MizuTama [he/him, any]

It isn’t an issue for me, I just wanted to float some reasons that liberal idealism tends to meet strong resistance here. There are more pragmatic reasons for the stances taken as well, which with my current understanding, I agree with. But frankly, I’m currently too drunk and too behind on theory to be a good source to articulate it. Assuming you aren’t banned on my instance and I remember through my ADHD deluge, I might circle back on this in the future and explain further.

Yeah, at that point we’re playing semantics, then I think since we’re reaching a point of agreeing on the premise of the idea with different terms.

I disagree that they are the modern public square, in the loosest sense, especially in cases such as Lemmy that are instanced. You aren’t blocked from the whole of Lemmy, you’re blocked from a particular instance but still able to access a lot of it. If anything, it’s closer to a publicly accessible private space: if I have a garage sale and I’m letting people look around, it’s publicly accessible but still not in the public domain. I have different opinions for nationalized sectors, i.e., if Twitter were bought by the U.S. government, but that’s more so due to a distrust of government power than a sense of free speech absolutionism. A lot of Hexbear are folks who are disproportionately harassed by people who typically abuse the more idealist leanings of free speech idealism and have suffered continuous distress from that, so I’m not particularly surprised you’re met with hostility from folks here .

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.

to sell you something. But for most topics they aren’t as simple or straightforward even if some people try to make it that way. It’s more of a scale. Lots of grey.

Just because there are scales of grey doesn’t mean there are not more correct versions of things depending on your goals. Just because they are not clear does not mean they don’t exist. Simple and straightforwardness have nothing in relation to the correctness of them but the accessibility of that correctness.

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.