Unlike previous attempts at trying reddit alternatives (like Voat), kbin and much of the lemmyverse doesn’t seem to be plagued with extreme far right buffoonery.
Unlike previous attempts at trying reddit alternatives (like Voat), kbin and much of the lemmyverse doesn’t seem to be plagued with extreme far right buffoonery.
It’s one thing to have differing views, but I’ve seen enough attempted reddit migrations to be relieved that the popular communities in the fediverse so far haven’t been about crazy racist stuff or other extreme right bullshit.
I am also glad that I’m getting away from reddit’s general political shitposting, which was more left leaning. You couldn’t have any proper discourse on there, and even I with my generally more left leaning views recognized that.
You're viewing a single thread.
Through constant vigilance, anyways. Every time you see some little fuck dogwhistling about FREE SPEECH or CENSORSHIP, you gotta make sure they aren't welcome in these parts.
I left reddit because of the censorship there and the freedom here. how does that make one a nazi wtf o_O
fascism doesnt play fair in the marketplace of ideas, if you invite a nazi to sit at your table you've made it a nazi table. free speech is necessary and important, but we still draw lines for things like defamation and hate speech. another line is not offering a platform to fascists, they arent entitled to a seat at the table to spread fud.
you're like "but i'm not a nazi" , great, let's keep it that way.
Importantly, "free speech" is about government, not privately owned spaces.
We believe the government should not be given the power to censor speech, because people are born into it without a choice. Governments could use this power nefariously, and their citizens would have no meaningful recourse.
Nobody is born into Reddit or kbin or Lemmy. If someone doesn't like the rules of a given instance, they are welcome to leave and free themselves of this burden.
how did this discussion devolve into Nazis? I'm afraid you're probably part of the problem.
extreme far right buffoonery
Like the title said, it basically started off with Nazism. No devolution of discussion required.
Reddit was filled with a special brand of retards always trying to police language always acting smug about taking about some weird moral high road it is exhausting to deal with. People irl dont have such tight asses about speech. And permabanning someone for having an opinion you dont agree with is an abuse of power (not like it matters much to people who are so zealous about policing public morality). Obviously dont be a shitter and start spouting off trump supporters special brand of koolaid but if you feel like trans women should not compete with biological women in professional womens sports then you are free to think that way.
Speaking of speech:
Using the word "retard" as a derogatory term is pretty offensive to those born with developmental defects. It's similar to how we used to use "gay" in a similar way a few decades ago. It's pretty shitty.
Yes, but the "censorship" and "freedoms" they talk about isn't about malicious censorship (I.e. Spez going around quietly editing dissenting comments) or freedom about how our content is used (I.e. Reddit refusing to let people delete their comments).
Their version is about spreading misinformation and hate speech of all kinds, alongside racist and facist ideologies unfiltered and unimpeded. They're malicious actors acting like victims.
We don't want any of that, we want all folks to feel welcome, which is why we have to shoot that down. To maintain a tolerant society, we must only be intolerant of the intolerant.
Karl popper babyyyy
Going to bring it up again, the Paradox of Tolerance disappears when you consider tolerance a social contract rather than a moral standard.
Nazis base their identity and politics around not tolerating the presence of various minorities, and therefore aren't entitled to tolerance themselves.
TERFs base their identity and politics areound not tolerating trans people, and therefore aren't entitled to tolerance themselves.
Furries don't base their identity on excluding, invalidating or persecuting someone else, so furries are entitled to tolerance.
So, the furry boards stay but we need to defederate Nazis and TERFs.
we want all folks to feel welcome
That's another thing they'll tell you, to add to your point. They'll say general society, or lefties, are unwelcoming hypocrits for expressing the need for inclusion while not including fascists.
They'll word the same opinions in a million ways until they find the way that gets you to allow them to continue blabbering intolerant bull crap.
I'm a big fan of free speech.
Nazis scare minorities into not being able to fully exercise their right to free speech.
So censoring the far right actually results in a net gain in free speech for society and communities as a whole.
What stuff of yours was censored?
That is the key question.
I was banned from a bunch of subs all at once because I said in one (I'm still not sure which one), that I don't think children should undergo gender or sex transition.
What a boring and unnecessary opinion to have. You're not their doctor, they arent your patients, what business is it of yours? and to go on about sharing that uneducated, untrained, unsolicited opinion online and then complaining about censorship when your medical advice is not well received.. I just can't wrap my head around the entitlement.
You're not their doctor, they arent your patients, what business is it of yours?
ok, so if you're not a doctor you can have no opinion on healthcare now? ridiculous statement. i think healthcare should be free. i don't work in healthcare or health insurance. so am i just supposed to shut the fuck up and know my place?
no, I have my opinion and I'm going to share it and @JasSmith has his opinion and he's going to share it. that's the whole point of having discussion boards. the last thing i want is this place to become an echo chamber
i think kids should be able to transition. but it's also not so simple a conversation when you're making permanent changes to teenage kids - https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/
kids are fickle creatures and fads catch on - all of a sudden we see a dramatic rise in kids wanting to transition - like 4400% increase in girls wanting to transition to boys. is it because we are now more accepting as a society or is it social contagion? probably both and it's a serious topic we need to address if we actually do want the best for the kids. we need to keep ideology out of healthcare and make sure each individual kid is taken care of with whatever is best for them - transitioning is not always the best option. but sometimes it is.
You're not their doctor, they arent your patients, what business is it of yours?
ok, so if you're not a doctor you can have no opinion on healthcare now?
No, the point is you aren't their doctor. (which is what was said)
Nor are you (or I) part of the conversation in any way. The conversation exists (and should exist) only between children, their parents, and their healthcare professionals.
It's ridiculous for a third party to go "I don't know this child, I don't know their parents, I don't know what their relationship is like, I don't know their personal history, I don't know what their doctor has said to them or what the parameters of that discussion have been, but I know whether that child should transition, go on puberty blockers, or wait."
Sure, of course you can have an opinion, but why on earth you would think it should impact any specific child's outcome, or that anyone really cares what it is? It's an intrinsically private and personal decision.
The problem is that there's a very big difference between wanting a blanket ban on transition preparation and wanting the actual people involved (the trans kid, the parents, and the doctors) to do a better job of evaluating the situation and working out the best path for each case.
While your opinion may be more reasonable you should be careful to not assume they share your opinion. A lot of people don't realize that the common choice for "transition" treatments for teens does not transition them, but rather delays/suppresses puberty in such a way that they can choose which way to go at a later time. Banning this treatment forces a choice and disallows a trans person's ability to fully transition once of age.
It's so funny to me this person don't ever seem to have the same concerns about the nose jobs, boob jobs, lip enhancements, etc that are also being done on teens AND CHILDREN. I hear nothing from you about the performance enhancing drugs for teenage boys, or the altering of the bodies of gymnasts who also start in their early childhood. In the case of the latter, they get stunted growth because the intensive amount of training affects hormones and delays puberty. Gee what other thing that you argue about sounds similar to that?
Maybe you didn't know about those things before. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But now I fully expect that you go to all of gymnastics forums where they're talking about young female gymnasts and male athletes,l and tell them that you don't think they should do those sports anymore. You're totally going to do that right? Right?
It's so funny to me this person don't ever seem to have the same concerns about the nose jobs, boob jobs, lip enhancements, etc that are also being done on teens AND CHILDREN. I hear nothing from you about the performance enhancing drugs for teenage boys, or the altering of the bodies of gymnasts who also start in their early childhood.
I mean, you don't know me, or you'd know that I also think those things are wrong. I also tell people that I think those things are wrong. Don't you?
Sure, I can go harass people on gymnastics forums if that's what you want. But in that case it's only fair that I start harassing people on trans forums as well. I wasn't doing either of those things before, but you said I have to so I guess it's time to go bully some trans people.
I have no problem with condemning the people who push children into intensive training for competition gymnastics. And no, I don't believe them either when they argue that "the child wanted this." The parents wanted a child who fits a certain mold and the child is just trying to make their parents happy, or atleast not angry depending on how externally abusive that parent is being.
Also I absolutely support the idea of banning under 18s from getting nose jobs, boob jobs, lip fillers, taking PEDs, etc. Heck throw in piercings and tattoos as well for all I care. No procedure and no parental permission exceptions.
I mean the top comment is a guy who was banned because of his opinion on gender/sex transition... And the person you answered to expressed their opinion on that topic. Why would they talk about nose jobs or whatever? If you want to discuss these topics why not ask them about it instead of assuming their political agenda? Not saying I agree with them, but that's not how debates work.
we aren't seeing a 4000% increase in kids becoming gymnasts
it's a poignant social topic. instead of attacking my credibility, aiming to represent me as biased, you should try to attack my argument
having said that, i support kids transitioning. i'm more upset about the "wrongthink" mentality where someone can't even share their opinion without getting pounced on. he isn't sharing hate speech he's just talking
Indeed, I've been finding myself hesitant to chime in on this because I know I'm inevitably going get lumped in with transphobe Nazi facists because at some point I'm going to say "hey hang on, there's some nuance here that you're missing."
Nuance is cryptonite for central authority.
we aren't seeing a 4000% increase in kids wanting to transition
Can you cite a source on that number
was in the article i linked
between 2009 and 2019, children being referred for transitioning treatment in the United Kingdom increased 1,000% among biological males and 4,400% among biological females.
i guess it's too much to expect people to read things
So "transition treatments" have gone up 4000% ... in the time period following the treatment becoming available. If being a gymnast was illegal until 2009, or nobody had invented a trampoline until then, you can certainly bet making it legal or possible to do floor routines would result in a 4000%+ increase in people who were openly and publically gymnasts.
Trans people, trans kids, have always existed - we just didn't have the technology to provide the treatment in that article.
That article is choosing to cite the numbers on the treatment rather than the condition because the treatment's very recent launch means it allows the presentation of a scarier number.
Ah yes the great source of the New York post. I don’t think you are being harmful on purpose but I do believe that by spreading shit like this you are harming trans people. There is no trans epidemic or social fad. That opinion is absolutely ridiculous. I have a close family member who is trans and the difficulty of even getting hormones is extreme. Multiple meetings with psychologists and endocrinologist, many exams and paperwork, not even mentioning the bureaucracy you have to deal with afterwards. And this is as an adult, transitioning as a minor is way way harder. No one just gets transitioned in an accident, and 99% don’t regret it. Now on the flip side 30-50% of trans kids want to commit suicide due to societal pressure and bullying. The only „cure“ for gender dysphoria is, shocking I know, transitioning. So when people say to protect trans kids, it’s literally protecting them from self harm or from getting attacked. Also, do you really think that more people identify as trans because it’s a „fad“ or maybe it’s because your can finally openly talk about it! It’s like saying that the rise of left handed people after them not being retrained in school anymore is a social fad. It’s a stupid opinion. Whenever you have more societal acceptance of something more people will feel safe coming out. I understand that some people are scared of their kids being transed by the woke liberal teachers but the same people also think that Obama turned the frogs gay.
Ah yes the great source of the New York post.
Are you questioning that Chloe exists? She's been speaking at length about her de-transition because the whole experience has destroyed her body permanently. You can read about her on her Wikipedia page. It's cool to question sources, but you didn't even take a sec on Google to check if your ad hominem attack was valid.
Here is another example. Sweden went all-in on "temporary" puberty blockers for gender affirming care until children started experiencing life-long injuries. They are now effectively banned for gender affirming care for children.
In one particularly shocking case, a girl who wanted to become a boy began taking hormone-blocking drugs at just 11-years-old. Almost five years after the treatment began, the puberty-pausing drugs induced osteoporosis and permanently damaged the teen’s vertebrae, severely limiting the teen’s mobility.
“When we asked him regularly how his back felt, he said: ‘I’m in pain all the time’,” she added.
Chloe's case is a tragedy, for sure. The issue I have is that people are calling for bans rather than enhanced oversight.
Healthcare, at its core, is a numbers game. No effective treatment we've ever discovered is completely without risk. Every surgery or treatment, no matter how innocuous, could lead to complications or death. To use a recent example, the Covid vaccinations. They're considered extremely safe, and over 13 billion vaccination doses have been given to date with over 5 billion people having been vaccinated. Given that Covid kills or permanently disables 2 in every 100 unvaccinated people, and vaccines lower that rate by at least 90%, that's nearly 100 million lives that have been safeguarded by the vaccine. However, the vaccine has certainly harmed some people with extremely rare side effects. We accept that tradeoff, because saving 100 million lives is worth the risk of harming a few thousand people.
Gender affirming care for children is the same thing. We know that trans children are at extremely elevated risks of self harm and suicide, and gender affirming care is proven to be effective in preventing those outcomes. We know that some will regret their decision to transition because those cases are inevitable in any population that transitions. The focus should be on reducing the cases of regret with better screening and more oversight.
So, to debate this seriously, you need to answer the following question:
How many regretful de-transitioners are you willing to risk in order to save the lives of successful transitioners?
If the answer is zero, then you're not willing to seriously debate the use of a medical treatment and your opinion is dogmatic and carries no semantic value.
If the answer is very few, then congratulations, you're on the same side as many allies who want more funding for care and screening for trans issues.
Chloe would have likely been helped by more psychiatric care and screening, as from her story it's clear that her sexual assault as a minor precipitated a complex regarding her sexuality that was misdiagnosed as a desire to transition.
Also, do you really think that more people identify as trans because it’s a „fad“ or maybe it’s because your can finally openly talk about it
i think it's both. i don't know at what ratio, but kids really do follow fads. one kid kills themselves at a school and it raises the chances for all of them to do so. ideas are contagious. a kid that may just be going through the regular teenage angst period searching for an identity might latch onto the trans label to explain their feelings when really it's just a normal teenage thing to go through identity issues
again, i'm not trying to say kids shouldn't transition. i view transitioning as healthcare so to block kids off from it is absurd. but i think we also need to be careful and talk about the elephant in the room - that the rate of trans kids increasing so dramatically points to some issues with the ways we are doing it. when something jumps up so dramatically we should be asking questions
It's like the prevalence of left-handedness shot up dramatically once it was socially acceptable. You can't look at changes alone and say that things changing is a concern because it's changing.
This is false equivalence if I've ever seen it. The treatment for left-handedness was to sit on your hand, not do a fucking life-altering permanent surgery.
See the problem here is that you forgot that opinions are only allowed to include concerns or nuances that are on the approved list.
Anything you might be concerned about that isn't on the approved list puts you straight into wrongthink, double plus ungood.
You have some points, but "not well recieved" would be downvotes. I think banning is censorship and can be a fair complaint.
With that said, maybe the sub had posted rules that were violated. It isn't like OP couldn't create their own sub if that was the situation.
Banning people from communication spaces though should be a concerning behavior. It goes both ways.
If your goal is to have a safe space for an oppressed minority group to express themselves, allowing transphobes to go about "just asking questions" and harassing people shuts down conversation of a group that actually has their freedom of expression threatened. Allowing harassment is more censorship than banning it. And no one should have the expectation of being able to just go into anyone's house and shit on their floor without consequence. And that might mean being banned from going to all of their friend's houses as well.
But you don't know what they said or what the community was. You are missing my general point. Please don't support general fascism behavior, whether it is from the right or left.
On top of that, this isn't somebody's house. That isn't a good analogy.
They repeated what they said, which is good enough reason to ban them from dozens of communities. People generally portray themselves in the least controversial light possible in these circumstances, so that's the best case scenario.
Many subreddits are the personal spaces of groups of people. Doesn't matter whether it's literally a physical house someone lives in or a metaphorical home for marginalized people. It's still their personal space. They're justified in excluding people even for trivial reasons such as liking the number 7. Blatant transphobia is an obvious reason to ban people from such spaces.
Blocking people from harassing marginalized people is not fascism. Excusing the persecution of marginalized people otoh...
They already said quite clearly that they're transphobic. The "I don't think children should undergo gender or sex transition" is almost verbatim an anti-trans talking point.
Here's some actual research on the subject of trans people, including trans youth, and suicide risk. With citations;
Bauer, et al., 2015: Transition vastly reduces risks of suicide attempts, and the farther along in transition someone is the lower that risk gets.
de Vries, et al, 2014: A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team with mental health professionals, physicians, and surgeons, including puberty suppression, followed by cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery, provides trans youth the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults. All showed significant improvement in their psychological health, and they had notably lower rates of internalizing psychopathology than previously reported among trans children living as their natal sex. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population.
Gorton, 2011 (Prepared for the San Francisco Department of Public Health): “In a cross-sectional study of 141 transgender patients, Kuiper and Cohen-Kittenis found that after medical intervention and treatments, suicide fell from 19 percent to zero percent in transgender men and from 24 percent to 6 percent in transgender women.)”
Murad, et al., 2010: "Significant decrease in suicidality post-treatment. The average reduction was from 30% pretreatment to 8% post treatment."
De Cuypere, et al., 2006: Rate of suicide attempts dropped dramatically from 29.3% to 5.1% after receiving medical and surgical treatment among Dutch patients treated from 1986-2001.
UK study: "Suicidal ideation and actual attempts reduced after transition, with 63% thinking about or attempting suicide more before they transitioned and only 3% thinking about or attempting suicide more post-transition.
Heylens, 2014: Found that the psychological state of transgender people "resembled those of a general population after hormone therapy was initiated."
Perez-Brumer, 2017: "These findings suggest that interventions that address depression and school-based victimization could decrease gender identity-based disparities in suicidal ideation."
Here's a study showing that children know what gender they prefer and don't change their minds on it.
Here's another meta study on trans youth who received gender-affirming care, and who saw a decrease in suicide risk.
Transitioning is One solution, and it is valid to be able to discuss other options. Your citations bring good discussion points, but shouldn't be used to ban people.
My point is about censorship and the race to the bottom thst it can and often brings.
If the scientific community overwhelmingly and independently comes to the same conclusion over and over again, insisting on being able to discuss other solutions, especially not in the context of academic exploration (because it IS important for the scientific process to check opposing hypothesis and to peer review) but in the Context of telling a baseless opinion easily disputed, then no.
That's like the people who insist on 'discussing other explanazions' for climate change.
And it is more than understandable that this insistence then is seen as the Opposite of good faith arguing and met with resistance. There is no point in giving a forum to harmful lies. That is not productive discourse
I don't know, I'm always in favor of banning transphobes. Their arguments are always based in hatred, not any verifiable science. I gave you the science.
Except that's a sidestep. The viewpoint you were defending was saying that this one specific option, that has substantial academic backing for positive outcomes for kids, should not happen or should be prohibited.
That's not "discuss other options" - that's discussing this option and arguing that society should take it away.
That you're now trying to argue that it's just discussion and it's reasonable debate and - forgive my bluntness - being openly dishonest about what the original speech was that you're defending with "free-speech" and anti-censorship talking points is like ... the example case for how this thread started. The nazis and the transphobes and the hateful bigots can always, easily, spin their own takes as righteous and reasonable debate - if you let them lead the dialogue and frame their discourse through the most-appealing lenses possible. And they can make valid-sounding and appealing arguments for why you, too, should defend them and their right to speak.
But inevitably they are also going to use any and all space you clear for them to be hateful and bigoted and call for harm to other people - that is their goal. Everything else is just a setup play.
I'm literally transsexual, have transsexual friends, and don't think children should undergo gender/sex transition. that isn't an "anti-trans talking point" it's common sense backed by medical literature and scientific studies.
I have opinions on when and how children should be allowed to access cigarettes, alcohol, and motorcycles. Are those opinions also boring, unnecessary, and entitled?
If that medical opinion wasn't backed up by doctors and the majority of the medical community, I'd imagine that opinion probably would be.
The medical opinion backed up by doctors and the majority of the medical community used to be that alcohol for minors was fine and that cigarettes were good for you.
The medical community is perfectly capable of being wrong and prescribing societal dogma over anything else.
You’re dismissing all of modern medicine there, which IMO is even worse. Knowledge might change, but until it does, we have to follow the current state of science. Otherwise we’re back to guesswork.
No, I'm dismissing the idea that the "medical consensus" is unquestionable truth.
If questioning the medical consensus was always wrong then we'd still believe that handwashing was a waste of time, and cigarettes would probably be lauded as a way to resist the miasma.
When the consensus changed to say that cigarettes and underage drinking are bad, that didn't overthrow the idea that handwashing is still good. And when the consensus changes to say that the modern approach to transitioning has caused more harm than help, that won't overthrow the idea that underage drinking and cigarettes are still bad.
I think the problem with your opinion is that it conveys that you believe children are being throw into surgery rooms and given sex transitions loosely and without thought to the consequences.
I think your real opinion is that you believe children shouldn't be given unnecessary surgeries. If that is true, the large majority of the population would agree with you.
In addition, have you explored what Doctors believe is a necessary sex transition for a child? What are those parameters? If you don't know, then I would consider your original stance to be of ignorance. Since you really never dive into the subject, most people will assume that you haven't explored those parameters and don't understand the reasoning behind them. That is why you're facing aggression with your opinion.
Lmao, yeah you deserved to have your trash take "censored". Gender affirming care saves lives, and has a less than 1% "regret rate". For reference, knee replacements have about a 15% rate. Shocking how trans-inclusive spaces don't want transphobes around.
I get why subs that consider themselves safe spaces for trans folk would ban you for that.
Transitions are Never done willy nilly. Several doctors and psychologists will be in contact with that person before. If they agree it is fine, as Healthcare professionals, then it must be that forcing the person to stay their birth gender will do more harm
You're entitled to your opinion, but the consensus among the medical and scientific communities is that you are wrong. They are the experts here, not you. At some point, blindly repeating falsehoods based on prejudice stops being an avenue for constructive debate and instead just wastes everybody's time and makes people angry for no reason.
You're advocating against life-saving treatments. Of course you're going to get shit on.
??? wat
"Far right buffoonery" starts with people batching about how they're being """censored""" for saying slurs or trying to have "honest conversations about race" or whatever.
Nip 'em in the bud and voila, no Nazis on your kbin.
Obligatory nazi bar story copypasta:
I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out."
And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them."
And i was like, ohok and he continues.
"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.
And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.
And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.
that bartender was a real one. bravo.
Fascinating tale! Wow so maybe the bartender didn’t hate anyone just a crotchety guy who’s nevertheless pretty decent at his core.
they're just asking (((questions))) ugh
Don't start that shit here. Lemmy is already turning in to a sinkhole of angry uneducated parrots shouting out "fascist" and "nazi" to everyone they disagree with. If you say anytime someone brings up censorship that they should be censored for nazism then YOU are the problem.
thats weird. i never get called a fascist, and nobody i know gets called fascists, and i've never had to worry about other people calling me a fascist when i disagree with them. huh...
I get called a fascist nazi all the time merely for agreeing with the 1st amendment of the USA which guarantees the right to free speech. If simply supporting the right to freely speak means you get called nazi/fascist, then I'd be wary of anyone who wasn't accused of such.
I was called a fascist on Reddit for saying that punching nazis is a victimless crime, because punching people, merely because they want to eradicate other people, is a well-known staple of fascism.
Yeah but if everyone slightly right of center gets labeled a nazi then you can just call anyone you don't like a nazi and you can do whatever you want to them. That's a problem.
It's fascinating how this very comment underlines my point. Label misuse does nothing but create barriers to productive dialogue. If I've been branded a fascist or a nazi (as I already have been), why should anyone lend an ear to what I have to say? It's a shortcut to dismiss others, rather than engaging in critical thinking. Today, I'm being dismissed as a nazi. Tomorrow, could it be you being dismissed as a tankie? This kind of groupthink destroys our ability to understand, empathize, and communicate effectively.
i'll drop the tone. i've looked at your other comments, have a general clue about what you're about. i'll just say this: there are specific patterns of behavior and ideas which are either attributed to or linked to the Nazi Party, or more generally to fascist ideologies, which have, throughout history, led to oppressive regimes. when people see these patterns or ideas expressed, there is a tendency on the left to reject these ideas because of that association, because they have proved to be potent tools for the spread of fascism, and encourage the dehumanization of minority groups.
transphobia, and specifically appeals to the pedophilic nature of queer people? this is unambiguously Nazi shit. trans people were the some of the very first people the nazi's actually threw into concentration camps in nazi germany. this process included the burning of medical literature describing the proper treatment of transgender people. it also included the denial of an explicit description of the gender spectrum, as observed by medical professionals of the time. so if you are dismissive of or make a political issue out of trans identity, call queer people groomers, any of that bullshit, even if you are "not a nazi", many of the information sources publishing anti-trans rhetoric today have explicit ties to real neo-nazi organizations, or are politically aligned with movements calling for the "eradication" of """transgenderism""".
to anybody with an education on the historical circumstances of Nazi Germany, this exact rhetoric and the modern political movement against trans people, is unambiguously mirrored by the actions of modern republican politicians, including legislating restrictions against cross-dressing (happened in nazi germany), restricting transgender medical care (happened in nazi germany), and revoking the ability for trans people to be recognized legally as trans (happened in nazi germany). people who are queer or trans both do not necessarily want to be confronted with this rhetoric wherever they go online, as it can be extremely distressing seeing people parroting literal nazi talking points in the modern era, and do not want that kind of rhetoric to spread, because it was nazi propaganda that lead to the execution of human beings.
while theoretically somebody might "misuse" this label, call somebody a transphobe or a nazi when they aren't explicitly talking about this stuff, you may be able to follow the logic from here. if transphobia, questioning the validity of transgender identity, calling for the restriction of transgender medical care, restricting access to books about queer people, if this has explicit links to nazi ideology and activity, what do you call people that want to open up a space for these people to spread their beliefs? what do you call people who accommodate or legitimize these beliefs which have led to the genocide of people groups? well, for a lot of people, if you accommodate the people who accommodate the fascists, that really isn't that different from letting the fascists run about.
maybe you don't think of yourself as somebody who does that. maybe you really do think of yourself as a moderate who wants productive discourse, and believes that if everybody just talked to each other, all these political divisions would be easier for us to solve. for the people who would be impacted by the threat of violence behind these beliefs, that isn't so easy. for the people who see the striking similarity between the modern transgender panic and the genocidal escalation of yesteryear, it isn't worth the risk to allow in the would be monsters, willing to execute the people who are not like them, even if that means that some reasonable people are caught in the crossfire. hopefully that gives you at least some insight into why productive dialogue isn't a very convincing argument on this side of the fence. you've called yourself a moderate in other posts. tell me, what is the moderate position between genocide and tolerance? between eradication and acceptance? if you're moderate about that shit? well, that just sounds like bigotry to me.
i would encourage you, if you aren't just a nazi concern troll, to look into the Institut fur Sexualwissenschaft, and the history behind the persecution of transgender and gay people in nazi germany, and try to conceive of why people believe that they are right in rejecting those who display sympathy towards the right wing of the United States, especially in light of their modern retreading of old bigotry. i would love to give people the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they are truly just advocates for free speech, concerned about authoritarian censorship, all that jazz, but the content of what opinions people like you are defending the right to have are historically ruinous for minority groups, a harbinger of a horrifically violent regime which killed countless people, and burned the records of what had been learned about their humanity.
Dude... almost every comment you've made has been to insult someone or put them down or pick a fight with someone. Are you okay?
I don't believe I've insulted anyone but if you think I have could you point to an example? I'm expressing my opinion (which certainly appears unpopular) and if that is seen as insulting or fighty then I don't know what to tell you. I'm going to keep expressing my opinion.
I don't think I jive with the notion that kbin is somehow "above" hating Nazis.
How do we define 'nazi' and who is the authority that applies that label? If the word 'nazi' is carelessly applied to anyone exhibiting even slightly right-leaning tendencies, it diminishes its significance and undermines your credibility. This kind of naive approach and severe lack of nuance will lead to an intolerant echo chamber.
Fuck nazis, but also fuck anyone who dilutes the meaning by inappropriately labeling any viewpoint they don't like as nazism or fascism.
Carefully, on a case-by-case basis; and the community.
It's not nearly as complicated as it seems on the surface - and you're trying to make any definition of "nazi" as complicated as possible, because you're wanting to delegitimize any rejection of nazis or nazi speech.
Remember how you said you don't care if people like you, you just want to push your topics on other people?
it diminishes its significance and undermines your credibility.
No one cares if the Nazis think they're "credible" or not. Each and every one of them will tell you they're not a nazi and they 'hate' nazis - while defending themselves and their nazi buddies from critique by insisting the label for their ideology is, for example, "cheapened" if applied to anyone who is not a card-carrying, armband-wearing, farcical exaggeration of stereotypical Nazis in full Reich dress regalia.
They always send the clean cut, quiet, polite one in first. And that guy puts a foot in the door, argues that their pals aren't really nazis, and that everyone in the room are the real baddies for judging those other guys unfairly - and tries to pry the door wider so their Nazi buddies can come in. Sure enough, every time, you let enough nazis in the room and the room is a nazi space now - so the whole gang of them don't have to pretend at being polite non-nazis anymore. The polite veneer, the deep care for "debate", and "respect for all viewpoints"? Those are all just tools, trying to whitewash and re-legitimize an ideology whose end goal is harming other people.
Notice how I'm casually referring to you like you're one of them? That's not some wokist over-use of the term. You're standing here defending them, you're trying to shove a foot in the door for them, laying down apologia for their views and their right to share them - you've spent like a week around the Fediverse arguing against any actions that have served to limit Nazis access to polite and adult spaces within the Fediverse as a whole. I don't care what you believe about yourself, or your views, or your ideology.
If you're going to stand with Nazis, if you're going to stand for them, consistently and repeatedly - don't get all offended and playact at being victimized when people assume that you are a member of the group you chose to stand with.
I'm not aligning with nazis, but advocating against the misuse and overuse of the term (which is utterly rampant here). The problem with using such powerful labels casually is that it muddies the waters and blurs lines that should be clear but now aren't precisely because of the misuse of the term. It's this very misuse that is leading to misinterpretations, such as the one we're facing here, where I'm inaccurately labeled as standing with nazis. My stance is about nuanced understanding and precision in communication, not about sympathizing with hate ideologies. I am defending thoughtful dialogue, not nazis, and it's important not to conflate the two. Since everyone is so happy with misusing the term, what are we going to call ACTUAL nazis so that we can differentiate people you disagree with and ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS. The semantics you're playing with are a dangerous game, and do nothing but prove my point.
You're aligning yourself with nazis while engaging in sophistry to pretend that neither you nor they are nazis.
All these wild mental gymnastics to explain how it's not like that, or the farcical posturing of academic exactitude and "nuanced understanding" - those are the exact same shit as nazis sending in the quiet well-spoken guy to break the ice and get a foot in the door.
You're doing triple overtime to figure out ways to argue compassion for cryptofascists and nazi sympathizers, while going even further out of your way to avoid having the faintest shred of empathy for people who simply want nothing to do with any of that bullshit.
You can call them whatever you want. You don't get to demand that we call them what you want us to. You don't get to demand that we ignore your choice to align yourself with them, to defend them, and to try and make their views sound more palatable and more reasonable than their end goals.
Since everyone is so happy with misusing the term, what are we going to call ACTUAL nazis so that we can differentiate people you disagree with and ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS.
I completely understand that you absolutely refuse to get it and will continue to avoid getting it forevermore - but I'm going to say it for the rest of the room anyways.
Those guys are the "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS".
They just understand that pretending that they're not is the only way to get through the door of spaces dominated by the reasonable mainstream they'd like to sell their ideology to. They know that the reasonable mainstream wants nothing to do with "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" so the "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" dress up as the people you're currently defending and trying to make this conversation about. And anyone in that group that you're trying to defend the nazis by pointing towards, any single person among them who doesn't want to stand with nazis - changes where they stand so that they're not with the nazis anymore. You're staying still while trying to defend that decision.
The "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" don't dress up in SS Uniforms and 'heil' each other in the comments sections - they pretend to be reasonable mainstream people and in order to present their views and their talking points wrapped in rhetoric that masks its nazi roots. They want to win over the mainstream, they want to convince people they're "on to" something, they want to exploit our willingness to engage in discourse to sell their views and advance their ideology. They are not here to engage in debate - the debate is merely a vehicle towards seizing power and then acting out an ideology of violence and hatred.
I'm not 'playing semantics' - I'm not even engaging with yours.
We are not going to split hairs and massage academic definitions until "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" aren't actually nazis anymore. Either you're a useful idiot and not qualified to try and talk down on folks about the intricate semantics of "nazi" - or you're actually on their side.
You accusing them of being a Nazi was inevitable it seems. You don't even realize the irony.
There's a Lemmy instance perfect for you then: exploding-heads.
We are more than welcome to decide what behavior is and isn't appropriate in our own community. If you don't like it, then you don't have to be here. You aren't entitled to our friendship.
I don't want your friendship, I want a place free of authoritarian policies that don't limit actual human discourse. Echo chambers don't help society. You don't have to help society but you don't need to prevent others from doing it. Block your own instances, don't decide what others are allowed to see and think.
Discourse can't exist when one party believes the other party has no right to exist
Yes exactly. Both sides need to take a long look in the mirror and stop projecting their self hatred on the other side.
If me and you are having a discussion, but the topic is the fact that I want to kill you, how long will it take before you stop wanting to talk to me?
"But it's just words!"
Well, we know that's not true, so how long would it take before you stopped wanting to be around me?
Oh, also I promote pediphelia. Just as a little fun thing. Just the casual story of raping kids.
I get the appeal. I do. I 1000% do. I get it. But also fuck Nazis. I don't want to be around them. I'm gay, so they don't want to be around me. Fuck pedophiles. I don't want to be around them. So if a site is filled with Nazis and pedophiles, I'm gonna go to a different site. Now you have an echo chamber of Nazis and pedophiles. The thing you wanted to avoid. But you're stuck with only talking to Nazis and pedophiles.
Meanwhile the bubble without Nazis is a really large bubble encompassing everything except Nazis and pedophiles.
Which hardly looks like a bubble.
I'm not advocating for unchallenged platforms for nazis. What I'm concerned about is the dangerous broadening of the term 'nazi' to include any viewpoint differing from one's own. Neither you nor I hold all the answers. However, I'm not the one categorizing wide-ranging groups as 'nazis' to conveniently dismiss dissenting views, while complacently considering myself superior to all those being arbitrarily mislabeled as 'nazis'. It SERIOUSLY weakens your entire argument when you throw that word around so carelessly.
Well we don't use it for just anyone who has any different opinion. So the problem right there is solved. We do use it frequently. But that's when we see thing like homo/transphobia(Nazis hated queer people), antisemitism(another group Nazis hated), racism(also Nazis), and sexism(once again, Nazis). There seems to be a pretty fucking large overlap of what modern day Republicans preach and what the Nazis preached. Including as of lately "eradicating transgenderness" and "erasing communities." As well as the amount of terrorist attacks that ha e actively been encouraged.
So if you would prefer we could just call everyone bigot, since that includes them all and not everyone personally considers themselves a Nazi, but I hardly see the difference between a Nazi, the KKK, Proud Boys, 3%ers, etc, when they all preach the exact same stuff. At that point you're not arguing anything except semantics. It's like the whole "race realism" thing. It's racism, but more palatable to racists who think the name racist is mean, but not the mentality.
I guess another way to look at it is as people keep bringing up, but there's a German saying about this. If you have a table with 9 people and 1 Nazi, you have 10 Nazis.
This also doesn't change the actual argument being made, which is about a forum that is open. In which case, you do get Nazis. Like not even what we mean when we call Nazis as Nazis, but people who call themselves Nazis. We have seen that over and over and over. You get Nazis, and you get pedophiles. Then everyone else starts to leave and you are stuck with Nazis and pedophiles.
So once again, I get the mentality behind it. In a lot of ways I would love a site like that. But it's also a little different for those of us that are having people call for our deaths on a regular basis.
want a place free of authoritarian policies that don't limit actual human discourse.
You've already been given a suggestion for just that kind of instance. If you want to see that kind of content, there's a spot for that.
Or are you just upset that there are places who don't welcome those kinds of dumbfuck takes? Is it that you want to see the content for yourself, or that you want to make the content and force everyone to see it?
Either way, this instance isn't the place for you. Exploding heads is. Go there, be happy.
The issue I have with this overzealousness to censor is that the people who are most eager to censor others, are often the most bigoted, hateful, and misinformed. The suggestion of going to exploding-heads is just dishonest. They are undeniably right-wing. What I wish for is an open platform where left and right can speak freely to each other in polite discourse, not simply just be exposed to whatever dogshit takes some far right people post. going to exploding-heads would then limit my ability to see other positions.
Are you suggesting that I should have an account on each fediverse instance, just to get all of the content? If so, then what the actual fuck is the point of federation in the first place?
What I wish for is an open platform where left and right can speak freely to each other in polite discourse
Oh, I see. You're delusional. You honestly think I should be having "polite discourse" with people who either want me dead, or are ok with voting for people who want me dead.
Because, see, what's left? What makes a Republican want to claim to be a Republican other than the culture war bullshit? What do they stand for? They haven't stood for "fiscal responsibility" or "small government" since W was in office. The straight-up write things like "We stand against teaching critical thinking in schools" (see: Texas GOP party platform) into their guiding documents. And you think they're going to have a civil conversation? You think I owe them a civil conversation?
Every server we allow those people on freely will become exploding heads or 4 chan. Go look at r/politicalcompassmemes if you need an example. I don't know how many times we have to watch it happen before you get the picture, or maybe this is your first ever internet community experience. But you're wrong. Their bad-faith rhetoric, carefully-stated death threats, and direct personal attacks will drive everyone who isn't one of them away, leaving only Nazis. If the admins call them out and ban them for that stuff, they'll end up banning all of them and we'll be having this same conversation. If the admins allow their speech, but don't allow us to say "Fuck off, weeb, nobody likes you" without censure, then guess who gets to control the "discourse"? And if the admins don't ban anyone for it, we'll become Voat. Since only the slimiest members of humanity can tolerate that vibe for long, guess who ends up owning the server by default?
You wanna see that shit, you enjoy being called slurs and told to go kys, you are free to seek out the communities who will do that for you. But fuck all the way off with telling me I must put up with it, too.
Oh, I can block them? No I fucking can't. I blocked you days ago, and your shit still shows up in my notifications. So, again, fuck off. If I have to listen to whatever dumb shit spills out of your brain, against my will, then you get to listen to my toxicity.
Are you suggesting that I should have an account on each fediverse instance, just to get all of the content? If so, then what the actual fuck is the point of federation in the first place?
...you... honestly thought... the fediverse... was supposed to be a centralized content aggregator...?
What.... uh, so, what... what do you think the fediverse is?
Oh, I see. You're delusional. You honestly think I should be having "polite discourse" with people who either want me dead, or are ok with voting for people who want me dead.
have you.... talked with them? I try to speak with everyone and pretty much none of them actually want me dead. If you want to talk about voting criminals into power, look at the democrat party, who legit rigged the 2020 election to vote a known pedophile rapist and warmonger into power. a guy who literally pushed racist and homophobic policy. a guy who literally is fighting to repeal racial equality. a guy who literally openly said he'd deny me healthcare. should we then shut down conversation with every democrat voter? why are you so eager to shut down conversation? do you not realize that creates echochambers, which increases the extremism and polarization?
Because, see, what's left? What makes a Republican want to claim to be a Republican other than the culture war bullshit?
If you actually spoke to them and tried to understand where they're coming from, maybe you'd learn that :) instead you choose to shut down conversation, ban them, censor them, any chance you get. So of course you don't understand why they hold the views and say the things they do! you never listened to what they had to say!
Regardless of how offended you might feel or say you are, the reality is that there are actually decent points to be made by people in both major political parties; as well as the varying 3rd parties. Personally, I found my own view on things that matches neither cleanly, so where's that put me? should I just be on the side of censoring both democrats and republicans? or are you suggesting that anyone that holds any view other than your specific view should be censored and banned? is anything other than openly accepting and celebrating human sacrifice something that should be silenced, censored, and banned? serious question. is going against that "being hateful and intolerant"? where is your line? how about pedophilia? are people against pedophilia just "hateful bigots who are intolerant and mean for no real reason"? where is your line?
The reality is that there's a lot of, and growing, opposition to progressive ideology because it is causing harm to real people. Surely, if something is causing harm, we should try to stop that harm? IMO the proper thing to do is to try and base our views on science (not feelings), and to try and heal and help as many people as possible reach their potential, while also avoiding societal setups that would inevitably lead to problems. Is this an unreasonable stance?
They haven't stood for "fiscal responsibility" or "small government" since W was in office.
I think you'll find if you talk to a lot of registered republicans that they do actually hold those views, but that many of the establishment career politicians hold different views than the people voting for them. Ironically, people who are against sending obscene amount of money to ukraine are now called "bigots". so if they push for small gov and fiscal responsibility, they're a bigot. but if they don't, they're a hypocrite? aren't you being unfair?
You think I owe them a civil conversation?
I don't think you owe anyone anything. I think that you're in the wrong, and are an authoritarian tyrant and bigot yourself, if you try to shut down a conversation between two consenting people who are completely unrelated to you and aren't addressing you. If you don't wish to speak to someone, that's on you, feel free to ignore them or block them. But it says a lot about you if the second you run into a disagreement, or if you think someone's doing something wrong, instead of helping correct their behavior or ideas, you instead shut down the conversation and let them keep doing what they're doing. Do you have no feeling of obligation to help improve society? if not, I'd say that puts you as worse than them. While they may be misinformed or perhaps hateful due to their ignorance, you are openly admitting that you don't wish to improve society. I'd much prefer a misinformed and ignorant group who want to do the right thing, than someone who neglects the possibility of improving society.
Every server we allow those people on freely will become exploding heads or 4 chan.
I thought "reality has a liberal bias" and all that? Surely, if we allow people to discuss, to debate, to converse with each other, and to let everyone speak rather than a few, we should arrive at what is true, yeah? if you're saying people will become conservative after fair uncensored debate and discussion, then surely they are right? No one is asking for 4chan. there's a difference between fair, uncensored, civil polite discussion, and shitflinging slurs around. exploding-heads themselves have a ban on slurs.
Go look at r/politicalcompassmemes if you need an example.
One of the best subreddits for actual discussion between people of differing ideas? I'd prefer if more places where like that, personally. What issue do you have with them? They're a meme sub but the civility there is awe inspiring.
Their bad-faith rhetoric, carefully-stated death threats, and direct personal attacks will drive everyone who isn't one of them away, leaving only Nazis.
I can't say that's ever been my experience in right wing spaces. I've only ever had that experience in progressive spaces. Perhaps what you're experiencing isn't a problem with right wing people, but rather the hostility and polarization between two groups that are constantly at each other's throats because they refuse to hear each other out?
If the admins allow their speech, but don't allow us to say "Fuck off, weeb, nobody likes you" without censure, then guess who gets to control the "discourse"?
Why do you feel that their insults shouldn't be allowed, but yours should? Isn't that unfair? Either we prevent all insults and have civil discussion (my preference), or we allow all insults from both sides. Surely that's fair?
You wanna see that shit, you enjoy being called slurs and told to go kys, you are free to seek out the communities who will do that for you. But fuck all the way off with telling me I must put up with it, too.
The opposite is actually happening here. You are trying to push your content preferences onto everyone else. All I'm saying is: let the users decide. If you wanna block them, go ahead. Craft your own echochamber. But why should you being offended at civil discussion mean that no one else can discuss things?
Oh, I can block them? No I fucking can't. I blocked you days ago, and your shit still shows up in my notifications.
Fair enough. This seems to be a bug then. I agree that should be fixed. blocking should prevent you from seeing the blocked content.
...you... honestly thought... the fediverse... was supposed to be a centralized content aggregator...?
My understanding was that I'd sign up on a single site, and then have access to content from across the federated sites. Not: have to sign up an account on each individual site, and only see that one site's content. Isn't that latter way just a centralized platform? where is the "federated" part then?
What.... uh, so, what... what do you think the fediverse is?
Sign up on one site -> see content from all the sites. is this not the point of the fediverse? are you really saying the fediverse is: sign up on one site -> see only that site's content? because that just sounds like a regular centralized platform to me.
Do you prefer having a centralized authority dictating your exposure to content? What prevents you from personally blocking instances you disagree with and allowing others to make their own choices? Is it possible that the idea of critical thinking is discomforting and it's more convenient to be shielded from diverging opinions, rather than exercising personal discernment?
Fuck off to your sad shithole, nobody has any obligation to be nice to Nazis. To the contrary, every decent person should feel obligated to strongly tell them to fuck off. You don't have a space here, we don't want you here, you are not welcome.
I'm not talking about letting nazis be here, I'm talking about not calling everyone you don't like nazis.
I know what you pretend you mean, nobody is falling for that.
Do you prefer having a centralized authority dictating your exposure to content?
Like, you mean, a website? That's what you mean by "centralized authority", right? A website? With its Terms and Conditions, following the applicable copyright and IP laws, following the relevant laws of the jurisdiction it operates in? Yeah, I'm fine with that.
If you're not, go to Exploding Heads. They welcome you. They want you.
We don't.
I don't want exploding-heads. I would have blocked the instance myself if it hadn't been blocked already. My issue is I don't like having content blocked FOR me because I'm a functioning adult that can make my own decisions about what I see and think. You should be careful with how quick you are to cede control of what you're allowed to see to others. Might make you pretty susceptible to hate and give you a false sense of reality.
Blocking a person or instance still allows the bigotry to spread.
Who defines what counts as "bigotry"? I think the guys over at beehaw are extremely bigoted. does that mean that we should prevent everyone from speaking with them simply because I think they're bigots?
The problem here is what gets defined as bigotry and who gets to define it? I was called a nazi for expressing the same opinion I'm expressing here. Do you think that might be a bit much? How long until the bubble of acceptable thoughts and opinions shrinks so much YOU get defined as a nazi?
Your argument is known as the "slippery slope fallacy", @Kantiberl.
Edit: I'm guessing it's a bug, but I can't get this comment to reply to the right person.
The community itself is kindly asking you to fuck off with its comments and downvotes, no central authority needed
This is the approach I support. don't like certain content? block, downvote, move on. don't demand that everyone else be prevented from seeing it.
In my experience, the people ranting about "free speech" the loudest are the most flagrant violators of the "my right to move my arms ends at your nose" maxim.