I’m glad there is enough critical mass to move past those fucking hatemongers. “Pure free speech and anarchy!” If you say exactly what we want you to, also don’t accidentally offend us with normal fucking words
I was in an argument with some .ml tankie yesterday, and they had the gall to say that “free speech that doesn’t threaten the government is tolerated everywhere,” in response to a comment saying that the CCP censors speech. They didn’t like my assertion that that statement also applies to Nineteen Eighty-Four’s Ingsoc party. It’s technically true, that free speech that doesn’t threaten the government is tolerated in Oceania. It’s just that the government considers any dissent threatening.
My last straw was when I made a meme on their meme instance that had no Asians, anyone related to Asia, or racism in it. And they removed the post with 500+ up votes and a healthy discussion, because my title was “Rice.”
They literally told me rice, the word by itself, is racist. I just chose a random word for the title to fill the blank.
The comment above demonstrates that non-ml members perceive ml members as claiming anarchy among their values. If that impression exists, there must be a reason for it - which is that ml members do in fact claim to be anarchists.
Therefore, in the context of this thread, it is valid to point out the existence of self-styled anarchists claiming that other self-styled anarchists are “not real anarchists”. The existence of this thread demonstrates the truth of the statement, regardless of whether you personally like the conclusion or not.
The comment above demonstrates that non-ml members perceive ml members as claiming anarchy among their values. If that impression exists, there must be a reason for it - which is that ml members do in fact claim to be anarchists.
Please don’t try to make a logical argument when you can’t get this right. The comment above only demonstrates that at least one non-.ml user perceives .ml users as being self-proclaimed anarchists. There must be a reason for that, and that reason does not have to be that .ml users are self-proclaimed anarchists. It could be that this commenter is simply misinterpreting the views of .ml users.
You didn’t even get the fallacy right. Rockerface didn’t modify their statement at all. All they said was that the users of .ml instances aren’t anarchists. You never provided any examples of anarchist .ml users, and they never modified their initial claim to protect it from a falsifying example.
I can’t even say life’s a removed over there without being filtered because of misogyny which I guess? But that’s not my intent and I don’t think the majority read it with that connotation. What if I just want to quote a Nas classic?
It gets dumber: last I checked their word filter doesn’t pay any regard to a comment’s set language so even If I set my comment to French “removed” will be filtered on ml communities and to their users regardless of where I comment.
Je suis en removed
Becomes
Je suis en removed
Edit: actually, let’s see if this has been fixed, test French comment in reply to this:
Did you know that Norway, Sweden, and Denmark all have laws against hate speech, harassment, and discriminatory expressions targeting protected groups. For instance, Norwegian law prohibits public statements that threaten or insult someone, or promote hatred based on factors like ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. At the same time they consistently top indices like the Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom index. I’m not saying that your comment is threatening or anything, but it doesn’t seem very important to me to protect the right of someone to use a crude derogatory like “tankie” (a word with parallels to terms like “pinko” and “judeo Bolshevik”).
In reality, the pervasiveness of derogatories like that limit free speech. Of course, this goes the same for calling everyone one disagrees with a lib or fascist as well.
Thank you, that’s true but doesn’t catch the nuance of my argument. It doesn’t need to be hate speech to have a chilling effect on public debate. Name-calling instead of actual political discourse, for instance.
I’ve been called many things but liberal or fascist are seldom among them. I do observe comrades who use those terms very lightly and in uncomeradely fashion though.
I’m glad there is enough critical mass to move past those fucking hatemongers. “Pure free speech and anarchy!” If you say exactly what we want you to, also don’t accidentally offend us with normal fucking words
I was in an argument with some .ml tankie yesterday, and they had the gall to say that “free speech that doesn’t threaten the government is tolerated everywhere,” in response to a comment saying that the CCP censors speech. They didn’t like my assertion that that statement also applies to Nineteen Eighty-Four’s Ingsoc party. It’s technically true, that free speech that doesn’t threaten the government is tolerated in Oceania. It’s just that the government considers any dissent threatening.
My last straw was when I made a meme on their meme instance that had no Asians, anyone related to Asia, or racism in it. And they removed the post with 500+ up votes and a healthy discussion, because my title was “Rice.”
They literally told me rice, the word by itself, is racist. I just chose a random word for the title to fill the blank.
They’re not anarchists tho. Don’t associate anarchism with .ml bullshit
Of course, because there is no true anarchist.
What do the call a fallacy where you find an imaginary fallacy in someone else’s argument to sound smarter?
Is it a fallacy? I frequently run into self-styled anarchists who describe other self-styled anarchists as “not real anarchists”.
.ml people don’t even describe themselves as anarchists, from what I’ve seen. And those that do, often hide behind that label in bad faith
But they don’t even pretend to be anarchists, they’re Marxist-Leninists, hence the ml
If “they dont even pretend to be anarchists”, then why would the comment
be necessary in the first place?
If you look at the comment above that one, you might be able to figure it out
The comment above demonstrates that non-ml members perceive ml members as claiming anarchy among their values. If that impression exists, there must be a reason for it - which is that ml members do in fact claim to be anarchists.
Therefore, in the context of this thread, it is valid to point out the existence of self-styled anarchists claiming that other self-styled anarchists are “not real anarchists”. The existence of this thread demonstrates the truth of the statement, regardless of whether you personally like the conclusion or not.
Please don’t try to make a logical argument when you can’t get this right. The comment above only demonstrates that at least one non-.ml user perceives .ml users as being self-proclaimed anarchists. There must be a reason for that, and that reason does not have to be that .ml users are self-proclaimed anarchists. It could be that this commenter is simply misinterpreting the views of .ml users.
You didn’t even get the fallacy right. Rockerface didn’t modify their statement at all. All they said was that the users of .ml instances aren’t anarchists. You never provided any examples of anarchist .ml users, and they never modified their initial claim to protect it from a falsifying example.
“Free speech!”
Ok tankie.
“Not like that!”
Or more subtly:
I can’t even say life’s a removed over there without being filtered because of misogyny which I guess? But that’s not my intent and I don’t think the majority read it with that connotation. What if I just want to quote a Nas classic?
It gets dumber: last I checked their word filter doesn’t pay any regard to a comment’s set language so even If I set my comment to French “removed” will be filtered on ml communities and to their users regardless of where I comment.
Edit: actually, let’s see if this has been fixed, test French comment in reply to this:
Edit2: lmao
I’ve tried to talk about fire removedants there once… It gets cut too.
Je suis en removed
Did you know that Norway, Sweden, and Denmark all have laws against hate speech, harassment, and discriminatory expressions targeting protected groups. For instance, Norwegian law prohibits public statements that threaten or insult someone, or promote hatred based on factors like ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. At the same time they consistently top indices like the Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom index. I’m not saying that your comment is threatening or anything, but it doesn’t seem very important to me to protect the right of someone to use a crude derogatory like “tankie” (a word with parallels to terms like “pinko” and “judeo Bolshevik”).
In reality, the pervasiveness of derogatories like that limit free speech. Of course, this goes the same for calling everyone one disagrees with a lib or fascist as well.
Permitting hate speech limits free speech by making the space unsafe for marginalized voices.
What are you saying that causes people to call you a liberal or a fascist?
Thank you, that’s true but doesn’t catch the nuance of my argument. It doesn’t need to be hate speech to have a chilling effect on public debate. Name-calling instead of actual political discourse, for instance.
I’ve been called many things but liberal or fascist are seldom among them. I do observe comrades who use those terms very lightly and in uncomeradely fashion though.
What were the normal words that people found so offensive?