@ernest how do I report a Magazin on kbin.social ? There is a usere called "ps" who is posting to his own "antiwoke" Magazin on kbin.social. Please remove this and dont give them a chance to etablish them self on kbin.social. When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin? Seems like a problem. Screenshot of the "antiwoke" Magazin /sub on kbin.social. 4 Headlines are visible, 2 exampels: "Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society" "How to end wokeness" #Moderation #kbin #kbin.social π
edit: dont feed the troll, im shure ernest will delet them all when he sees this. report and move on.
Edit 2 : Ernest responded:
"I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author."
β€
You are longing for the times when "Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp". Isn't this hateful?
It would be if that's what I said, but I never said I was longing for anything, and I never threatened to harm anyone.
You keep to coded language. Congratulations. Don't think we can't read it.
No, actually I say what I mean. You might try taking the context of the entire comment into account. It was about the purpose of freedom.
The tolerance of intolerance leads to the loss of all freedom. You'd have to be either a fraud or a fool to try and sell the opposite as truth. So which are you?
If you are intolerant of intolerance, then you are intolerant. Full stop. If those are my only two available options, I must be a fool.
Thats why its called the paradox of intolerance:
βThe paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.β
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
To be fair, i have no problems with the existence off a far-right or even a pro-pedo separate Lemmy instance as long as the harm is limited to just written words on said instance. If we donβt allow those opinions anywhere then they will just be had in secret and spiral even more out of control. Instances that want to fully protect themselves to intolerant sickos can do so by defederating.
You may be unfamiliar with the work of Daryl Davis, who has convinced over 200 KKK members to leave the KKK. He's achieved this through talking with them. When people are isolated in echo chambers, their numbers grow. It is only through open dialog that we can overcome irrational intolerance. There is no paradox.
Thatβs exactly what i meant with my second paragraph. We should provide safe spaces for all kinds of people, fascist included. And those people should be able to interact with other places on the federation (they will anyway, with multiple accounts if they so want) but by allowing their own instance were they enjoy proper free speech we can see who they are, study their rhetoric and engage ourselves to convince them otherwise.
But we still cant allow the toxicity in public where they can cause real harm. So these communities should be their own instance so other instances that might be targeted by hate can defederate.
A quick search reveals Daryl Davis befriended them, spoke privately, invite them to his home (his own instance) Spoke on their rallys (their own instances), he didnβt take them to a local event (public comment thread) while they are donning a swastika on their shirt.
TBH, I'd love to hear Daryl Davis's perspective on this discussion. I strongly suspect he'd write compelling sage advice, and then receive a hundred downvotes and replies calling him a nazi.
I'm probably older than most of the people here. When I grew up, a commonly repeated phrase we all learned was "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." I'm sure you'd be shocked and offended if I were to type out the names we used to call each other. The result was that it toughened us up, which is one of the most important lessons of childhood. My point is that I respectfully disagree with you that open dialog could possibly "cause real harm", ever, under any circumstances. You would need to be emotionally fragile to think getting your "feelings hurt" is real harm, and honestly I never encountered such people until the last few decades. I hope it's a short-lived phase.
It's so easy to shut down what you perceive as "toxicity in public" when it doesn't impact you. But that's a mighty subjective phrase, and you can very easily find yourself getting shut down. I understand that you're thinking about this in terms of instances, but we're in public here, and all instances with open signups are public. It's crucially important to always allow anyone to say anything in public, because as soon as we silence a person, we are likely to find ourselves silenced. The result would be an oppressive authoritarian society, which has happened repeatedly throughout history when people didn't stand up for free speech.
I definitely understand and largely agree with your sentiment. But this is the internet, hate is not limited by just name calling. What starts with just a verbal argument can snowball into cyber stalking and bullying. An lgbt artist could see every artwork downvoted to oblivion. Bots can send subscribers of targeted communities daily death treats. Public data can often be de-anonymized (no matter how carefull you are) to extend the bullying to the real world.
Its not just about growing a thick skin to a few slurs now and then but the exhaustion of the daily reminder people want you dead. Personally i am rarely the target of such hate but ive seen in action how quickly a fandom can destroy itself just because someone well known. changes their own name to match their person.
For lemmy: If facist make their own instance and largly keep their racist opinion for their own safe space then the big public servers dont need to defederate or block them so they are welcome to join in on the public space just like the Minority insrances can. Even if they defederated eachother. Most people would see and be able to interact with anyone, only the intolerant and their potential targets would not with eachother.
But take for example what OPs post is about the large public server allows a facist community on its own instance. Now the only way for a minority to protect themselves is to defederate with the larger instance excluding themselves from the bigger public while the facists roam free as a subgroup within it. which is exactly how they like it.
There might be many other solutions, but as for now this one seems to be the only i can think off with the tools provided.
TBH, I also grew up when bullying was considered a normal part of childhood, and I was ruthlessly bullied. The result was it toughened me up. Back then it was extremely rare to hear of bullying leading to suicide, as you hear now. Bullying was just completely normal, and I can attest there are definite benefits from having lived with it.
Now don't get me wrong: I do understand your concern that online animosity can become a real-world attack, and I don't want anyone to get assaulted. But I also think the concern is grossly overblown, amplified by a culture of emotionally delicate individuals who were never toughened up as kids. In practice, this sort of IRL attack is extraordinarily rare.
And besides, if the solution to preventing assault is to shut down free speech, then frankly I'd rather live in a world of rampant assault. Not that I want assault for myself or anyone else, but weighing the options, a firm stance supporting free speech should not be negotiable.
I'm sorry that you kinda lost me after that. Please forgive me if I misunderstand, but you seem to be calling normal conservatives "fascists", and as a result I struggle to see your point. The vast majority of normal people are fed up with wokeness, which is the topic of the magazine in dispute. I don't say that to pick a fight, just to acknowledge that I find your usage of "fascist" confusing to the point that I struggle to interpret your last few paragraphs.
My point is not about censoring speech neither is it about disallowing usa republicans from having a public community. I am not from the us and my public intolerance is towards the active displays of hate and discrimination often associated with fascist ideology.
Il provide some examples of what I personally would say is ok/not ok in real life public spaces (in general not just politics) But the real challenge we need to solve on lemmy is how to translats it to a digital space.
Ok:
Questionable:
Not ok:
I appreciate that you point out you're not in the US, because our various cultural perspectives and expectations certainly do inform our opinions. (Although there's quite a range of variance within the US too.)
While I believe my self-designation as "conservative" is quite accurate, at least in an American context, my personal rearrangement of your lists would be far more liberal. The only items I'd put under "not okay" are porn for kids and instigating violence. (Thankfully we don't need to deal with literal violence on an online platform.) It's interesting how ideas can get categorized as left or right depending on the context and viewpoint.
If we were to survey the greater federated community here, I'm sure we'd get a variety of answers as to what's okay, questionable, and not okay. My position is that's a good thing, as our diversity of ideas enriches the community, and we can all learn from each other.
This was a reasonably insightful discussion that i am not sure we can tame much further. We align on the core value of freedom of speech but are opposites on the semantics of where to draw a line.
I have to ask though.
Stalking is not, βnot okβ? Iβve understood stalking as a serious crime all my life. I am very curious to hear of any possible justification to allow it.
For contexts when i say stalking i mean groups/someone following you every where you go in public for a reasonable time. Or continued and constant breaching of personal space after trying to get away.
Yep. Personally I'd put stalking under questionable.
It's usually a creepy thing to do, but there might be cases where you just want to look out for someone's safety, so you follow them. Usually that's not a stalker's goal, but it varies. If the stalking results in an assault, robbery, or any other crime, that's certainly not okay! But the stalking itself was just questionable until that happened.
Note that if you follow someone online, which is a feature built into kbin, that's stalking. And there's really nothing wrong with it, unless you follow someone just to downvote all of their contributions.
Whatever, I copied your whole paragraph in another comment, and the context is pretty clear for anyone who cares to read it. I didn't claim that you personally were threatening to do the beating, only that you thought that the beating was desiderable for the "program of western civilization". If you really don't want homosexual people to be beaten to a pulp, then you should seriously reconsider how you express your ideas.
Even taking that paragraph out of context is misleading. The whole comment was about the purpose of freedom.
You still haven't addressed my point. Do you think it is desiderable that homosexual people are beaten to a pulp? Is a YES/NO question, it shouldn't be difficult to answer.
No, I do not advocate for violence (except in self-defense situations where there's no other option).
Here is your exact quote, there is no "misrepresentation" here. You are firstly suggesting that the gays are worshiping (indirectly or directly) Satan and have no right to "freedom" because your fictionally sky daddy said so. Lets take a step backwards, so you are suggesting your all loving god, basically has doomed 3/5s (if not more until the white people came) of the world because he decided to only care about Europe and part of the middle east for hundreds to thousands of years because this all knowing being somehow couldn't have stable and growing amount of worshipers in Asia, the Americas, Australia, the pacific, etc dooming them all to hell (or purgatory depending on your denomination) because they as you say can't be able to accept "Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior."
You yearn for a day when everyone (in your neighborhood) had your stupid sky daddy's beliefs and if they didn't you wouldn't pull the trigger or what not but you aren't opposed because now we live in a world of sin and whatnot and you want them to repent because they decide to have their freedom that is instill upon them because they are born a fucking human not because a fucking fictional sky daddy said you have it.
It god damn hilarious you are also reiterating god damn fanfic, the cardinal 7 sins weren't a major concept until they were first enumerated by Pope Gregory I in the 6th century and further expanded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Then to top it all off, we as a modern society mostly know the configuration of hell by a god damn self insert fanfic by Dante Alighieri in "Divine Comedy" or to be more specific Dante's Inferno.
Also seems you aren't very godly if you aren't even following Jesus' own words
βYou shall love your neighbor as yourself.β (Matthew 22:39),
Your love seems very conditional on the concept that they have to worship your god before they deserve any love. Its honestly disgusting and you are the posterchild of why people hate religious nuts. People can worship what they want if they aren't hurting people but holy shit the shit you are willfully allowing by decree people deserve no freedom if they don't have Judeo-Christians.
That's called masturpraying.
You're not hurting anyone (in the physical sense) but you're getting off on the idea that bad things should happen to other people, people you consider to not be in your "in group", and this is usually done in the name of and for the glory of God.
It's a fancy sin that preachers don't tell people about because they're usually guilty of it themselves.
Masturpraying is direct service to and worship of Satan, and he really enjoys it because the people who do it do it in God's name as they commit spiritual violence against the kingdom of God and its occupants while thinking that they are doing good.
Okay except no, I wasn't doing that whatsoever.