Mastodon and free speech

This post is not only to try finding the best Mastodon instance/server but I also wanted to express about the Mastodon instances. Most of Mastodon servers are apparently harsh about other instances that include things they don’t like and are quite serious about getting those Internet points putting how the place isn’t welcome for “bigotry” and is for everyone and so diverse, and I wouldn’t have any problems with this if this wasn’t frequently used by people who will try to shut you if they disagree enough with you and will try to present themselves as so virtuous. You’d expect that the free side of the Internet would have people that value freedom and should let anything that isn’t a crime or something that prejudice the instance itself or whatever space they’re in but it seems this vision is getting far from the reality with time.

TheMage,

Geesh. Major downvotes here for you. That doesn’t bode well for any of us that care to be NOT hard left on like every issue. I’m hoping there is a little more balance here on Lemmy but perhaps not. The politics section is just more Trump, Trump but no mention of Biden or his sons shenanigans. There are more examples but we’ll see how it goes.

I know people like to chat with those who are like minded but I actually enjoy debating and discussing issues with people I might not agree with. It’s refreshing if carried on properly and agreeing with people on everything gets boring after a while, right ? :)

Emperor,
@Emperor@feddit.uk avatar

The beauty of the Fediverse is that anyone can set up an instance and, if a bunch of Nazis, for example, did that then it needn’t be an issue for as, in the normal run of things, I wouldn’t just stumble across it, I’d need to seek it out.

Where that Nazi instance would become an issue is if:

  • Their content is illegal in the country another instance is based in (for example Germany), as anyone subscribing to a community on the Nazi server from another instance is causing that content to be drawn over and displayed in another instance. It happened recently with issues arising from lolicon.
  • The Nazis decide to stir the hornets nest and start cross-posting objectionable content or just being unpleasant trolls. If an instance becomes known as a hotbed of trolls and bots it is likely to be cut off by the main instance.

Neither example is anyone scoring “Internet points”.

whiskeypickle,
@whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml avatar

Paradox of tolerance

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.

Milk_SDF_Possum,
@Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

Mind you, the second half of the text is wrong (like unironically and objectively, despite I agreeing with the second half, contradicts the first half.

whiskeypickle,
@whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml avatar

in what way? if it’s so wrong, it should be easy for you to prove, logically.

Milk_SDF_Possum,
@Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

First half is saying tolerance to the intolerant causes intolerance while the second half is saying intolerance to the intolerant causes intolerance. It is a writing error, I wasn’t talking about the idea itself despite I disagreeing with it.

whiskeypickle,
@whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml avatar

that’s not an error by the writer, that’s an error in your understanding of the text and the meaning of the word “paradox”.

Milk_SDF_Possum,
@Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

So he agrees with both statements? That makes him a paradox for agree with opposite ideas so.

whiskeypickle,
@whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml avatar

lol, no. of course not.

Milk_SDF_Possum,
@Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

I understand what the text tried to say and I disagree but I want to point out the writing itself is wrong and not the writer ideas. If you try to re-read the text you can notice the writing unintentionally implies different things despite being supposed to be the same.

whiskeypickle,
@whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml avatar

I understand what the text tried

[X} DOUBT

but I want to point out the writing itself is wrong

incorrect. you simply fail to comprehend it. how unfortunate.

If you try to re-read the text you can notice the writing unintentionally implies different things despite being supposed to be the same.

you’re seeing what you wish to.

Milk_SDF_Possum,
@Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

If you insist to trying tricking yourself that I was exposing an idea and not pointing out the errors in the text composition, why didn’t you just corrected the text and said you disagree to then go do your life things? I mean, it’s easier to forcing yourself to not see the obvious.

whiskeypickle,
@whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml avatar

i find it much less likely that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and that you simply fail to grasp the clear logic of something that you happen to disagree with and choose to lash out at me with insults rather than to admit you were wrong.

Milk_SDF_Possum,
@Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

Also the text you just written has an ambiguity error at the start.

whiskeypickle,
@whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml avatar

a failure to comprehend by you does not constitute an error on my part

Milk_SDF_Possum,
@Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

I said the text was written wrongfully but you refused to revise it and says I’m dumb cause I noticed an error on the text.

whiskeypickle,
@whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml avatar

just because you can’t comprehend what i’ve written doesn’t mean that i made an error. don’t blame me for your failures.

says I’m dumb cause I noticed an error on the text.

quote where i said that

Milk_SDF_Possum,
@Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

You could at least consider correcting your writing? It’s easy, it’s like correcting your redaction at school when you unintentionally change words.

whiskeypickle,
@whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml avatar

your failures are not my errors.

still waiting on that quote…

Milk_SDF_Possum,
@Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

Are you just gonna repeat that like a broken CD?

whiskeypickle,
@whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml avatar

you’re free to talk to someone else.

BrooklynMan,
@BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

re-read the title. do you not know the meaning of the word “paradox”?

ignorance on your part does not constitute an error on the part of the writer.

Milk_SDF_Possum,
@Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

The title is the paradox and not paradoxes. Also, agreeing with the two ideas makes him a paradox or a double standard guy.

BrooklynMan,
@BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

that’s not what is happening. it’s sad to witness such a spectacular failure to comprehend.

dr_catman,

No it doesn’t. There is no contradiction there. You’re talking nonsense.

Do you know how Goebbels infamously described the Weimar Republic’s attitude towards the Nazi Party?

Essentially, if you’re not familiar, Goebbels was quoted as saying something along the lines of “I have no idea why they allowed us to exist in their system and take power. It should have been obvious that as soon as we gained power, we’d use that power to dismantle the system and ban the traditional parties from politics. Anyone with half a brain would have realized that and banned us first.” Then he cackled like a witch.

Ok I made up the part about the cackle.

FeralDomestic,

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    Well, you’re the one trying to offend me cause I don’t like people who support censoring others.

    BrooklynMan,
    @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

    facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood.

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    What was that comment supposed to mean?

    BrooklynMan,
    @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

    it’s pretty straightforward… what part do you not understand? the part about facing consequences for your actions, or how that doesn’t make you a victim?

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    It is not straightforward. What actions are you talking about?

    BrooklynMan,
    @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

    What actions are you talking about?

    your actions. I’ve said this twice now.

    It is not straightforward

    your failure to comprehend a simple statement, even after it’s been deconstructed for you, isn’t my responsibility. if you require such hand-holding through a basic conversation, why did you post here? or is it that the basic concept of personal responsibility for your actions is completely alien to you?

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    Yes, I’m responsible for my actions and I should see the consequences if they’re equivalent to what I did. But what does it have to do with all this?

    Also, dropping “your actions have consequences” and refusing to explain further doesn’t explain much about what you wanted to say so I don’t understand how you expected me to understand a text without any meaning or connection to the discussion.

    BrooklynMan,
    @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

    Yes, I’m responsible for my actions

    you say this, but you add the qualifier:

    if they’re equivalent to what I did

    yet you seem to set yourself as the only arbiter of your actions in the spaces with rules defined by others. I ask what do you believe entitles you to this right - to act as you wish, disregarding the rules - and to face consequences as only you define them rather than defined by the owners of that space?

    Also, dropping “your actions have consequences” and refusing to explain further

    how have I refused anything when all i’ve done is ask questions which you have constantly refused to answer? I have broken down that statement several times, yet you now make false accusations that can easily be disproven by reviewing earlier comments.

    and, additionally, what makes you feel entitled that if you fail to comprehend these basic concepts as I have explained, I should continue to hand-hold you though this conversation? why is that my responsibility rather than yours to either keep up or to step aside when it has clearly surpassed you ability to comprehend?

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar
    1. Yes, consequences shouldn’t be bigger than the actions. At least that’s the way most countries’ laws work, or do you think I should be decapitated if I steal a Nokia?
    2. You can drop any questions but you can’t expect people to understand it right away, essentially when the question makes no sense and/or have no connection with the discussed topic.
    BrooklynMan,
    @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

    Yes, consequences shouldn’t be bigger than the actions. At least that’s the way most countries’ laws work

    that’s an opinion, not a fact. just because it’s yours doesn’t make it any more or less valid that anyone else’s

    do you think I should be decapitated if I steal a Nokia?

    what I think about that is irrelevant to the discussion for it is both a false equivalence and a straw man.

    You can drop any questions but you can’t expect people to understand it right away, essentially when the question makes no sense and/or have no connection with the discussed topic.

    I suspect most people here do, in fact, understand, regardless of your refusal to answer them— in fact, I suspect they understand that, too.

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    It’s not an opinion, that’s the system most countries’ laws use, where the criminal should pay an equivalent amount for the actions they made, be money, jail and even death in some cases but also other punishments that are not as frequently applied or known.

    BrooklynMan,
    @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

    it’s a fact that some countries have laws like that, but it’s your opinion that you should be treated that way everywhere you go and in every situation. and comparing the laws of some country and how some country treats a crime like theft to how a mastodon instance treats behavior of which it disapproves like bigotry is a false equivalence and a straw man.

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    If you will, I may state that is also the opinion of the majority of people. If you don’t expect or accept a country acting like a ass just because it can then why should you do the opposite for anything else? In fact very little things change from this specific comparison as it should remain this way. Both share basically the same characteristics except that one is virtual and a private place open to the public while there other is real and is public.

    BrooklynMan,
    @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

    If you will, I may state that is also the opinion of the majority of people.

    what statement is that, exactly? and what is your source that it is the opinion of the “majority of the people” what people?

    If you don’t expect or accept a country acting like a ass just because it can then why should you do the opposite for anything else?

    we are not discussing countries, nor are we discussing how they act towards each other. e are discussing mastodon instances and their internal rues of conduct. as I said before, this is both a false equivalence and straw man.

    Straw man

    A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man”

    False equivalence

    A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges.”

    moving on…

    In fact very little things change from this specific comparison as it should remain this way. Both share basically the same characteristics except that one is virtual and a private place open to the public while their other is real and is public.

    by ignoring the vast differences in context and scope to pick out what tiny similarities there may be, you are:

    Cherry picking

    Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.

    if you have to perform such mental gymnastics to make your point, you might just as well give up, as you’re convincing nobody.

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    So you don’t say anything of consistency just to say afterwards that someone is doing the specific thing because you think that makes you seem smarter than you are. But you would look smarter if you instead said anything with meaning and then said I was discussing something entirely different, instead of, you know, say basically absolutely nothing; it would still be dumb but you already chose the worst way so I don’t believe you would have problem choosing the second worst.

    BrooklynMan,
    @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

    the only thing consistent about you argument is that it is consistently flawed as I have consistently explained, and that you consistently blame me for your own consistent failures at rational discussion and comprehension— which I have also pointed out, consistently.

    MyEdgyAlt,

    In this case, your action is saying things that are very similar to the kinds of things fascists say when they to try to get a foot in the door. You may be simply unaware, but you should at least be made aware of what the actions were.

    I don’t think you’ll face banning or widespread defederation for respectfully sharing opinions that don’t boil down to “trans people shouldn’t exist” or “women exist to carry fetuses to term”.

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    In that case consequences should be equivalent in size to my actions which were to type words and the only reasonable consequence would be a discussion; unless I’m preceeding a crime, which would be a threat, which itself is a crime. Also, I didn’t even offend him in any way so I don’t see sense in him talking about consequences as if I said some absurdity about someone.

    FeralDomestic,

    deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    You’re a bully and just that. My girlfriend is literally trans and most of girls I liked were black.

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    And I wear girl clothes.

    Daeraxa,

    I find this a very odd take… You are free to say whatever you want, however people are also free to not listen to you. Why is the freedom to not listen seen as a “lesser” freedom than the freedom to say what you want?

    The main benefit of federation like Mastodon and Lemmy is that if you and like-minded people in your community don’t wish to listen to vitriol being spewed then you don’t have to. Don’t like it? Go and find an instance that does tolerate it and does want to listen.

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    The thing is that instances are not the individuals themselves but spaces for individuals. Sure the instances are driven by people but as they are publicly available and are tools for the communication of people and are susceptible to a different set of ethics; while you as an individual can just ignore people that think differently from you, restricting a tool/product from someone cause they think differently is and has to be seen as dumb and bad. I know the federated Internet is the best thing to freedom, otherwise I would’ve bought the Twitter premium thing and dyed my hair blue to bully people all day in there. However, the fact that people join the libre Internet, not only hate freedom for other people but also want to isolate people that believe the individual should be free from the major part of the FREE Internet just seems stupid to me.

    BrooklynMan,
    @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

    counterpoint: you’re FREE to simply start your own instance and run it how you like? who are you to demand (or even to criticize) others for running an instance according to their own ethics and standards simply because you disagree, especially when you are free to run one by your own? do they not have the same freedom to do so as do you?

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    If I should be restricted to not criticize the instance then why are you criticizing me? I’m a smaller unit than the instances so according to you I weren’t supposed to be able to be criticized.

    BrooklynMan,
    @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

    If I should be restricted to not criticize the instance then why are you criticizing me?

    how did I criticize you by asking you to explain your logic?

    I’m a smaller unit than the instances so according to you I weren’t supposed to be able to be criticized.

    in what way is that true if you have the same ability to create your instance with your own rules and standards?

    and you still haven’t answered my question: who are you to demand (or even to criticize) others for running an instance according to their own ethics and standards simply because you disagree, especially when you are free to run one by your own?

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    You talk like I can answer you before you’ve posted the text. Also, you saying I can’t criticize an instance for their decisions for whatever reason is still quite of criticizing (despite making no sense but okay).

    BrooklynMan,
    @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

    I’m not “talking like” anything, nor am I criticizing you— I simply asked you questions which you seem to be unable to or refusing to answer— and claiming to be incapable of comprehending.

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    You literally sent in the same message a question and said I’m refusing to answer your question, in the same message.

    BrooklynMan,
    @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

    you’re blaming me because I pointed out that you refused to answer a question and asked you again? seriously?

    by the way… who are you to demand (or even to criticize) others for running an instance according to their own ethics and standards simply because you disagree, especially when you are free to run one by your own?

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar
    1. You were not explaining a meaningless question so I couldn’t answer so you needed another guy to explain what he thought you were saying so I could answer your question that you still doesn’t wanna explain with your own words. Else you were trying to trick me into answering a question that couldn’t be efficiently answered, you lack the capacity of explaining further or you dropped your text before thinking out of a emotional explosion.
    2. Then who are you to criticize anyone? I don’t believe you’re god and every human has the same value so why should you be able to criticize others while others can’t criticize anything?
    BrooklynMan,
    @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

    You were not explaining a meaningless question so I couldn’t answer so you needed another guy to explain what he thought you were saying so I could answer your question that you still doesn’t wanna explain with your own words. Else you were trying to trick me into answering a question that couldn’t be efficiently answered, you lack the capacity of explaining further or you dropped your text before thinking out of a emotional explosion.

    I explained everything you asked me to. You intellectual failures are not my responsibility. You refusal to even acknowledge the questions I asked are nobody’s fault but your own. Accusing me of trickery? Just because you don’t comprehend the question? That’s just an excuse because you can’t answer a simple question of what gives you the right to hold others to standards you don’t feel you, yourself, should be held to. And when confronted with that, all you can do is make false accusation without evidence and hurl insults while blaming others for your shortcomings.

    Then who are you to criticize anyone? I don’t believe you’re god and every human has the same value so why should you be able to criticize others while others can’t criticize anything?

    I haven’t criticized you for anything— what I have done if laid to the facts as you have presented yourself: and the evidence is in your comments.

    Facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood.

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    Do you genuinely don’t know what is criticizing someone about or is it just you don’t want to admit you criticize people but don’t want to allow them to criticize your ideals?

    BrooklynMan,
    @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

    I just asked you questions and pointed out the facts. it’s not “criticism” simply because you find them inconvenient or because you don’t like them. also, I don’t recall expressing my ideals in this conversation: perhaps you could link to where I did that? or will you ignore that question, too?

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    That’s the point, you expressed nothing and tried to pull the “you’re wrong and here are the blank papers” card while you didn’t even show why you disagree. If you summarize anything with content you said in the discussion you end up with nothing. Also, stop editing the comment to always say that I’m not responding, that’s really annoying when I’m literally trying to respond to everything you say.

    BrooklynMan,
    @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml avatar

    ignoring/denying/failing to comprehend what I’ve said isn’t the same as "expressed nothing”, and, as I’ve previously remarked, I am not responsible for your failures to comprehend.

    also, I’m sure it’s very annoying to you that I keep pointing out how you’ve repeatedly failed to respond to several questions I’ve asked. why should I stop just because you find that fact inconvenient? facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood.

    Daeraxa,

    You knocked the nail on the head with the first sentence.

    The thing is that instances are not the individuals themselves but spaces for individuals

    With federation you can join like minded spaces, nobody is forcing anybody to join a particular instance. The whole thing is about freedom and choice yet you seem to want to limit that choice for people?

    Milk_SDF_Possum,
    @Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    It doesn’t limit the choice of people (it’s quite the opposite actually). It’s limiting people access and restricting people from the tool itself instead of letting the people themselves isolating naturally their groups without restraining others’ liberties. They can do anything as a private space but that doesn’t mean everything every decision is good and can’t be criticized. Also, I defend the right of those instances to be assholes even if I disagree with everything and if someone would try to FORCE a specific set of rules on any instance I would stand for their rights; bit again, that doesn’t make them free of doing bad things with their rights or from criticizing, and my criticism is that the Internet should be free as in freedom.

    Daeraxa,

    I also agree they have the right to be twats… On their own instance and with a way for others to not listen. I’m not really sure what the argument here actually is.

    • Group 1 are saying things that Group 2 don’t like
    • Group 2 create a community with similar ideals and openly announce they are not going to be listening to anything from Group 1
    • People from Group 2 join that instance because they know the people administering it will be monitoring and removing content they don’t like
    • Group 1 start crying about not being able to shout at Group 2 who are perfectly happy not having to see anything at all from Group 1.
    • Group 1 are perfectly free to do exactly the same thing. They can create their own community and federate with people who don’t mind what they are saying.

    The whole thing is entirely free and fair - you can say what you want and you can block out what you want. I’m not sure I understand what the criticism is other than wanting to shout at people who don’t want to hear it.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • mastodon@lemmy.ml
  • DreamBathrooms
  • magazineikmin
  • everett
  • InstantRegret
  • rosin
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • love
  • khanakhh
  • kavyap
  • tacticalgear
  • GTA5RPClips
  • thenastyranch
  • modclub
  • anitta
  • mdbf
  • tester
  • Durango
  • ethstaker
  • osvaldo12
  • cubers
  • ngwrru68w68
  • provamag3
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • cisconetworking
  • megavids
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines