I fundamentally disagree. Just because you or I may not like someones opinions doesn’t mean I don’t think they shouldn’t be allowed to have them.
You can’t stop people from thinking what they think. If you silence them or shut them out they arent going to suddenly change their opinions on things. If anything that will just cause most people to double down. The only way change happens is if they are constantly running up against other opinions and they realize that maybe their own stance doesn’t line up with what they think anymore.
I’m sure we all had opinions as kids and then we learned something at school that changed our opinions on something. Had we been shut out of the conversation or learning that new thing because of our initial opinions we never would have heard the other perspective or info that ultimately caused us to reevaluate our own stances.
I believe being able to have conversations with someone you disagree with is a fundamental requirement for a functional society.
your position is one that inevitably lets nazis and wreckers infest queer safe spaces. can’t you agree a zero tolerance policy is needed for certain “opinions” (i.e. nazis, homophobes, transphobes, racists, misogynists etc.) or are you genuinely a free speech warrior shithead? because that’s pee pee poo poo reddit debate lord shit. it’s concerning the way you dodged my initial question. you will probably dodge this question too to avoid showing your ass.
I think it’s pretty clear from my first comment that I am a free speech absolutionist. So no I don’t believe shutting off certain opinions even I find them abhorrent.
Like I said before. We appear to fundamentally disagree so I don’t really see any point in going down this road. You think I am a “free speech warrior shithead” already and I think your way of thinking is short sighted.
Let’s go out separate ways and perhaps we will bump into each other at a later date with slightly different perspectives on everything. You never know.
I think it’s pretty clear from my first comment that I am a free speech absolutionist. So no I don’t believe shutting off certain opinions even I find them abhorrent.
Like I said before. We appear to fundamentally disagree, so I don’t really see any point in going down this road. You think I am a “free speech warrior shithead” already and I think your way of thinking is short sighted.
What about when that “abhorrent” opinion is just couching violence in innuendo and insinuation? Often facist rhetoric such as Neo-Nazis (in the most literal sense) have recognized that they’ll often get defended up until they outright call for violence and have adapted tactics to continue sustained harrassment campaigns until they manage to inflict psychological harm that can accomplish the same goals of their physical harm.
Unfortunately that is one of the downsides. People will abuse the rules and dance all along the line for nefarious reasons. Can’t plug that hole without potentially stripping others of their ability to speak up in certain ways and situations.
I actually had a long conversation with friends about that yesterday. We were talking about how someone wasn’t outright saying to kill anyone but they were playing propaganda videos of someone else that was saying those things. Do we hold them responsible for the words of the video they were playing on stream for everyone or is that a clear separation?
So we have the classic conundrum. Do we want a system where innocent people might accidentally go to prison or do we want a system where people who should go to prison sometimes don’t because we would rather never put innocent people behind bars.
i have to assume you draw the line somewhere, though. Like, as an example, I imagine you probably support the censorship of calls to violence? Or, as a hypothetical, advocating for someone to conduct self-harm?
Free speech absolutists tend to be the only ones defending some of the most depraved and harmful types of ‘speech’ imaginable, and they honestly don’t have any place in a federated community. I agree with imogen - if that’s your perspective you can definitely fuck off
“I believe you should kill yourself” is an opinion, even if it’s an opinion about someone conducting self harm, and it’s absolutely an opinion that should be censored
The problem with couching your understanding of ‘free speech’ within the american legal concept of free speech is that amendment doesn’t actually cover the types of speech and contexts under which most of its advocates are applying it to, nor should it. People deserve to be able to dictate the types of speech they allow in their own spaces, and that includes shit takes from reactionary shitheads on social media. Nazis should not be allowed to waltz into a jewish space and deny the holocaust - or rather, the people in that space should be able to kick that nazi out of their fucking community. It’s why reddit can get away with censoring speech relating to Musk and Luigi, and it’s why various lemmy instances might periodically tell you to get fucked for your various terrible opinions.
Free speech absolutists are some of the worst kinds of internet people.
I mean, so you’re saying people shouldn’t have the ability to remove people from their spaces as long as their not outright calling for violence or getting physical? I’m not talking about some type of government intervention, but private groups or spaces in this context.
Edit: Also, you say calls to violence aren’t free speech, but I’ve met plenty of absolutionists who disagree. You are drawing a line there, saying that. There are also various degrees between wishing ill on someone and an outright call to violence that is decided by the audience receiving it. I don’t think the above user telling you that you kill yourself is a call to violence for example but many would disagree there.
Part of the issue is with what YOU label as a fascist and what others would label as fascist may not align. It’s like freedom of speech. As soon as you start trying to make exceptions it becomes a slippery slope of who is the one enforcing it and from what view point. Either it’s all ok to be discussed or none of it is.
You certainly don’t have to agree with them, but I don’t think banning them or trying to cut them out helps anything in the long run. If anything it’s makes the problem worse because then they are only around people that have their same views and their opinions dig in deeper and start multiplying.
Ok so hypothetically what if everyone suddenly thought YOU were a fascist instead? Should we just kill you because we have deemed your stances dangerous and therefore we should end it?
Like you said we don’t talk to you. We don’t debate with you. We dont try and change your opinions. We just kill you because we disagree and it’s ok because we made sure to label you as a group that’s ok to do that with before we did it.
You don’t see the issue with this line of thinking?
some opinions don’t deserve the time of day. it’s concerning that you dodged my question.
I fundamentally disagree. Just because you or I may not like someones opinions doesn’t mean I don’t think they shouldn’t be allowed to have them.
You can’t stop people from thinking what they think. If you silence them or shut them out they arent going to suddenly change their opinions on things. If anything that will just cause most people to double down. The only way change happens is if they are constantly running up against other opinions and they realize that maybe their own stance doesn’t line up with what they think anymore.
I’m sure we all had opinions as kids and then we learned something at school that changed our opinions on something. Had we been shut out of the conversation or learning that new thing because of our initial opinions we never would have heard the other perspective or info that ultimately caused us to reevaluate our own stances.
I believe being able to have conversations with someone you disagree with is a fundamental requirement for a functional society.
your position is one that inevitably lets nazis and wreckers infest queer safe spaces. can’t you agree a zero tolerance policy is needed for certain “opinions” (i.e. nazis, homophobes, transphobes, racists, misogynists etc.) or are you genuinely a free speech warrior shithead? because that’s pee pee poo poo reddit debate lord shit. it’s concerning the way you dodged my initial question. you will probably dodge this question too to avoid showing your ass.
I think it’s pretty clear from my first comment that I am a free speech absolutionist. So no I don’t believe shutting off certain opinions even I find them abhorrent.
Like I said before. We appear to fundamentally disagree so I don’t really see any point in going down this road. You think I am a “free speech warrior shithead” already and I think your way of thinking is short sighted.
Let’s go out separate ways and perhaps we will bump into each other at a later date with slightly different perspectives on everything. You never know.
What about when that “abhorrent” opinion is just couching violence in innuendo and insinuation? Often facist rhetoric such as Neo-Nazis (in the most literal sense) have recognized that they’ll often get defended up until they outright call for violence and have adapted tactics to continue sustained harrassment campaigns until they manage to inflict psychological harm that can accomplish the same goals of their physical harm.
Unfortunately that is one of the downsides. People will abuse the rules and dance all along the line for nefarious reasons. Can’t plug that hole without potentially stripping others of their ability to speak up in certain ways and situations.
I actually had a long conversation with friends about that yesterday. We were talking about how someone wasn’t outright saying to kill anyone but they were playing propaganda videos of someone else that was saying those things. Do we hold them responsible for the words of the video they were playing on stream for everyone or is that a clear separation?
So we have the classic conundrum. Do we want a system where innocent people might accidentally go to prison or do we want a system where people who should go to prison sometimes don’t because we would rather never put innocent people behind bars.
i have to assume you draw the line somewhere, though. Like, as an example, I imagine you probably support the censorship of calls to violence? Or, as a hypothetical, advocating for someone to conduct self-harm?
Free speech absolutists tend to be the only ones defending some of the most depraved and harmful types of ‘speech’ imaginable, and they honestly don’t have any place in a federated community. I agree with imogen - if that’s your perspective you can definitely fuck off
Calls to violence aren’t free speech. That’s shifting from expressing ones opinion to now trying physically harm someone.
“I believe you should kill yourself” is an opinion, even if it’s an opinion about someone conducting self harm, and it’s absolutely an opinion that should be censored
The problem with couching your understanding of ‘free speech’ within the american legal concept of free speech is that amendment doesn’t actually cover the types of speech and contexts under which most of its advocates are applying it to, nor should it. People deserve to be able to dictate the types of speech they allow in their own spaces, and that includes shit takes from reactionary shitheads on social media. Nazis should not be allowed to waltz into a jewish space and deny the holocaust - or rather, the people in that space should be able to kick that nazi out of their fucking community. It’s why reddit can get away with censoring speech relating to Musk and Luigi, and it’s why various lemmy instances might periodically tell you to get fucked for your various terrible opinions.
Free speech absolutists are some of the worst kinds of internet people.
Agree to disagree I guess. I don’t think anyone else should be able to tell you or me what we are allowed to say at any point.
I think your viewpoint is incredibly dangerous and short sighted but I am glad you are able to express that opinion.
I mean, so you’re saying people shouldn’t have the ability to remove people from their spaces as long as their not outright calling for violence or getting physical? I’m not talking about some type of government intervention, but private groups or spaces in this context.
Edit: Also, you say calls to violence aren’t free speech, but I’ve met plenty of absolutionists who disagree. You are drawing a line there, saying that. There are also various degrees between wishing ill on someone and an outright call to violence that is decided by the audience receiving it. I don’t think the above user telling you that you kill yourself is a call to violence for example but many would disagree there.
I’m not convinced you actually understand what the american constitutional free speech principle is meant to address.
Removed by mod
Acting that violent so fast with a stranger does not helps to prove your point.
what are you, his big brother? my point is simply that bigots shouldn’t feel welcome around here so i think I’m doing just fine proving it
You’re proving your point by sendind death threats.
You’re just proving my point. You don’t even know me and you’re hoping I die.
You need help.
Do fascist opinions deserve the light of day? Should we tolerate cryptofascists JAQing off on Lemmy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Part of the issue is with what YOU label as a fascist and what others would label as fascist may not align. It’s like freedom of speech. As soon as you start trying to make exceptions it becomes a slippery slope of who is the one enforcing it and from what view point. Either it’s all ok to be discussed or none of it is.
You certainly don’t have to agree with them, but I don’t think banning them or trying to cut them out helps anything in the long run. If anything it’s makes the problem worse because then they are only around people that have their same views and their opinions dig in deeper and start multiplying.
You can’t defeat hate by trying to cut it off.
It’s head. yes, that’s exactly what you do with hate. You don’t debate it, you don’t listen to it, you don’t teach it. you kill it with fire.
Ok so hypothetically what if everyone suddenly thought YOU were a fascist instead? Should we just kill you because we have deemed your stances dangerous and therefore we should end it?
Like you said we don’t talk to you. We don’t debate with you. We dont try and change your opinions. We just kill you because we disagree and it’s ok because we made sure to label you as a group that’s ok to do that with before we did it.
You don’t see the issue with this line of thinking?
“what if it was opposite day and you were defending fascist opinions instead of me” really isn’t the gotcha you think it is. words have meanings.
That’s not what I was saying. Good lord you are dense.
fuck you dude you’re a misogynistic asshole and you’re right that you’re not welcome around here, go back to reddit
Well aren’t you a bundle of joy.
suck it out of my ass 👍
Pass