capitalism and other fucked up beliefs such as antisemitism and racism. Voat didn’t become Nazi it was always Nazi. Founded because groups like fatpeoplehate and other fucked up subs got banned.
Apparently, almost everything (within the law) is allowed until it generates enough controversy to annoy the admin, in which case it is banned regardless of whether it violated the code of conduct or not.
Well, it violates the Kbin terms of service. Therefore it is being bright to the attention of admin.
"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."
I tried to report this magazine using the "contact" page a while back as it violates the kbin.social terms of service, but I guess as long as it's only one nutjob posting and all the posts are getting disliked, it isn't really a priority to remove.
I also definitely feel like it's best to take more decisive action against hateful magazines, but I'm just assuming that this is @ernest's logic: That people can block or clown on bigots until the bigots feel unwelcome, grow bored at the lack of an audience, and leave.
I've personally been thinking of migrating to Blåhaj Lemmy because of the inadequate moderation against hateful magazines on this instance, but I'm waiting to see how kbin.social's administration approach goes long-term. I think it would definitely be worthwhile for Ernest to invest in a bigger admin team and a more democratic approach to administration.
Add comment