Are TERF-centric magazines allowed on this insurance?
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?
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
The "far right" is growing because the left keeps moving left, and normal people realize they're now considered conservative.
If you want an echo chamber, go on and kick me out. You reap what you sow.
What insane version of reality are you living in?
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 the left keeps moving further left, and normal people realize they're now considered conservative.
I guess there really is no floor for how simple an idea can be when it's not beholden to reality. Thanks for the example.
I'm sorry I'm trying to give you rights and you feel attacked by that.
This talking point is a deliberate strategy of the far-right that has no basis in reality.
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.
Because it's always a boy, and always one with your opinions.
Your dumbass hillbilly country does not have a left. Your political spectrum ends pretty close to the center.
Should I be surprised that someone so radically far-left, so as to believe the US has no left, is someone who freely dishes out insults?
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
Bye son!
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.
Mate, it’s obvious they are the fascists online.
I'm a bit slow this morning.
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.
You were active in the biggest alt-right safe space echo chamber in all of reddit? Colour me surprised.
I was active in r/Conservative, and here I'm the primary contributer to m/Conservative.
This is already a point at which you should go home and rethink your life. Everything else you've said only digs the hole deeper.
Yes, everyone whose point of view differs from yours must obviously be inferior to you.
That's a hilarious turn; my statement was meant to be rhetorical. But you really have never argued with fascists!
And I never said YOU were fascist... but I guess that doesn't fit with your canned response then, huh?
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.
Ah, right- There are no fascists but if there are it's the leftists! Thanks for a good laugh today. Don't ever let facts get in your way, bud.
Hmm, let's break it down:
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.
Great theory, but lets take a look at reality.
that exalts nation and often race above the individual
Have you heard of MAGA?
and that stands for a centralized autocratic government
While Trump announced he "plans to eliminate executive branch constraints on his power if he is elected president in 2024"
headed by a dictatorial leader
See the last point..
and forcible suppression of opposition
Like Jan 6th.
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.
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?
I have mixed feelings about this
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.
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
Have you never heard "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me"? It's preschool 101. Speech is never an act of violence.
Additionally, nobody is debating anyone's right to exist.
Says the person who's never heard their own right to exist or the rights of their loved ones called into question publicly.
You don't have the right to "debate" other people's equal rights.
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 you just compare trans people living their lives without hurting anyone to murder?
Sure, and I could have chosen any other action, but I chose murder because it's not contentious to express a disapproval of it.
"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": 😯
They're not discussing quietly, everyone can hear them, and they want to be heard.
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.
Except it’s more like a group of patrons at a bar talking about killing a trans person, and than the next day one of them actually does it.
What kind of absurd hyperbole is that? Nobody has called for murder. And certainly nobody has committed a murder based on a call for it.
Speech has real life consequences.
"Known transgender killings increased 93% in that four-year period -- from 29 in 2017 to 56 in 2021"
https://abcnews.go.com/US/homicide-rate-trans-people-doubled-gun-killings-fueling/story?id=91348274
"Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime"
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/
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.
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.
The principle of free speech, in America, has nothing to do with forcing people to tolerate hateful rhetoric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States.
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.
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.
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.
If there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis.
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).
As you grow up, you'll stop caring what others think of you (hopefully you will — no everyone does
Good people care about what their friends and family think of them more than they care about grooming school shooters.
This is true.
Oh well at least you're openly admitting you're not a good person and are encouraging others to not be good people 🤣
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.
You're misrepresenting the principle of the quote. The principle behind the quote concerns government restrictions on speech. Pretending that an instance of Kbin's moderation policies are somehow comparable to government suppression of speech is silly.
Using your own example. the government (in the USA) cannot bar the KKK from speaking and sharing their views. However, the rule that applies to the government does not apply to me. I am not required to offer the KKK a platform on my lawn, in my living room, or on my website, nor should I be.
I am not inclined to waste valuable time debating with racist fuck sticks, nor do I feel obligated to offer them a soapbox. If you feel that need, perhaps you should open your own instance to welcome them. Just don't expect most of the people who prefer their social media without bigots and racists to stop by.
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'm not confusing anything. The principle of the quote was concerning those who would apply force to prevent speech, not those who chose not to offer assholes a soapbox. But go on.
Please do point to the text that suggests that opening your living room up to people who want you dead so they can tell you so is a "core principle."
Or I can exercise my privilege as a user of this site and ask that @ernest remove the rules-violating magazine from the site.
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."
The internet is public, go register a domain for hate speech, or "free speech" as some call it.
Websites are private property and do have moderation.This would be true iff signups were by invitation only.
How would the first ammendment apply to a Polish website?
It wouldn't. At all. But the principle of free speech certainly does.
Are you a transgender person?
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.
Maybe you could demonstrate just how darn reasonable you are when you're shown to be wrong by accepting that you're not wanted here and leaving.
No, political agitator, I'm not going anywhere. Welcome to the internet, where sometimes people disagree with you.
What a surprise.
