rules for thee, but not for me
rules for thee, but not for me
To be clear, not talking about this community, obviously 😛.
What's the point of writing down rules, if mods just do what they want? But I suppose that's the risk you take when you call someone a liar in a small community; they might be a mod.
Edit: I'm not trying to say that mods suck, they perform a useful and often thankless job. Just that it can be difficult for small communities to get a healthy number of good mods, which can become a problem.
You're viewing a single thread.
Being in favor of free speech means allowing the people you hate to talk and say what they want to say too.
Being against free speech is authoritarian.
Eh sometimes. Paradox of tolerance is a real danger.
But it's good to allow people a chance to grow.
The worst thing you can do is burn bridges with people you disagree with.
The best way to make a bigot not be a bigot anymore is for the people they hate to be friendly to them.
There's this one black musician that has gotten quite a few grand wizards of the KKK to leave the clan, just by having friendly conversations with them.
Doing that makes them realize that they're going through the same shit as the people they hate, which then makes them realize that the people they really should be directing their hate toward are billionaires.
Because we're all getting a lower wage that we should be, we're all paying a higher interest on debt than we should be, we're all paying higher rent than we should be. We're all paying more for our necessities than we should be. And the billionaires' unbridled narcissistic avarice is why we're all suffering.
That's why every media outlet always twists narratives to make people hate each other. If we're fighting each other, we won't focus on the real evil that's looming over all of us.
while I absolutely agree with you in a private setting, in a public setting I believe it does more harm than good to provide a platform for people to preach hate.
Censoring anyone will eventually mean censoring you too.
Being tolerant of the intolerant will eventually mean destroying the tolerant.
You're not being tolerant by letting people say mean things. You can say different mean things right back to them.
Free speech works both ways.
I disagree. Saying certain things are hate crimes, and shouldn't be allowed. Like burning crosses, etc.
Deciding where to draw the line is difficult and subjective, but that doesn't mean that it's best to have no line.
Saying certain things are hate crimes, and shouldn’t be allowed. Like burning crosses, etc.
If you're burning a cross in someone else's property, that's a crime vandalism, trespassing harassment.
Saying naughty words and only saying naughty words doesn't actually hurt anything besides people's feelings
Do you really want to live in a place where you can be arrested for saying something that offends people?
If that's the standard for what kind of speech we outlaw, then it's only a matter of time before religious lunatics start throwing people in the gulag for saying "god damnit". or "Jesus" as a stand-in for some kind of curse word.
If we lose free speech, you may agree with the one that's allowed to censor things, but what happens when free speech is gone and someone new, who you strongly disagree with is now allowed to censor things?
I'll say again. The same laws that allow bigots to say what they say are the same laws that allow us to make fun of them.
Free speech already isn't absolute. Free speech isn't about words, it's about expression of opinions. And it's illegal to express some opinions in some ways. For example you can't discriminate based on race when you hire employees.
We're already willing to draw a line, and the world hasn't gone to hell.
I actually live in Canada, where we have Hate Speech laws (like exist in many countries), where speech that is significantly harmful to marginalized communities is considered illegal. Despite what the Flu Trucks Clan ironically claim, they're not being censored.
The line isn't gonna slide one way out of control and nobody can stop it, the line is drawn where the people of the country largely think it should be. In some non-secular countries, the line is drawn very far and I think it's gross. In other countries like the USA I think the line hasn't been drawn far enough and people are put in needless harm.
Besides, were talking about Lemmy here, not laws for which you can be thrown in jail.
Free speech already isn’t absolute. Free speech isn’t about words, it’s about expression of opinions. And it’s illegal to express some opinions in some ways. For example you can’t discriminate based on race when you hire employees.
You're confusing words with other things that have nothing to do with words.
I actually live in Canada, where we have Hate Speech laws (like exist in many countries), where speech that is significantly harmful to marginalized communities is considered illegal. Despite what the Flu Trucks Clan ironically claim, they’re not being censored.
Words are words, violence is violence.
And I saw the videos that were taken from inside of the trucker's protest, they were completely peaceful. The truckers were protesting the dystopian surveillance that came along with those QR code apps. Did you know that those apps communicate your personal details wirelessly? Completely without your consent?
The sheer volume of databreaches that big-tech-owned services go through all the time and you feel comfortable letting those idiots handle all your identity information and to let them send it to anyone who's able to spoof the signal to download it?
You're probably thinking about the nazi flags that were seen at the trucker protests. And those people holding those flags were definitely NOT feds helping to peddle a narrative...right? It's not like the media would lie to get us to hate our neighbors without listening to what they have to say or anything.