So I get you are making a distributed reddit alternative. I read that most of you are left politically. You also view reddit as right politically. Which is interesting because I view reddit as left politically in fact extreme left but not as extreme as you are here. Given that reddit has purged many right people and those people have now attempted to also make reddit alternatives like ruqqus, saidit, .win, I get from their perspective they want more freedom which is to basically not have their speech deleted. Then on the left there seems an obsession to silence anyone or thing they don’t like, which I feel I am running that risk just typing this. So if lemmy feels reddit is not left enough as in the words of your comrade nutomic “reddit is far right”, to which i completely disagree but lets play with it, if reddit is not left enough I take it you mean it is not deleting and censoring enough? To which if lemmy is being created as a solution to that then I think the point of lemmy is to allow and enable even more censorship? I have to say if this is the point of lemmy that is both scary and stupid, scary that people think more censorship is in fact needed and stupid in that people would think more censorship is in fact needed, no well I just wanted to type that but stupid in that they need to make a new platform to enable more censorship, like wow.

  • AgreeableLandscape
    2·
    4 years ago

    If you think voting is the problem you a few levels not deep enough. Your vote doesn’t matter at all, you are not even given an option. The fact you think you have an option is how effective they are at this.

    I’m not American lol. I don’t live in a two-party system with an electoral college. Voting over here, while still has many problems, works far better.

    As a capitalist I think government should not fund education at all

    Yeah, profit driven companies funding the education of our next generation. What could possibly go wrong?

    verbal abuse is not great but you can learn to resist it

    I take it you’re the kind of person who unironically calls people “snowflakes”.

    Interesting problem you bring up like with homophobia, this is a persons response to the expression aka speech of someone overtly homosexual, by your reasoning it’s the homosexuals problem because it’s his speech that is caused the problem for the homophobe.

    Am I reading this right? Your logic is:

    1. Homosexuals come out and say they’re homosexual

    2. They’re mercilessly bullied and abused and shunned by homophobes

    3. They are broken by all the abuse

    4. But because they chose to say they’re homosexual in the first place, it’s all their fault.

    If that’s right, then just wow. Way to victim blame someone who’s already at potentially the most vulnerable time in their life.

    Or are you saying that it’s the homosexual’s fault that them being homosexual (something you’re genetically predisposed to and is not a lifestyle choice) “harmed” the homophobe because “hurr durr it’s a sin”? That’s even worse!

    you can have for example criminal arrangements where speech is like pulling the trigger on a gun. One person orders others to commit crimes etc.

    Exactly. If I know that my speech will cause physical harm to be done, I’m also responsible, because I could have chosen not to say it and avoided the harm.

    Again the speech itself is not causing the harm, but it’s the response to the speech, in those cases, like particularly slander stopping the speech seems the most effective means to prevent the problem.

    Here’s a thought experiment based on biology: Methanol is extremely toxic if ingested and can kill you. However, the methanol molecules by themselves does not cause much harm to the body, but when it’s broken down in the liver to formaldehyde and methanoic acid, it causes a massive amount of harm. Would you say that methanol itself is not harmful, it’s just the body’s response to it? In that case, we should obviously not discourage the drinking or methanol but tell our bodies not to be snowflakes and stop breaking it down into poison, right?

    Another example: a major reason why COVID-19 is such a serious disease is because it tricks the immune system into attacking the body. It evolved to do this and it’s clearly a survival strategy. Would you say in this case that COVID-19 is not the aggressor, but the immune system is? Actually, I think this is a great analogy because the immune system is designed to defend against or “censor” pathogens.

    Another apt analogy to your “argument”: “It’s not the bullet that kills you, it’s the trauma and blood loss of your own body, so it’s really your fault, not the gunman’s”

    Words truly only have the power you give them, by being offend and labeling things slurs etc you are literally creating the problem around the word. Again it’s not the speech but the response that is the problem.

    See my previous point.

    Not a fan of comedy I take it? Well it can be really good and uses a lot of language.

    The best comedy is fun for everyone. That necessarily means not using language that insults a specific group.

    And swearing and slurs are two different things. Colorful language is not necessarily harmful, but slurs always are.

    What if I just start being offended by more and more words you use? I could easily throw this back at you and say if you can’t get past words that could be considered offensive in a debate your mind probably sucks, and I apologize I really do not mean to insult your mind it’s just an example.

    The difference is that slurs like the n-word has a long history of being used specifically to insult a specific group. In most cases, slurs were created with that express intention.

    If I started abusing you in a foreign language which I can, and you didn’t understand it at all, didn’t use a translator etc, how would you feel? Remember you don’t know it’s abuse, you don’t even know what it is except some weird words. Like if I typed some numbers 234234 and they were an encryption for a slur etc? I still used a slur I still abused you but you had no response, these things rely on the response and trust me you can control that. By insulating your world you are actually making that control harder.

    Ah yes, the “what you don’t know can’t hurt you” argument. No. If it was your intent to harm someone or what you did was objectively harmful, you’ve harmed them. It doesn’t mater if they realize it or not.

    An example: Punching someone when they’re passed out is still assault, even though they didn’t consciously feel it.

    Finally, with the proliferation of machine translation services, if you said something to them in another language, they can trivially look up what it means. Language isn’t some barrier that forbids all information exchange anymore.

    You have to attack the ideas of someone else to have a good discussion and that can mean their beliefs and identity sometimes.

    Attacking their ideas is different from attacking them personally. You can say someone’s ideas are terrible in your rebuttal, but I won’t tolerate you insulting them as a person or insulting their race, sex, etc because those things aren’t choices!!

    • AshliMeachem2
      13·
      4 years ago
      As a capitalist I think government should not fund education at all

      Yeah, profit driven companies funding the education of our next generation. What could possibly go wrong?

      Nothing but things go right and innovation occurs, prices go down. Look at something like the Khan academy there is so many obvious things to be improved in education. The public system is just a slosh of waste and more akin to a child care system than education.

      verbal abuse is not great but you can learn to resist it

      I take it you’re the kind of person who unironically calls people “snowflakes”.

      No not generally, I try to avoid insulting people as it is not good for discussion. I would however discuss people as being snowflakes or as a group like that but it is all how it is relevant to the discussion.

      Interesting problem you bring up like with homophobia, this is a persons response to the expression aka speech of someone overtly homosexual, by your reasoning it’s the homosexuals problem because it’s his speech that is caused the problem for the homophobe.

      Am I reading this right? Your logic is:

      Homosexuals come out and say they’re homosexual

They’re mercilessly bullied and abused and shunned by homophobes

They are broken by all the abuse

But because they chose to say they’re homosexual in the first place, it’s all their fault.

      If that’s right, then just wow. Way to victim blame someone who’s already at potentially the most vulnerable time in their life.

      In some regard you got it right but I was not considering the response in return from the homophobe. That is something different I think but obvious connected. I do not condone such behavior. The point I am trying to make is things other than speech can be considered speech and can have a wide variety of effects on different people. There is things that affect the homophobe like someone expressing as homosexual and then things that affect the homosexual like being hated upon, in fact I would say too the homophove would like being hated on either, but maybe he also views the hommosexials expressions as hate or offensive? You go down this path of only feelings matter and you end up in a very strange world.

      Or are you saying that it’s the homosexual’s fault that them being homosexual (something you’re genetically predisposed to and is not a lifestyle choice) “harmed” the homophobe because “hurr durr it’s a sin”? That’s even worse!

      No I am saying people have a wide variety or response to a wide variety of things. Do you think muslims kill gays because they find them just wonderful?

      Exactly. If I know that my speech will cause physical harm to be done, I’m also responsible, because I could have chosen not to say it and avoided the harm.

      Yes there is a connection there but the speech in itself is not the harm, it’s the physical harm that is the real problem and the person doing that has to bear the most blame. To draw the vonnection there has to be intention and knowledge it will have a result.

      Again the speech itself is not causing the harm, but it’s the response to the speech, in those cases, like particularly slander stopping the speech seems the most effective means to prevent the problem.

      Here’s a thought experiment based on biology: Methanol is extremely toxic if ingested and can kill you. However, the methanol molecules by themselves does not cause much harm to the body, but when it’s broken down in the liver to formaldehyde and methanoic acid, it causes a massive amount of harm. Would you say that methanol itself is not harmful, it’s just the body’s response to it? In that case, we should obviously not discourage the drinking or methanol but tell our bodies not to be snowflakes and stop breaking it down into poison, right?

      Yes I would say the methanol is not harmful but ingesting it is. Your argument here goes absurd. I will concede you can have speech that can cause harm, go stand next running jet engine with no ear protection. You won’t hear any slurs or words you think cause harm at all but trust me you stand there long enough you will know harm.

      Another example: a major reason why COVID-19 is such a serious disease is because it tricks the immune system into attacking the body. It evolved to do this and it’s clearly a survival strategy. Would you say in this case that COVID-19 is not the aggressor, but the immune system is? Actually, I think this is a great analogy because the immune system is designed to defend against or “censor” pathogens.

      Most people and hence cells have no problem with the china virus like most people have not prolem with speech that is apparently “harmful”… ]

      Another apt analogy to your “argument”: “It’s not the bullet that kills you, it’s the trauma and blood loss of your own body, so it’s really your fault, not the gunman’s”

      Well that is correct, but more correct it’s not the bullet but the bullet damaging your body. Again these are absurd arguments comparing speech to bullets.

      The best comedy is fun for everyone. That necessarily means not using language that insults a specific group.

      No you clearly are not a fan of comedy. Enjoyment is subjective and so is humor.

      The difference is that slurs like the n-word has a long history of being used specifically to insult a specific group. In most cases, slurs were created with that express intention.

      Labeling and controlling peoples language is just game of power play to control people. The hailing point that breaks why the use of nword being bad is bs is the fact that nwords use the nword so much.

      Ah yes, the “what you don’t know can’t hurt you” argument. No. If it was your intent to harm someone or what you did was objectively harmful, you’ve harmed them. It doesn’t mater if they realize it or not.

      Sorry but this is insane. Harm has to be actually to exist you can’t just make it up.

      An example: Punching someone when they’re passed out is still assault, even though they didn’t consciously feel it.

      Punching someone is actually physically harm calling them a 183383 is not.

      Finally, with the proliferation of machine translation services, if you said something to them in another language, they can trivially look up what it means. Language isn’t some barrier that forbids all information exchange anymore.

      That is why I sad for the though experiment you had to not use them. Sigh.

      Attacking their ideas is different from attacking them personally. You can say someone’s ideas are terrible in your rebuttal, but I won’t tolerate you insulting them as a person or insulting their race, sex, etc because those things aren’t choices!!

      Definitely agree with you which is why I don’t get the lefts obsession of attacking people based on identity?