@ernest how do I report a Magazin on kbin.social ? There is a usere called “ps” who is posting to his own “antiwoke” Magazin on kbin.social. Please remove this and dont give them a chance to etablish them self on kbin.social. When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin? Seems like a problem. Screenshot of the “antiwoke” Magazin /sub on kbin.social. 4 Headlines are visible, 2 exampels: “Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society” “How to end wokeness” #Moderation #kbin #kbin.social 📎
edit: dont feed the troll, im shure ernest will delet them all when he sees this. report and move on.
Edit 2 : Ernest responded:
“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.”
❤
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.
Thank you Ernest, we appreciate you ☺️
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.
You are correct.
I’m bookmarking this page to return to later. Time to pull up some weeds!
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?
That’s the best bait you could come up with? Come on, you can do better.
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.
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.
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_toleranceThe Paradox of Tolerance is hot garbage:
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.
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.
It actually is one of the strengths of the decentralized nature of the Fediverse. But there are still growing pains associated with it.
Wow, more new servers! Looks like the growth has been really explosive. It wasn’t that long ago you migrated Kbin to Fastly right?
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 ?
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
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.
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 ;)
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?
Thank you for being thorough
Oh go start your own malignant instance.
Funny if joke
Otherwise, bad attitude 😕
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.
No, I didn’t realize that. Sorry.
Kindly go spread your nazi bullshit somewhere else, thanks buck.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.”
Thank you for doing the investigation so I don’t have to. He’ll be going on many peoples block lists at this point.
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”
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.
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.
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
Who are ya gonna believe, me; or your own eyes?
I think the people downvoting you know exactly how to engage hate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am downvoting you because nobody should get eye cancer from your bullshit
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think you mistyped truth social in your URL bar. This place will not welcome you, I think.
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.
The communist far-left calls all disagreement “hate speech”. It is not hateful to speak the truth.
Fuck off or grow up.
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.
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?
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.
You are longing for the times when “Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp”. Isn’t this hateful?
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.
You keep to coded language. Congratulations. Don’t think we can’t read it.
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.
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.
Even taking that paragraph out of context is misleading. The whole comment was about the purpose of freedom.
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.
Okay except no, I wasn’t doing that whatsoever.
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.
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.
This is not a conversation. Nothing of value will be lost by shutting it down.
“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.
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.
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
You present the false choice between hateful extremists and left wing extremists.
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
It’s kind of impressive that that already have -2000 rep
The more people who will get on the platform the easier it will be to shut the intolerant and bullshitters out.
I just took a peek at that user’s profile. Saw what magazines they moderate. Not surprised we have a different point of view.
Yes, but m/FoxNews is not what you probably think it is.
Ok you got me there.
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.
Aww, shucks, that’s the nicest thing anyone’s said to me all day!
I’ve got a pretty good idea of what the “A” in “10A” stands for.
10 assholes?
10xAdolf
Amendment, if you must know.
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.
Please look up the facts. Doctors don’t “cut off sex organs” or do ANY other physical changes to trans children.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article263759218.html
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/transgender-sex-offender-who-attacked-29765751
https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1651861965235539969?lang=en
There you go, now hit me with the priests of the past month.
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?
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/
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.
Sheesh, I know who that is already! I had them blocked ages ago. What a tool.
how did you even find it? Browsing by newest?
Yeah I was worried this could become a problem, because I imagine a lot of chuds are turned off of lemmy because of the tankie devs. Which makes sense. But I don’t think they should be welcome here, either. I’m trying to get away from that authoritarian shit, not get closer to the even worse kind of authoritarian shit.
Hold on, I dislike authoritarianism too. Isn’t it authoritarian to ban users and magazines for expressing views with which you disagree?
Isn’t it authoritarian to beat to death people expressing views with which you disagree with?
Something which you all but advocated in the thread in question? You just want a platform to advocate far more extreme methods than bans.
No, not whatsoever. Try reading my entire comment on the purpose of freedom, and not cherrypicking a few words that look damning out of context.
Also, I wrote “with which” so you didn’t need to add another “with” at the end.
Edit: This was a bad answer. See below.
You know, even if it was cherrypicked (which it was not, I stand by it, and you’re welcome to try to actually argue how that’s not what you said and not pretend I didn’t read it)
I just asked
Isn’t it authoritarian to beat to death people expressing views with which you disagree with?
You didn’t answer with “I never said that”
You answered with
No, not whatsoever.
As far as I’m concerned you’re just pretending to be a mature guy who wants people to debate, but in truth you just want to shame people away from the hate speech that’s being spewed where people are either not responding or are making arguments in bad faith in response. Basically letting the text get onto the page and hoping everyone gives up.
I’m sorry. I was replying to a lot of comments, and I totally misunderstood yours. I thought you copied and pasted what I wrote, and added the word “with”, because it ends with “with which you disagree with”. I only saw the grammatical error, not the complete change of question. Please forgive me.
Yes, of course it’s authoritarian to beat someone to death for expressing a different view! Goodness, how is that even a question.
I answered “No, not whatsoever” to your assertion that “You just want a platform to advocate far more extreme methods than bans.”
I do like to debate, but I also like to keep things on topic, so I’ve been kinda trying to avoid debates in this thread, while also standing up for the relevant aspects of my rather unpopular opinions.
I certainly don’t want to shame anyone for anything, and if I’ve inadvertently done that, I’m sorry.
We don’t want you here, bigot.
If it’s just about disagreement, sure. But it’s not, it’s about whether you accept the paradox of the tolerance of intolerance.
No. You can always fuck off to stormfront.
Is TruthSocial just not up your alley?
Trunff Censhall!
Why do you care? Is kbin.social not a free speech platform? If not, I’ll find somewhere else to go.
I don’t even agree with these folks, but if people are going to start raising a big stink because people are saying things they don’t like, I’m out.
Buh bye
I don’t even agree with these folks> if you sit at a table with 7 nazi that table contain 8 nazi
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it.
until it’s hate speech. then you shouldn’t have the right to say it. because that makes you a dick-head who has broken the social contract.
There’s free speech in good faith, and the one in the bad. But that’s not even about that. If someone’s speech is basically “all trans people are a pedophiles and belong on the cross in defence of good christian values” (not a direct quote, just a representation) it’s not free speech. It’s hate speech and that kind of speech is not protected. Free speech is meant to protect voicing opinions. Thinking some people are not deserving of worthy living is not an opinion.
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.
“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”.
- 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).
- 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.
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.
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.
transphobia literally = “outright hating who someone is as a person”. are you okay???
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.
Just as there is no “gay gene”, there is no “transgender gene”.
No “straight” gene either
That’s true, and it’s a good point. All of our behavior is rooted in our free will.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your logic means men (not trans women) should be able to compete in women’s sports.
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.
Nuanced opinions are worthy of discussion. That’s not what I’ve seen on the community in question.
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.
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.
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.
No, we’re not going to let shitheads like this ruin our community.
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.
Exactly this why is this so hard for these motherfuckers to understand
Disagreeing with someone having the right to exist is not an opinion.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
It’s not “behavior”, it’s who they are.
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.
I agree in principle but that’s not a great example
Look up the tolerance paradox and then suck my dick
When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin[e]?
When someone reported one of my posts (they thought it was spam) in my magazine I got a notification in my magazine panel, yes. No alert telling me there was a notification, but a notification.
Am unsure if admin likewise get a ping but almost certain they would be too busy to notice if they did.
I mean I don’t know or even care to censur on that level but thanks for the heads up so I can block. Im thinking it would be nice to have a recommened block magazine
It’s not censorship, it’s self-defence.
I’m tired of all this Left/Right fucking bullshit. Fuck you all. I don’t give a shit.
People on the Right: THIS is how you radicalise people against you.
People on the Left: You, too. This is how you radicalise people against you.AND NO “YEAH BUT ACKSHULLY” Foot stamping keyboard warrior escapades.
Fuck off back to fucking Lemmy or Reddit or Gab or Poal or wherever you fucking mouthbreathers circlejerk.
get fucked. politics shapes our lives, if you hate it so much don’t use the fucking internet.
As a non-american, I find americans to be very intense when it comes to politics. I just hope that we don’t start importing their culture war bullshit into our country.
Oh boy, an enlightened centrist!
If you cannot differentiate between people actively stepping up to a literal anti-human propaganda from people posting it, perhaps you should fuck off, too.
Oh boy, here we go with the enlightened centrists label. Disagree with somethings on the left and right and now you’re also a huge problem. Bravo
You are, because the guy we are talking about literally chose the appeasement rhetoric. And that’s pretty enlightement centrist-y.
Both sides are equally bad bullshit.
This you?
The frothing hysteria over “wokeness” (ie treating your fellow humans with respect) is just a smokescreen by the oil industry, which hopes it will take some pressure off it for, you know, slowly killing us all with global warming. You do know this, don’t you?
I went through a young Republican phase, too. Then I realized that the party had nothing to offer ordinary people but contempt and cynical manipulation. Like telling people that they can be good Christians by doing the exact opposite of what Christ did. Like pitting Americans against each other for their differences. Like convincing people that the former president, a monster by any objective standard, is this country’s savior when it’s clear that he’s just shaking the nation for loose change.
It’s called “wokeness” because we finally opened our eyes, saw what was happening all around us, and decided to do something about it. You can either recognize the evil in this world, or become another oblivious victim of it.
Every downvote is a sweet, sweet tear trickling down from the chubby cheek of an incel sociopath who was pre-emptively blocked. Delicious! Your agony sustains me!
This is a literal conspiracy theory.
It’s not really. There is millions visibly spent on lobbying efforts against climate change, and invisibly stockholders invested in energy are board members of media companies. For example Jack Cockwell has over a billion dollars in Brookfield hedge fund, and that fund has been increasing it’s holdings in energy for the last decade. There’s some BCE board member that has millions of dollars in Wajax stocks (industrial equipment manufacturer), about half his net worth.
If you talk about industries with influence on one another from the perspective of ownership, you’ll find it’s all very incestuous as the richest people will diversify.
Weirdly, the people involved in Fox News only seem to own stock in FOX, but cash contributions to those people aren’t shown in the market data I’m looking at. Maybe I’m not looking in the right places, but I’m not a finance person.And quite a creative one at that.
Those “antiwoke” people disgust me. I encourage disagreements. I don’t encourage thinly veiled hate disguised with code words. Tolerance isn’t “far left”.
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.
Tolerance of evil kind of is far left.
not really lol far lefties just want to use the bathroom without getting harassed or murdered
yeah “far left” in the US is just wanting basic human rights, something something overton window.
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…
Not to mention the insidious evil of clean drinking water and food that won’t poison you.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It belongs to the extremes, it is really worrying if you think that only in one of them.
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.
It’s a fucking circle, mate
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.
Yeah, I really hope that shit gets nipped in the bud.
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.
