It’s the deciding which ones are worthless that gets dangerous
Not making a decision is in and of itself a decision. Saying ‘Nazis deserve a voice because everyone deserves a voice’ removes the voice of minorities because Nazis murder and oppress minorities. There is a decision that has to be made somewhere. Saying ‘everyone deserves a voice and Nazis deserve a platform!’ is limiting the voice of minorities.
You misunderstand me. Not everyone deserves to be given attention or a platform. The government just shouldn’t have the power to mete out punishment to individuals or institutions for their speech. Governments need to be as consistent as possible in keeping out of the business of censoring speech.
Sure. In authoritarian states, it’s common to outlaw “lies” about the government, where the government essentially gets to define what a lie is. The United States has its history with such laws in the Alien and Sedition Act in the late 18th century. In more modern times, you see things like Russia outlawing “lies” about the Russo-Ukraine War (including calling it a war). And by lies, I mean anything that does not match Russia’s “everything is fine” narrative. There’s also Poland banning discussion of Nazi collaboration by Poles in 2018.
I definitely separate that from things like deplatforming. Both people and companies should have freedom of association when it comes to political opinions. They should never be forced to support speech that they disagree with.
None of them. Lemmy instances defederating are the epitome of another freedom, freedom of association. People should be able to choose who and who not to associate with without interference from the government.
We actually had a whole war about this, it was pretty universally decided there’s one way of thinking that is not compatible with humanity. It’s like the only forbidden ideology.
We don’t have to debate it.
“Some human lives don’t have value” being essentially universally rejected does make it seem edgy and cool to monsters and people people who just need to find out those ideas exclude them from society. However, the way these people are handled is by telling them these ideas are bad and won’t be tolerated. One group doubles down, the other decides to learn why and moves on with their lives.
That’s the whole discussion, there isn’t debate.
What exchange of ideas do you want with Nazis?
“Do all humans have value?”
“Yes, eugenics, apartheid, genocide, and Holocaust are evil and can’t be tolerated”
“What about the well understood steps, lies and propaganda used to make those ideas seem acceptable.”
“We also recognize those and won’t debate them.”
“What about free speech?”
“The government will not stop you from exposing yourself as a Nazi, no one else has to tolerated it.”
We actually had a whole war about this, it was pretty universally decided there’s one way of thinking that is not compatible with humanity. It’s like the only forbidden ideology.
My problem is that “forbidden ideology” suffers from mission creep. First you’re going after Nazis, then it’s others ideologies. Communists or capitalists. Religions (think Islam in the US post-9/11). “Hate” that is just uncomfortable to a majority group. Simply outlawing Nazis is the easy way out. Also, defining “Nazis” or “fascists” has problems of who gets to decide. Some people are willing to apply that label willy nilly. Hell, I’ve been labeled as fascist on this server, even though any actual fascist would struggle to find common cause with me.
I’m 100% for making it difficult for Nazis, white nationalists, etc. to spread their hatred. But the moment you start clapping handcuffs on them for their (shitty) words, you’re setting a precedent that is in practice misused.
Yes, yes we should all be Elon Musk style “free speech” absolutists, and we shouldn’t be intolerant of intolerance, because that’s the real intolerance.
You used alot of words to literally support Nazis.
I’m sorry I don’t know what to tell you.
I said we have chosen one, just one forbidden ideology, because it literally calls for death camps, and your response is, “if we don’t support the death camp ideology, someone might not support the antideath camp ideology”.
I don’t know how to respond to that, but only because you had to misinterpret what I said, and the amount of mental gymnastics what you said took makes the flaws self evident in what you said.
Did you read the last sentence of my comment? Or any of my other comments? I’m okay with platforms censoring whatever speech they want. I just think citizens should be protected from government censorship.
Idk, gonna be a very hot take, but I like my beliefs challenged and believe that everyone deserves a voice
Nazis had a voice once, and folks listened to them. And we ended up with the Holocaust.
Might be controversial but I don’t believe that people who want to murder minorities deserve a voice. I feel like that’s a pretty reasonable bar to set lol.
Might be controversial but I don’t believe that people who want to murder minorities deserve a voice. I feel like that’s a pretty reasonable bar to set lol.
It’s not controversial at all. The only people making “controversy” out of it are the ones who are mad they can’t spew hate
Fascism isn’t an ideology that gets defeated in the marketplace of ideas. It’s core belief is enabling a small minority to violently destroy other lives. It’s not worth your consideration.
The problem is, this isn’t just a challenge to beliefs. This is the internet. The darkest most depraved shit that can exist… does. People forcing children to do things with animals… I’ll stop there…
The U.S. constitution supports free speech. Even it has limits. You can’t yell fire in a movie theater and not face the consequences of injuries your speech causes.
Tf is to sealion?? And I’d like to see the nazis you seem to be unable to not mention in a comment. What I’ve seen is that instances are defederating from exploding-heads. I’ve gone there, seen some edgier memes, some christianity oriented memes, some better memes(those three not being the same memes obv, the Biden ones are pretty unfunny). I’ve seen some honestly sensible policies - instead of banning people for using le bad words, they encourage people who are sensitive to such stuff to block and move on. You seem to call people fucking Nazis for using language that offends you, right?
Would you stop putting labels on people and provide the actual fucking examples that cause you to call people Nazis? Or have you simply taken someone’s word for it? You’re a nazi too btw, why? Because I said so, duh.
you like it when “other people should be treated as people as a bare minimum” is getting challenged? because that’s the belief that your average xeno-/homo-/transphobic asshole challenges. Many beliefs I have ought to be challenged on the regular, but not THAT one
The world came together in WWII and decided that Nazis didn’t deserve a place at the table. There’s a difference between “let’s decide whose economic policy is more useful now” and “hey I want everyone to have a nice life and these guys think a large chunk of the world doesn’t deserve to live at all.”
Idk, gonna be a very hot take, but I like my beliefs challenged and believe that everyone deserves a voice
Deserving a voice is in no way the same as deserving an audience.
I agree with this, but some beliefs are well… utterly stupid and not worth reconsidering. It’s a waste of time really.
It’s the deciding which ones are worthless that gets dangerous, particularly when “worthless” involves prison sentences.
Not making a decision is in and of itself a decision. Saying ‘Nazis deserve a voice because everyone deserves a voice’ removes the voice of minorities because Nazis murder and oppress minorities. There is a decision that has to be made somewhere. Saying ‘everyone deserves a voice and Nazis deserve a platform!’ is limiting the voice of minorities.
You misunderstand me. Not everyone deserves to be given attention or a platform. The government just shouldn’t have the power to mete out punishment to individuals or institutions for their speech. Governments need to be as consistent as possible in keeping out of the business of censoring speech.
Could you clarify?
Sure. In authoritarian states, it’s common to outlaw “lies” about the government, where the government essentially gets to define what a lie is. The United States has its history with such laws in the Alien and Sedition Act in the late 18th century. In more modern times, you see things like Russia outlawing “lies” about the Russo-Ukraine War (including calling it a war). And by lies, I mean anything that does not match Russia’s “everything is fine” narrative. There’s also Poland banning discussion of Nazi collaboration by Poles in 2018.
I definitely separate that from things like deplatforming. Both people and companies should have freedom of association when it comes to political opinions. They should never be forced to support speech that they disagree with.
Which Lemmy instance was it that suspended Habeas Corpus?
None of them. Lemmy instances defederating are the epitome of another freedom, freedom of association. People should be able to choose who and who not to associate with without interference from the government.
We actually had a whole war about this, it was pretty universally decided there’s one way of thinking that is not compatible with humanity. It’s like the only forbidden ideology.
We don’t have to debate it.
“Some human lives don’t have value” being essentially universally rejected does make it seem edgy and cool to monsters and people people who just need to find out those ideas exclude them from society. However, the way these people are handled is by telling them these ideas are bad and won’t be tolerated. One group doubles down, the other decides to learn why and moves on with their lives.
That’s the whole discussion, there isn’t debate.
What exchange of ideas do you want with Nazis?
“Do all humans have value?”
“Yes, eugenics, apartheid, genocide, and Holocaust are evil and can’t be tolerated”
“What about the well understood steps, lies and propaganda used to make those ideas seem acceptable.”
“We also recognize those and won’t debate them.”
“What about free speech?”
“The government will not stop you from exposing yourself as a Nazi, no one else has to tolerated it.”
“But both sides”
“GTFO”
My problem is that “forbidden ideology” suffers from mission creep. First you’re going after Nazis, then it’s others ideologies. Communists or capitalists. Religions (think Islam in the US post-9/11). “Hate” that is just uncomfortable to a majority group. Simply outlawing Nazis is the easy way out. Also, defining “Nazis” or “fascists” has problems of who gets to decide. Some people are willing to apply that label willy nilly. Hell, I’ve been labeled as fascist on this server, even though any actual fascist would struggle to find common cause with me.
I’m 100% for making it difficult for Nazis, white nationalists, etc. to spread their hatred. But the moment you start clapping handcuffs on them for their (shitty) words, you’re setting a precedent that is in practice misused.
Yes, yes we should all be Elon Musk style “free speech” absolutists, and we shouldn’t be intolerant of intolerance, because that’s the real intolerance.
You used alot of words to literally support Nazis.
I’m sorry I don’t know what to tell you.
I said we have chosen one, just one forbidden ideology, because it literally calls for death camps, and your response is, “if we don’t support the death camp ideology, someone might not support the antideath camp ideology”.
I don’t know how to respond to that, but only because you had to misinterpret what I said, and the amount of mental gymnastics what you said took makes the flaws self evident in what you said.
Did you read the last sentence of my comment? Or any of my other comments? I’m okay with platforms censoring whatever speech they want. I just think citizens should be protected from government censorship.
If you hate Nazis and support preventing government censorship you agree with me. But you sure did come along to argue.
Nazis had a voice once, and folks listened to them. And we ended up with the Holocaust.
Might be controversial but I don’t believe that people who want to murder minorities deserve a voice. I feel like that’s a pretty reasonable bar to set lol.
It’s not controversial at all. The only people making “controversy” out of it are the ones who are mad they can’t spew hate
Removed by mod
Sure, but did they actually say they want to murder minorities?? I’m yet to see that
Fascism isn’t an ideology that gets defeated in the marketplace of ideas. It’s core belief is enabling a small minority to violently destroy other lives. It’s not worth your consideration.
It’s actually a limp ice cold take that’s been debated to death
The problem is, this isn’t just a challenge to beliefs. This is the internet. The darkest most depraved shit that can exist… does. People forcing children to do things with animals… I’ll stop there…
The U.S. constitution supports free speech. Even it has limits. You can’t yell fire in a movie theater and not face the consequences of injuries your speech causes.
You in fact can yell fire in a theater without being arrested. It depends on the context (and weather or not there where injuries)
If the play calls for it and an actor says it. Or more simply if the theater is on fire.
With speech laws it matters more what the context is to the intended audience than what is specifically said.
Did I not mention being responsible for injuries? Your absolutely right, but you’re not correct…
Go test your theory out, I’ll be waiting for a reply.
I will next time I’m in a theater that is on fire.
This is actually a dumb response.
You knew the content and context, and answered a different question to look smart.
It made you look dumber.
@kityr @borlax on the fediverse we ban the “nazis deserve a voice” types
So you ban the “everyone deserves a voice” types? Because that’s what I said.
@kityr don’t try and sealion your way around making excuses for nazis
Tf is to sealion?? And I’d like to see the nazis you seem to be unable to not mention in a comment. What I’ve seen is that instances are defederating from exploding-heads. I’ve gone there, seen some edgier memes, some christianity oriented memes, some better memes(those three not being the same memes obv, the Biden ones are pretty unfunny). I’ve seen some honestly sensible policies - instead of banning people for using le bad words, they encourage people who are sensitive to such stuff to block and move on. You seem to call people fucking Nazis for using language that offends you, right?
@kityr I tell you not to sealion and then you fucking do it right before me like the dumbest sociopath who’s ever lived
You whine that everyone deserves a voice, “everyone” includes the fascists
This isn’t Twitter, this isn’t Reddit, shut your mouth and go tf back to Reddit
Would you stop putting labels on people and provide the actual fucking examples that cause you to call people Nazis? Or have you simply taken someone’s word for it? You’re a nazi too btw, why? Because I said so, duh.
You do know that words have a meaning, right? If you express the behaviour of a certain group you usually are part of it.
You see when someone moderates an instance, they don’t have to do what you say. 🤷
You see when someone moderates an instance, they don’t have to do what you say. 🤷
You can read about what tf is sealioning on wikipedia.
Do you think “racism, bigotry, sexism is allowed" is a sensible policy? If so, you are on the wrong instance.
What do you mean by edgier memes? Possibly Nazi content?
you like it when “other people should be treated as people as a bare minimum” is getting challenged? because that’s the belief that your average xeno-/homo-/transphobic asshole challenges. Many beliefs I have ought to be challenged on the regular, but not THAT one
The world came together in WWII and decided that Nazis didn’t deserve a place at the table. There’s a difference between “let’s decide whose economic policy is more useful now” and “hey I want everyone to have a nice life and these guys think a large chunk of the world doesn’t deserve to live at all.”