It’s one thing to have differing views, but I’ve seen enough attempted reddit migrations to be relieved that the popular communities in the fediverse so far haven’t been about crazy racist stuff or other extreme right bullshit.

I am also glad that I’m getting away from reddit’s general political shitposting, which was more left leaning. You couldn’t have any proper discourse on there, and even I with my generally more left leaning views recognized that.

  • MonsieurHedge@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    123
    ·
    1 year ago

    Through constant vigilance, anyways. Every time you see some little fuck dogwhistling about FREE SPEECH or CENSORSHIP, you gotta make sure they aren’t welcome in these parts.

      • MonsieurHedge@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        141
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Far right buffoonery” starts with people batching about how they’re being “”“censored”“” for saying slurs or trying to have “honest conversations about race” or whatever.

        Nip 'em in the bud and voila, no Nazis on your kbin.

        • SporkBomber@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          77
          ·
          1 year ago

          Obligatory nazi bar story copypasta:

          I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, “no. get out.”

          And the dude next to me says, “hey i’m not doing anything, i’m a paying customer.” and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, “out. now.” and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed

          Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, “you didn’t see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them.”

          And i was like, ohok and he continues.

          "you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it’s always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don’t want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.

          And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it’s too late because they’re entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.

          And i was like, ‘oh damn.’ and he said “yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.”

          And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven’t forgotten that at all.

          • HipHoboHarold@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            One of my good friends does tattoos, and he doesn’t do them for pretty much this exact reason. Like on one hand, fuck Nazis and he doesn’t want to do it. On the other hand, money is money. They’re gonna get it done, so might as well be the one that gets paid.

            But ultimately he doesn’t want to make anyone else who comes in uncomfortable, and he doesn’t want to slowly become known as the guy who does all the Nazi tattoos. It makes him look bad and means he will get fewer people. So it’s best to just tell them no.

          • AndrewZabar@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fascinating tale! Wow so maybe the bartender didn’t hate anyone just a crotchety guy who’s nevertheless pretty decent at his core.

        • Spiracle@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          49
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I remember concrete dog whistle accusation generally falling into two categories:

          1. Checking their comment history revealed either actual Nazi apologia or a general destructive behaviour if you looked deep enough.
          2. Checking their comment history revealed that the accuser was a pro-censorship and didn’t like dissenting opinions.

          My conclusion: dog whistles are a reason to look deeper. Keep an eye on those people. However, don’t just condemn them.

          The very point of dog whistles is to appear innocuous and even invisible to “normal people”. False positives are inevitable, and after seeing a dozen actual dog whistles, pareidolia will make you see their shapes everywhere.

          • beefcat@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s a Lemmy instance perfect for you then: exploding-heads.

            We are more than welcome to decide what behavior is and isn’t appropriate in our own community. If you don’t like it, then you don’t have to be here. You aren’t entitled to our friendship.

              • VoxAdActa@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                22
                ·
                1 year ago

                want a place free of authoritarian policies that don’t limit actual human discourse.

                You’ve already been given a suggestion for just that kind of instance. If you want to see that kind of content, there’s a spot for that.

                Or are you just upset that there are places who don’t welcome those kinds of dumbfuck takes? Is it that you want to see the content for yourself, or that you want to make the content and force everyone to see it?

                Either way, this instance isn’t the place for you. Exploding heads is. Go there, be happy.

                • Kantiberl@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Do you prefer having a centralized authority dictating your exposure to content? What prevents you from personally blocking instances you disagree with and allowing others to make their own choices? Is it possible that the idea of critical thinking is discomforting and it’s more convenient to be shielded from diverging opinions, rather than exercising personal discernment?

                  • danknodes@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    16
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The community itself is kindly asking you to fuck off with its comments and downvotes, no central authority needed

                  • MachineTeaching@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Fuck off to your sad shithole, nobody has any obligation to be nice to Nazis. To the contrary, every decent person should feel obligated to strongly tell them to fuck off. You don’t have a space here, we don’t want you here, you are not welcome.

                  • VoxAdActa@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Do you prefer having a centralized authority dictating your exposure to content?

                    Like, you mean, a website? That’s what you mean by “centralized authority”, right? A website? With its Terms and Conditions, following the applicable copyright and IP laws, following the relevant laws of the jurisdiction it operates in? Yeah, I’m fine with that.

                    If you’re not, go to Exploding Heads. They welcome you. They want you.

                    We don’t.

                • Otome-chan@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The issue I have with this overzealousness to censor is that the people who are most eager to censor others, are often the most bigoted, hateful, and misinformed. The suggestion of going to exploding-heads is just dishonest. They are undeniably right-wing. What I wish for is an open platform where left and right can speak freely to each other in polite discourse, not simply just be exposed to whatever dogshit takes some far right people post. going to exploding-heads would then limit my ability to see other positions.

                  Are you suggesting that I should have an account on each fediverse instance, just to get all of the content? If so, then what the actual fuck is the point of federation in the first place?

                  • VoxAdActa@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    What I wish for is an open platform where left and right can speak freely to each other in polite discourse

                    Oh, I see. You’re delusional. You honestly think I should be having “polite discourse” with people who either want me dead, or are ok with voting for people who want me dead.

                    Because, see, what’s left? What makes a Republican want to claim to be a Republican other than the culture war bullshit? What do they stand for? They haven’t stood for “fiscal responsibility” or “small government” since W was in office. The straight-up write things like “We stand against teaching critical thinking in schools” (see: Texas GOP party platform) into their guiding documents. And you think they’re going to have a civil conversation? You think I owe them a civil conversation?

                    Every server we allow those people on freely will become exploding heads or 4 chan. Go look at r/politicalcompassmemes if you need an example. I don’t know how many times we have to watch it happen before you get the picture, or maybe this is your first ever internet community experience. But you’re wrong. Their bad-faith rhetoric, carefully-stated death threats, and direct personal attacks will drive everyone who isn’t one of them away, leaving only Nazis. If the admins call them out and ban them for that stuff, they’ll end up banning all of them and we’ll be having this same conversation. If the admins allow their speech, but don’t allow us to say “Fuck off, weeb, nobody likes you” without censure, then guess who gets to control the “discourse”? And if the admins don’t ban anyone for it, we’ll become Voat. Since only the slimiest members of humanity can tolerate that vibe for long, guess who ends up owning the server by default?

                    You wanna see that shit, you enjoy being called slurs and told to go kys, you are free to seek out the communities who will do that for you. But fuck all the way off with telling me I must put up with it, too.

                    Oh, I can block them? No I fucking can’t. I blocked you days ago, and your shit still shows up in my notifications. So, again, fuck off. If I have to listen to whatever dumb shit spills out of your brain, against my will, then you get to listen to my toxicity.

                    Are you suggesting that I should have an account on each fediverse instance, just to get all of the content? If so, then what the actual fuck is the point of federation in the first place?

                    …you… honestly thought… the fediverse… was supposed to be a centralized content aggregator…?

                    What… uh, so, what… what do you think the fediverse is?

                • Kantiberl@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes exactly. Both sides need to take a long look in the mirror and stop projecting their self hatred on the other side.

              • HipHoboHarold@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                If me and you are having a discussion, but the topic is the fact that I want to kill you, how long will it take before you stop wanting to talk to me?

                “But it’s just words!”

                Well, we know that’s not true, so how long would it take before you stopped wanting to be around me?

                Oh, also I promote pediphelia. Just as a little fun thing. Just the casual story of raping kids.

                I get the appeal. I do. I 1000% do. I get it. But also fuck Nazis. I don’t want to be around them. I’m gay, so they don’t want to be around me. Fuck pedophiles. I don’t want to be around them. So if a site is filled with Nazis and pedophiles, I’m gonna go to a different site. Now you have an echo chamber of Nazis and pedophiles. The thing you wanted to avoid. But you’re stuck with only talking to Nazis and pedophiles.

                Meanwhile the bubble without Nazis is a really large bubble encompassing everything except Nazis and pedophiles.

                Which hardly looks like a bubble.

                • Kantiberl@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not advocating for unchallenged platforms for nazis. What I’m concerned about is the dangerous broadening of the term ‘nazi’ to include any viewpoint differing from one’s own. Neither you nor I hold all the answers. However, I’m not the one categorizing wide-ranging groups as ‘nazis’ to conveniently dismiss dissenting views, while complacently considering myself superior to all those being arbitrarily mislabeled as ‘nazis’. It SERIOUSLY weakens your entire argument when you throw that word around so carelessly.

                  • HipHoboHarold@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Well we don’t use it for just anyone who has any different opinion. So the problem right there is solved. We do use it frequently. But that’s when we see thing like homo/transphobia(Nazis hated queer people), antisemitism(another group Nazis hated), racism(also Nazis), and sexism(once again, Nazis). There seems to be a pretty fucking large overlap of what modern day Republicans preach and what the Nazis preached. Including as of lately “eradicating transgenderness” and “erasing communities.” As well as the amount of terrorist attacks that ha e actively been encouraged.

                    So if you would prefer we could just call everyone bigot, since that includes them all and not everyone personally considers themselves a Nazi, but I hardly see the difference between a Nazi, the KKK, Proud Boys, 3%ers, etc, when they all preach the exact same stuff. At that point you’re not arguing anything except semantics. It’s like the whole “race realism” thing. It’s racism, but more palatable to racists who think the name racist is mean, but not the mentality.

                    I guess another way to look at it is as people keep bringing up, but there’s a German saying about this. If you have a table with 9 people and 1 Nazi, you have 10 Nazis.

                    This also doesn’t change the actual argument being made, which is about a forum that is open. In which case, you do get Nazis. Like not even what we mean when we call Nazis as Nazis, but people who call themselves Nazis. We have seen that over and over and over. You get Nazis, and you get pedophiles. Then everyone else starts to leave and you are stuck with Nazis and pedophiles.

                    So once again, I get the mentality behind it. In a lot of ways I would love a site like that. But it’s also a little different for those of us that are having people call for our deaths on a regular basis.

            • Kantiberl@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              How do we define ‘nazi’ and who is the authority that applies that label? If the word ‘nazi’ is carelessly applied to anyone exhibiting even slightly right-leaning tendencies, it diminishes its significance and undermines your credibility. This kind of naive approach and severe lack of nuance will lead to an intolerant echo chamber.

              Fuck nazis, but also fuck anyone who dilutes the meaning by inappropriately labeling any viewpoint they don’t like as nazism or fascism.

              • Anomander@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Carefully, on a case-by-case basis; and the community.

                It’s not nearly as complicated as it seems on the surface - and you’re trying to make any definition of “nazi” as complicated as possible, because you’re wanting to delegitimize any rejection of nazis or nazi speech.

                Remember how you said you don’t care if people like you, you just want to push your topics on other people?

                it diminishes its significance and undermines your credibility.

                No one cares if the Nazis think they’re “credible” or not. Each and every one of them will tell you they’re not a nazi and they ‘hate’ nazis - while defending themselves and their nazi buddies from critique by insisting the label for their ideology is, for example, “cheapened” if applied to anyone who is not a card-carrying, armband-wearing, farcical exaggeration of stereotypical Nazis in full Reich dress regalia.

                They always send the clean cut, quiet, polite one in first. And that guy puts a foot in the door, argues that their pals aren’t really nazis, and that everyone in the room are the real baddies for judging those other guys unfairly - and tries to pry the door wider so their Nazi buddies can come in. Sure enough, every time, you let enough nazis in the room and the room is a nazi space now - so the whole gang of them don’t have to pretend at being polite non-nazis anymore. The polite veneer, the deep care for “debate”, and “respect for all viewpoints”? Those are all just tools, trying to whitewash and re-legitimize an ideology whose end goal is harming other people.

                Notice how I’m casually referring to you like you’re one of them? That’s not some wokist over-use of the term. You’re standing here defending them, you’re trying to shove a foot in the door for them, laying down apologia for their views and their right to share them - you’ve spent like a week around the Fediverse arguing against any actions that have served to limit Nazis access to polite and adult spaces within the Fediverse as a whole. I don’t care what you believe about yourself, or your views, or your ideology.

                If you’re going to stand with Nazis, if you’re going to stand for them, consistently and repeatedly - don’t get all offended and playact at being victimized when people assume that you are a member of the group you chose to stand with.

                • Kantiberl@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not aligning with nazis, but advocating against the misuse and overuse of the term (which is utterly rampant here). The problem with using such powerful labels casually is that it muddies the waters and blurs lines that should be clear but now aren’t precisely because of the misuse of the term. It’s this very misuse that is leading to misinterpretations, such as the one we’re facing here, where I’m inaccurately labeled as standing with nazis. My stance is about nuanced understanding and precision in communication, not about sympathizing with hate ideologies. I am defending thoughtful dialogue, not nazis, and it’s important not to conflate the two. Since everyone is so happy with misusing the term, what are we going to call ACTUAL nazis so that we can differentiate people you disagree with and ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS. The semantics you’re playing with are a dangerous game, and do nothing but prove my point.

                  • Anomander@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You’re aligning yourself with nazis while engaging in sophistry to pretend that neither you nor they are nazis.

                    All these wild mental gymnastics to explain how it’s not like that, or the farcical posturing of academic exactitude and “nuanced understanding” - those are the exact same shit as nazis sending in the quiet well-spoken guy to break the ice and get a foot in the door.

                    You’re doing triple overtime to figure out ways to argue compassion for cryptofascists and nazi sympathizers, while going even further out of your way to avoid having the faintest shred of empathy for people who simply want nothing to do with any of that bullshit.

                    You can call them whatever you want. You don’t get to demand that we call them what you want us to. You don’t get to demand that we ignore your choice to align yourself with them, to defend them, and to try and make their views sound more palatable and more reasonable than their end goals.

                    Since everyone is so happy with misusing the term, what are we going to call ACTUAL nazis so that we can differentiate people you disagree with and ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS.

                    I completely understand that you absolutely refuse to get it and will continue to avoid getting it forevermore - but I’m going to say it for the rest of the room anyways.

                    Those guys are the “ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS”.

                    They just understand that pretending that they’re not is the only way to get through the door of spaces dominated by the reasonable mainstream they’d like to sell their ideology to. They know that the reasonable mainstream wants nothing to do with “ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS” so the “ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS” dress up as the people you’re currently defending and trying to make this conversation about. And anyone in that group that you’re trying to defend the nazis by pointing towards, any single person among them who doesn’t want to stand with nazis - changes where they stand so that they’re not with the nazis anymore. You’re staying still while trying to defend that decision.

                    The “ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS” don’t dress up in SS Uniforms and ‘heil’ each other in the comments sections - they pretend to be reasonable mainstream people and in order to present their views and their talking points wrapped in rhetoric that masks its nazi roots. They want to win over the mainstream, they want to convince people they’re “on to” something, they want to exploit our willingness to engage in discourse to sell their views and advance their ideology. They are not here to engage in debate - the debate is merely a vehicle towards seizing power and then acting out an ideology of violence and hatred.

                    I’m not ‘playing semantics’ - I’m not even engaging with yours.

                    We are not going to split hairs and massage academic definitions until “ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS” aren’t actually nazis anymore. Either you’re a useful idiot and not qualified to try and talk down on folks about the intricate semantics of “nazi” - or you’re actually on their side.

            • Otome-chan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Okay nazi. everyone should now hate you because I’ve labeled you a nazi. and you agree everyone should hate you, because you’re a nazi.

              See the problem?

          • adderaline@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            thats weird. i never get called a fascist, and nobody i know gets called fascists, and i’ve never had to worry about other people calling me a fascist when i disagree with them. huh…

              • adderaline@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                sure. i’ll bite. how about you tell me exactly what opinions have gotten you branded in this way? please. tell me what exactly are the kinds of things you say that get other people to call you a nazi.

                • Otome-chan@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Hi person from beehaw. let me just say all beehaw users are nazis and fascists. now you are someone who’s been accused of being a nazi and fascist.

              • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Dude… almost every comment you’ve made has been to insult someone or put them down or pick a fight with someone. Are you okay?

                • Kantiberl@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t believe I’ve insulted anyone but if you think I have could you point to an example? I’m expressing my opinion (which certainly appears unpopular) and if that is seen as insulting or fighty then I don’t know what to tell you. I’m going to keep expressing my opinion.

              • adderaline@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                i’ll drop the tone. i’ve looked at your other comments, have a general clue about what you’re about. i’ll just say this: there are specific patterns of behavior and ideas which are either attributed to or linked to the Nazi Party, or more generally to fascist ideologies, which have, throughout history, led to oppressive regimes. when people see these patterns or ideas expressed, there is a tendency on the left to reject these ideas because of that association, because they have proved to be potent tools for the spread of fascism, and encourage the dehumanization of minority groups.

                transphobia, and specifically appeals to the pedophilic nature of queer people? this is unambiguously Nazi shit. trans people were the some of the very first people the nazi’s actually threw into concentration camps in nazi germany. this process included the burning of medical literature describing the proper treatment of transgender people. it also included the denial of an explicit description of the gender spectrum, as observed by medical professionals of the time. so if you are dismissive of or make a political issue out of trans identity, call queer people groomers, any of that bullshit, even if you are “not a nazi”, many of the information sources publishing anti-trans rhetoric today have explicit ties to real neo-nazi organizations, or are politically aligned with movements calling for the “eradication” of “”“transgenderism”“”.

                to anybody with an education on the historical circumstances of Nazi Germany, this exact rhetoric and the modern political movement against trans people, is unambiguously mirrored by the actions of modern republican politicians, including legislating restrictions against cross-dressing (happened in nazi germany), restricting transgender medical care (happened in nazi germany), and revoking the ability for trans people to be recognized legally as trans (happened in nazi germany). people who are queer or trans both do not necessarily want to be confronted with this rhetoric wherever they go online, as it can be extremely distressing seeing people parroting literal nazi talking points in the modern era, and do not want that kind of rhetoric to spread, because it was nazi propaganda that lead to the execution of human beings.

                while theoretically somebody might “misuse” this label, call somebody a transphobe or a nazi when they aren’t explicitly talking about this stuff, you may be able to follow the logic from here. if transphobia, questioning the validity of transgender identity, calling for the restriction of transgender medical care, restricting access to books about queer people, if this has explicit links to nazi ideology and activity, what do you call people that want to open up a space for these people to spread their beliefs? what do you call people who accommodate or legitimize these beliefs which have led to the genocide of people groups? well, for a lot of people, if you accommodate the people who accommodate the fascists, that really isn’t that different from letting the fascists run about.

                maybe you don’t think of yourself as somebody who does that. maybe you really do think of yourself as a moderate who wants productive discourse, and believes that if everybody just talked to each other, all these political divisions would be easier for us to solve. for the people who would be impacted by the threat of violence behind these beliefs, that isn’t so easy. for the people who see the striking similarity between the modern transgender panic and the genocidal escalation of yesteryear, it isn’t worth the risk to allow in the would be monsters, willing to execute the people who are not like them, even if that means that some reasonable people are caught in the crossfire. hopefully that gives you at least some insight into why productive dialogue isn’t a very convincing argument on this side of the fence. you’ve called yourself a moderate in other posts. tell me, what is the moderate position between genocide and tolerance? between eradication and acceptance? if you’re moderate about that shit? well, that just sounds like bigotry to me.

                i would encourage you, if you aren’t just a nazi concern troll, to look into the Institut fur Sexualwissenschaft, and the history behind the persecution of transgender and gay people in nazi germany, and try to conceive of why people believe that they are right in rejecting those who display sympathy towards the right wing of the United States, especially in light of their modern retreading of old bigotry. i would love to give people the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they are truly just advocates for free speech, concerned about authoritarian censorship, all that jazz, but the content of what opinions people like you are defending the right to have are historically ruinous for minority groups, a harbinger of a horrifically violent regime which killed countless people, and burned the records of what had been learned about their humanity.

            • Otome-chan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I get called a fascist nazi all the time merely for agreeing with the 1st amendment of the USA which guarantees the right to free speech. If simply supporting the right to freely speak means you get called nazi/fascist, then I’d be wary of anyone who wasn’t accused of such.

            • StenSaksTapir@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I was called a fascist on Reddit for saying that punching nazis is a victimless crime, because punching people, merely because they want to eradicate other people, is a well-known staple of fascism.

              • Kantiberl@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah but if everyone slightly right of center gets labeled a nazi then you can just call anyone you don’t like a nazi and you can do whatever you want to them. That’s a problem.

        • JasSmith@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was banned from a bunch of subs all at once because I said in one (I’m still not sure which one), that I don’t think children should undergo gender or sex transition.

          • sethw@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            106
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What a boring and unnecessary opinion to have. You’re not their doctor, they arent your patients, what business is it of yours? and to go on about sharing that uneducated, untrained, unsolicited opinion online and then complaining about censorship when your medical advice is not well received… I just can’t wrap my head around the entitlement.

            • tikitaki@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              22
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’re not their doctor, they arent your patients, what business is it of yours?

              ok, so if you’re not a doctor you can have no opinion on healthcare now? ridiculous statement. i think healthcare should be free. i don’t work in healthcare or health insurance. so am i just supposed to shut the fuck up and know my place?

              no, I have my opinion and I’m going to share it and @JasSmith has his opinion and he’s going to share it. that’s the whole point of having discussion boards. the last thing i want is this place to become an echo chamber

              i think kids should be able to transition. but it’s also not so simple a conversation when you’re making permanent changes to teenage kids - https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/

              kids are fickle creatures and fads catch on - all of a sudden we see a dramatic rise in kids wanting to transition - like 4400% increase in girls wanting to transition to boys. is it because we are now more accepting as a society or is it social contagion? probably both and it’s a serious topic we need to address if we actually do want the best for the kids. we need to keep ideology out of healthcare and make sure each individual kid is taken care of with whatever is best for them - transitioning is not always the best option. but sometimes it is.

              • DaniAlexander@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                36
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It’s so funny to me this person don’t ever seem to have the same concerns about the nose jobs, boob jobs, lip enhancements, etc that are also being done on teens AND CHILDREN. I hear nothing from you about the performance enhancing drugs for teenage boys, or the altering of the bodies of gymnasts who also start in their early childhood. In the case of the latter, they get stunted growth because the intensive amount of training affects hormones and delays puberty. Gee what other thing that you argue about sounds similar to that?

                Maybe you didn’t know about those things before. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But now I fully expect that you go to all of gymnastics forums where they’re talking about young female gymnasts and male athletes,l and tell them that you don’t think they should do those sports anymore. You’re totally going to do that right? Right?

                • JasSmith@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s so funny to me this person don’t ever seem to have the same concerns about the nose jobs, boob jobs, lip enhancements, etc that are also being done on teens AND CHILDREN. I hear nothing from you about the performance enhancing drugs for teenage boys, or the altering of the bodies of gymnasts who also start in their early childhood.

                  I mean, you don’t know me, or you’d know that I also think those things are wrong. I also tell people that I think those things are wrong. Don’t you?

                • tikitaki@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  we aren’t seeing a 4000% increase in kids becoming gymnasts

                  it’s a poignant social topic. instead of attacking my credibility, aiming to represent me as biased, you should try to attack my argument

                  having said that, i support kids transitioning. i’m more upset about the “wrongthink” mentality where someone can’t even share their opinion without getting pounced on. he isn’t sharing hate speech he’s just talking

                  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    10
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Indeed, I’ve been finding myself hesitant to chime in on this because I know I’m inevitably going get lumped in with transphobe Nazi facists because at some point I’m going to say “hey hang on, there’s some nuance here that you’re missing.”

                • awsamation@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sure, I can go harass people on gymnastics forums if that’s what you want. But in that case it’s only fair that I start harassing people on trans forums as well. I wasn’t doing either of those things before, but you said I have to so I guess it’s time to go bully some trans people.

                  I have no problem with condemning the people who push children into intensive training for competition gymnastics. And no, I don’t believe them either when they argue that “the child wanted this.” The parents wanted a child who fits a certain mold and the child is just trying to make their parents happy, or atleast not angry depending on how externally abusive that parent is being.

                  Also I absolutely support the idea of banning under 18s from getting nose jobs, boob jobs, lip fillers, taking PEDs, etc. Heck throw in piercings and tattoos as well for all I care. No procedure and no parental permission exceptions.

                • gigachad@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I mean the top comment is a guy who was banned because of his opinion on gender/sex transition… And the person you answered to expressed their opinion on that topic. Why would they talk about nose jobs or whatever? If you want to discuss these topics why not ask them about it instead of assuming their political agenda? Not saying I agree with them, but that’s not how debates work.

              • fritz@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                20
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ah yes the great source of the New York post. I don’t think you are being harmful on purpose but I do believe that by spreading shit like this you are harming trans people. There is no trans epidemic or social fad. That opinion is absolutely ridiculous. I have a close family member who is trans and the difficulty of even getting hormones is extreme. Multiple meetings with psychologists and endocrinologist, many exams and paperwork, not even mentioning the bureaucracy you have to deal with afterwards. And this is as an adult, transitioning as a minor is way way harder. No one just gets transitioned in an accident, and 99% don’t regret it. Now on the flip side 30-50% of trans kids want to commit suicide due to societal pressure and bullying. The only „cure“ for gender dysphoria is, shocking I know, transitioning. So when people say to protect trans kids, it’s literally protecting them from self harm or from getting attacked. Also, do you really think that more people identify as trans because it’s a „fad“ or maybe it’s because your can finally openly talk about it! It’s like saying that the rise of left handed people after them not being retrained in school anymore is a social fad. It’s a stupid opinion. Whenever you have more societal acceptance of something more people will feel safe coming out. I understand that some people are scared of their kids being transed by the woke liberal teachers but the same people also think that Obama turned the frogs gay.

                • JasSmith@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ah yes the great source of the New York post.

                  Are you questioning that Chloe exists? She’s been speaking at length about her de-transition because the whole experience has destroyed her body permanently. You can read about her on her Wikipedia page. It’s cool to question sources, but you didn’t even take a sec on Google to check if your ad hominem attack was valid.

                  Here is another example. Sweden went all-in on “temporary” puberty blockers for gender affirming care until children started experiencing life-long injuries. They are now effectively banned for gender affirming care for children.

                  In one particularly shocking case, a girl who wanted to become a boy began taking hormone-blocking drugs at just 11-years-old. Almost five years after the treatment began, the puberty-pausing drugs induced osteoporosis and permanently damaged the teen’s vertebrae, severely limiting the teen’s mobility.

                  “When we asked him regularly how his back felt, he said: ‘I’m in pain all the time’,” she added.

                  • spencerforhire81@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Chloe’s case is a tragedy, for sure. The issue I have is that people are calling for bans rather than enhanced oversight.

                    Healthcare, at its core, is a numbers game. No effective treatment we’ve ever discovered is completely without risk. Every surgery or treatment, no matter how innocuous, could lead to complications or death. To use a recent example, the Covid vaccinations. They’re considered extremely safe, and over 13 billion vaccination doses have been given to date with over 5 billion people having been vaccinated. Given that Covid kills or permanently disables 2 in every 100 unvaccinated people, and vaccines lower that rate by at least 90%, that’s nearly 100 million lives that have been safeguarded by the vaccine. However, the vaccine has certainly harmed some people with extremely rare side effects. We accept that tradeoff, because saving 100 million lives is worth the risk of harming a few thousand people.

                    Gender affirming care for children is the same thing. We know that trans children are at extremely elevated risks of self harm and suicide, and gender affirming care is proven to be effective in preventing those outcomes. We know that some will regret their decision to transition because those cases are inevitable in any population that transitions. The focus should be on reducing the cases of regret with better screening and more oversight.

                    So, to debate this seriously, you need to answer the following question:

                    How many regretful de-transitioners are you willing to risk in order to save the lives of successful transitioners?

                    If the answer is zero, then you’re not willing to seriously debate the use of a medical treatment and your opinion is dogmatic and carries no semantic value.

                    If the answer is very few, then congratulations, you’re on the same side as many allies who want more funding for care and screening for trans issues.

                    Chloe would have likely been helped by more psychiatric care and screening, as from her story it’s clear that her sexual assault as a minor precipitated a complex regarding her sexuality that was misdiagnosed as a desire to transition.

                • tikitaki@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Also, do you really think that more people identify as trans because it’s a „fad“ or maybe it’s because your can finally openly talk about it

                  i think it’s both. i don’t know at what ratio, but kids really do follow fads. one kid kills themselves at a school and it raises the chances for all of them to do so. ideas are contagious. a kid that may just be going through the regular teenage angst period searching for an identity might latch onto the trans label to explain their feelings when really it’s just a normal teenage thing to go through identity issues

                  again, i’m not trying to say kids shouldn’t transition. i view transitioning as healthcare so to block kids off from it is absurd. but i think we also need to be careful and talk about the elephant in the room - that the rate of trans kids increasing so dramatically points to some issues with the ways we are doing it. when something jumps up so dramatically we should be asking questions

                  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s like the prevalence of left-handedness shot up dramatically once it was socially acceptable. You can’t look at changes alone and say that things changing is a concern because it’s changing.

              • awsamation@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                1 year ago

                See the problem here is that you forgot that opinions are only allowed to include concerns or nuances that are on the approved list.

                Anything you might be concerned about that isn’t on the approved list puts you straight into wrongthink, double plus ungood.

              • sethboy66@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The problem is that there’s a very big difference between wanting a blanket ban on transition preparation and wanting the actual people involved (the trans kid, the parents, and the doctors) to do a better job of evaluating the situation and working out the best path for each case.

                While your opinion may be more reasonable you should be careful to not assume they share your opinion. A lot of people don’t realize that the common choice for “transition” treatments for teens does not transition them, but rather delays/suppresses puberty in such a way that they can choose which way to go at a later time. Banning this treatment forces a choice and disallows a trans person’s ability to fully transition once of age.

              • electriccars@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                This is an uncomfortable conversation that needs to be had, but it sadly likely won’t until too many lives have been irreplaceably altered.

                Now firstly, I support trans people! I support all LGBTQ+ people, and Cis Straight people, to find themselves and be themselves and accept themselves for who they are! People need to learn to love themselves and not need to change to find happiness. Trans people are unfortunately stuck in a body that doesn’t match their brain so they need to change to become who they are inside. Just as everyone’s fingerprints are unique, everyone’s brains are unique, and sometimes the brain is so different from their sex that they need to transition to truly be themselves. But IMO not all people who say they are trans actually are, let me explain why.

                People want to support minorities, and lonely people want to find a community that will support them. So some people will surely become a minority just for the social support being a minority offers, not necessarily because they actually are that minority but they may convince themselves that is the case even if they aren’t. But the issue is there’s no easy way to know who’s who in this situation, and it’s arguably not our business to challenge them in their personal decisions. These are lonely people who need people to hear them and be their friends regardless of what they choose to do, and people who preach anti-trans arguments often aren’t able to do that and instead are very hateful.

                People today are lonely, in large part because of social media’s affect on our psych. And what support is there for straight cisgender people? Essentially none. Especially white straight cisgender people who are practically seen as the “bad guys” throughout history (Which isn’t necessarily an unfair assessment considering what Europe has historically done to basically everyone (including each other for that matter) but that was largely the actions of the wealthy few again). Why do so many kids and adults commit suicide? Where’s the support network for people who need it regardless of minority/majority status? Real life social networks are dying. I’m sure there is some support, but it’s not as visible to those who need it.

                There’s a conversation that needs to be had which is being shutdown because of the “look everyone a bigot(!)” mentality that bringing this up has. However, there’s no simple way I can see to really separate that honest discussion from those who do want to ban the practice entirely, so it’s understandable why the reaction is the way it is. It really is a shitshow from all sides. (Transitioning should not be banned BTW in case I haven’t made it clear that that’s my position.)

                I think that some kids should be allowed to transition, based on their physicians and families assessments of the situation. But in the end it’s not my business if someone believes they truly need to transition to be happy. I do think currently too many are transitioning because it’s become the new social fad like being goth or emo, though perhaps I’m wrong. But if I’m right than it’s a lot harder to reverse being trans, if it’s possible at all.

                Personally, I’m just dropping the subject IRL because of the reaction that happens after any mention of that honest concern comes out.

                I expect someone will say I’m a bigot just for this comment showing any concern at all that too many people think they’re trans and are harming themselves long term. My goal is the largest amount of happy people who love themselves as possible. And sometimes in trying to do that society inadvertently causes some people unnecessary suffering as I’m sure is the case here, but there’s nothing we can really do about it, it is what it is. So just love everyone and accept everyone and do your own thing. Things will work out for most people in the end if you just accept people and don’t worry about things. Which is what I try to do.

            • Noumena@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              19
              ·
              1 year ago

              You have some points, but “not well recieved” would be downvotes. I think banning is censorship and can be a fair complaint.

              With that said, maybe the sub had posted rules that were violated. It isn’t like OP couldn’t create their own sub if that was the situation.

              Banning people from communication spaces though should be a concerning behavior. It goes both ways.

              • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                55
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                If your goal is to have a safe space for an oppressed minority group to express themselves, allowing transphobes to go about “just asking questions” and harassing people shuts down conversation of a group that actually has their freedom of expression threatened. Allowing harassment is more censorship than banning it. And no one should have the expectation of being able to just go into anyone’s house and shit on their floor without consequence. And that might mean being banned from going to all of their friend’s houses as well.

                • Noumena@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  But you don’t know what they said or what the community was. You are missing my general point. Please don’t support general fascism behavior, whether it is from the right or left.

                  On top of that, this isn’t somebody’s house. That isn’t a good analogy.

                  • chaogomu@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    42
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    They already said quite clearly that they’re transphobic. The “I don’t think children should undergo gender or sex transition” is almost verbatim an anti-trans talking point.

                    Here’s some actual research on the subject of trans people, including trans youth, and suicide risk. With citations;

                    Bauer, et al., 2015: Transition vastly reduces risks of suicide attempts, and the farther along in transition someone is the lower that risk gets.

                    de Vries, et al, 2014: A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team with mental health professionals, physicians, and surgeons, including puberty suppression, followed by cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery, provides trans youth the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults. All showed significant improvement in their psychological health, and they had notably lower rates of internalizing psychopathology than previously reported among trans children living as their natal sex. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population.

                    Gorton, 2011 (Prepared for the San Francisco Department of Public Health): “In a cross-sectional study of 141 transgender patients, Kuiper and Cohen-Kittenis found that after medical intervention and treatments, suicide fell from 19 percent to zero percent in transgender men and from 24 percent to 6 percent in transgender women.)”

                    Murad, et al., 2010: “Significant decrease in suicidality post-treatment. The average reduction was from 30% pretreatment to 8% post treatment.”

                    De Cuypere, et al., 2006: Rate of suicide attempts dropped dramatically from 29.3% to 5.1% after receiving medical and surgical treatment among Dutch patients treated from 1986-2001.

                    UK study: "Suicidal ideation and actual attempts reduced after transition, with 63% thinking about or attempting suicide more before they transitioned and only 3% thinking about or attempting suicide more post-transition.

                    Heylens, 2014: Found that the psychological state of transgender people “resembled those of a general population after hormone therapy was initiated.”

                    Perez-Brumer, 2017: “These findings suggest that interventions that address depression and school-based victimization could decrease gender identity-based disparities in suicidal ideation.”

                    Here’s a study showing that children know what gender they prefer and don’t change their minds on it.

                    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35951394/

                    Here’s another meta study on trans youth who received gender-affirming care, and who saw a decrease in suicide risk.

                    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33320999/

                  • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    They repeated what they said, which is good enough reason to ban them from dozens of communities. People generally portray themselves in the least controversial light possible in these circumstances, so that’s the best case scenario.

                    Many subreddits are the personal spaces of groups of people. Doesn’t matter whether it’s literally a physical house someone lives in or a metaphorical home for marginalized people. It’s still their personal space. They’re justified in excluding people even for trivial reasons such as liking the number 7. Blatant transphobia is an obvious reason to ban people from such spaces.

                    Blocking people from harassing marginalized people is not fascism. Excusing the persecution of marginalized people otoh…

            • awsamation@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have opinions on when and how children should be allowed to access cigarettes, alcohol, and motorcycles. Are those opinions also boring, unnecessary, and entitled?

              • BarbecueCowboy@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                21
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                If that medical opinion wasn’t backed up by doctors and the majority of the medical community, I’d imagine that opinion probably would be.

                • awsamation@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The medical opinion backed up by doctors and the majority of the medical community used to be that alcohol for minors was fine and that cigarettes were good for you.

                  The medical community is perfectly capable of being wrong and prescribing societal dogma over anything else.

                  • anlumo@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’re dismissing all of modern medicine there, which IMO is even worse. Knowledge might change, but until it does, we have to follow the current state of science. Otherwise we’re back to guesswork.

            • JasSmith@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              In society we routinely have opinions about things which don’t affect us personally. We have opinions about murder, for example, and we made it illegal. None of my family have been murdered before. I’m neither a police officer nor a judge nor criminologist. I’m the least qualified person in the room to have an opinion on this, and yet, democracy gives me that right. I choose to continue to vote to make murder illegal because I think it is immoral.

              Likewise, I think it is immoral to do this to children:

              In one particularly shocking case, a girl who wanted to become a boy began taking hormone-blocking drugs at just 11-years-old. Almost five years after the treatment began, the puberty-pausing drugs induced osteoporosis and permanently damaged the teen’s vertebrae, severely limiting the teen’s mobility.

              “When we asked him regularly how his back felt, he said: ‘I’m in pain all the time’,” she added.

            • QingQangQong@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              So ban people with dissenting opinions unless they are an expert. Seems like a great totally not authoritarian plan!

          • GataZapata@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            I get why subs that consider themselves safe spaces for trans folk would ban you for that.

            Transitions are Never done willy nilly. Several doctors and psychologists will be in contact with that person before. If they agree it is fine, as Healthcare professionals, then it must be that forcing the person to stay their birth gender will do more harm

          • jcrm@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lmao, yeah you deserved to have your trash take “censored”. Gender affirming care saves lives, and has a less than 1% “regret rate”. For reference, knee replacements have about a 15% rate. Shocking how trans-inclusive spaces don’t want transphobes around.

          • patchw3rk@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I think the problem with your opinion is that it conveys that you believe children are being throw into surgery rooms and given sex transitions loosely and without thought to the consequences.

            I think your real opinion is that you believe children shouldn’t be given unnecessary surgeries. If that is true, the large majority of the population would agree with you.

            In addition, have you explored what Doctors believe is a necessary sex transition for a child? What are those parameters? If you don’t know, then I would consider your original stance to be of ignorance. Since you really never dive into the subject, most people will assume that you haven’t explored those parameters and don’t understand the reasoning behind them. That is why you’re facing aggression with your opinion.

          • beefcat@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re entitled to your opinion, but the consensus among the medical and scientific communities is that you are wrong. They are the experts here, not you. At some point, blindly repeating falsehoods based on prejudice stops being an avenue for constructive debate and instead just wastes everybody’s time and makes people angry for no reason.

            You’re advocating against life-saving treatments. Of course you’re going to get shit on.

          • African_Grey@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m so glad I signed up on Beehaw where I can flip my app to local only and makes these dog whistling conservative bigots disappear. It’s wonderful. I also never see any downvotes.

      • sethw@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        66
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        fascism doesnt play fair in the marketplace of ideas, if you invite a nazi to sit at your table you’ve made it a nazi table. free speech is necessary and important, but we still draw lines for things like defamation and hate speech. another line is not offering a platform to fascists, they arent entitled to a seat at the table to spread fud.

        you’re like “but i’m not a nazi” , great, let’s keep it that way.

        • siuvhne@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          how did this discussion devolve into Nazis? I’m afraid you’re probably part of the problem.

          • EvilColeslaw@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            32
            ·
            1 year ago

            extreme far right buffoonery

            Like the title said, it basically started off with Nazism. No devolution of discussion required.

            • siuvhne@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Thank you for calling that out.

              I may have misunderstood the intent of the post. sometimes I skim without meaning to.

        • beefcat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Importantly, “free speech” is about government, not privately owned spaces.

          We believe the government should not be given the power to censor speech, because people are born into it without a choice. Governments could use this power nefariously, and their citizens would have no meaningful recourse.

          Nobody is born into Reddit or kbin or Lemmy. If someone doesn’t like the rules of a given instance, they are welcome to leave and free themselves of this burden.

      • MustrumR@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        1 year ago

        It certainly doesn’t. It’s just that alt rtght absolutely abuses good will and rules to the extreme and systematically hijacks certain phrases.

        See Elon Musk’s Twitter as a light example (giving in to authoritarian censorship, and skewing content visibility, while constantly touting himself a “Free speech absolutist”), or the_donald from Reddit, which was mostly made of bots, conspiracy theorists and some sane, but malicious people, banning anyone who’s even slightly misaligned.

        Some people like the previous commenter are then incorrectly shortcutting hijacked slogans to the alt right. Which was their goal to start with - increasing the friction, uncertainty and division.

        To elaborate about free speech we want to mantain sensible environment. So we need to give a boot to astroturfing bots and far, far right neonazis. Though as with most things, moderation is the key.

        • T0rrent01@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Elon’s acquisition of Twitter serves as an insightful case study of how a corporate CEO can turn what used to be a diverse, tolerant, and bountiful community of netizens with no home for hate speech and misinformation into a sad capitalist bloodbath.

          Please take note, Huffman. And please take note, the internet in general.

          • JasSmith@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah TWITTER was “a diverse, tolerant, and bountiful community of netizens” before Musk took over. This is the most insane thing I’ve read all week.

        • Suddenmoose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          that I don’t think children should undergo gender or sex transition.

          This would get you permabanned and muted on r/news

      • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, but the “censorship” and “freedoms” they talk about isn’t about malicious censorship (I.e. Spez going around quietly editing dissenting comments) or freedom about how our content is used (I.e. Reddit refusing to let people delete their comments).

        Their version is about spreading misinformation and hate speech of all kinds, alongside racist and facist ideologies unfiltered and unimpeded. They’re malicious actors acting like victims.

        We don’t want any of that, we want all folks to feel welcome, which is why we have to shoot that down. To maintain a tolerant society, we must only be intolerant of the intolerant.

        • ElleChaise@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          1 year ago

          we want all folks to feel welcome

          That’s another thing they’ll tell you, to add to your point. They’ll say general society, or lefties, are unwelcoming hypocrits for expressing the need for inclusion while not including fascists.

          They’ll word the same opinions in a million ways until they find the way that gets you to allow them to continue blabbering intolerant bull crap.

          • Hyperreality@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m a big fan of free speech.

            Nazis scare minorities into not being able to fully exercise their right to free speech.

            So censoring the far right actually results in a net gain in free speech for society and communities as a whole.

          • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s true, those types will use your own rules against you to wipe you out if you let them. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the playbook of bad faith arguments.

            I bet you we’ll see a version of that very argument with the Fediverse when Meta brings “Threads” onto the scene. They’ll preach inclusion then use the old EEE tactic to kill us off.

          • Ragnell@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s the Paradox, they use tolerance to fill the space with intolerance.

            I said it in a comment below and I’ll write it out again because it is a great point (that I have seen several times on Mastodon, not that I thought up on my own) that the only way to resolve the Paradox of Tolerance is to understand tolerance as a social contract.

            Nazis start from not adhering to the contract, because they refuse to tolerate certain identities. TERFS refuse to tolerate trans identities. Neither the Nazi nor the TERF viewpoint is entitled to tolerance. Compare to Furries, who have no problem with non-furry identities but are often not welcomed because they are so very very strange. Tolerance is for furries, not nazis.

          • Ragnell@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Going to bring it up again, the Paradox of Tolerance disappears when you consider tolerance a social contract rather than a moral standard.

            Nazis base their identity and politics around not tolerating the presence of various minorities, and therefore aren’t entitled to tolerance themselves.

            TERFs base their identity and politics areound not tolerating trans people, and therefore aren’t entitled to tolerance themselves.

            Furries don’t base their identity on excluding, invalidating or persecuting someone else, so furries are entitled to tolerance.

            So, the furry boards stay but we need to defederate Nazis and TERFs.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s always going to be some fuzzy edge cases, unfortunately. When tolerance becomes such an important and powerful thing it will become easily weaponized and subject to misinterpretation, deliberate or otherwise.

              • Ragnell@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Oh yeah, but honestly if we can just keep the big troublemakers out and set a line in the sand we can put up with the fuzzy edge cases. It would also be necessary to consider tolerance a concept that goes beyond interpersonal interaction. Like, okay, this guy is civil but what he’s saying is that genocide is okay. Or, okay, this guy is rubbing me the wrong way but at its core “Archer is a better Captain than Sisko”* is not fundamentally about race, it could honestly be he just prefers Archer.

                *Sisko is a better Captain than Archer, this is fact. But sometimes people are just wrong and that’s okay.

                • anlumo@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Which captain poisoned the atmosphere of a whole planet just for his personal vendetta against one guy?

                  Which captain initiated the murder of an innocent diplomat just to get his way?

                  Don’t get me wrong, Sisko made for better stories, but being a good captain is a different category.

                  • Ragnell@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I knew I’d get one.

                    Archer’s problem is that he’s weak, kind of cowardly, and a bully. I watched the whole series, but you only need watch Cogenitor to see it. Even Lorca would’ve kept a promise to one of his crew.

                    Sisko did some stuff we can argue about, but he has the courage to make the choice according to his principles. I can’t put Archer in Sisko’s situations and see him coming out better.

                    Also, Sisko punched Q. Knowing FULLY who Q was. Nothing can detract from punching Q.

          • mPony@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            the guy who gave us the Paradox of Tolerance also gave us Falsifiability, They should teach him in grade school.

            • chaogomu@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              I always say that there is no paradox of tolerance, because tolerance doesn’t work that way.

              It’s not a wide open door. No tolerance is a compact. It’s a peace treaty. A social contract that can be violated, and those who violate it can then be excluded from it until they stop being hateful idiots.

          • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            I once said in the World News subreddit during the initial days of Russia invading Ukraine “fuck Russia. Also fuck China” and made it clear I was talking about their governments, and was banned. I also commented in Old School Cool subreddit a benign mention that OP’s mom was attractive and got banned. I also told the mods of another subreddit that allowed comments on how to encourage violence at drag shows (can’t remember where now) they were fascist pieces of shit, no mincing of words, and literally had an account ban from reddit due to too many strikes.

            I can tell fascists and tankies here to go fuck themselves here consistently without fear of reprisal by a fat unemployed useless mentally retarded moderator on a power trip.

            Fuck reddit and it’s inconsistent censorship.

            • slicedcheesegremlin@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Wow, the only reasonable comment talking about “censorship” in this thread.
              Another example I can think of is when the CCP announced that they were going to put restrictions on depicting “feminine men” in media, so I went to r/GenshinImpact to see the riots that would unfold from having their femboys taken away. there was a post about it that appeared on google but had been removed, so I went on there using removeddit and found several with over 3k upvotes each that had all been removed, undoubtedly by the mods shilling for the Chinese government.

            • Otome-chan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I completely disagree with your views here but completely support your right to say it. Why’s it so hard to allow people to simply speak to one another without some uppity censor-happy/ban-happy authoritarian fuckwits getting in the way and preventing conversation?

      • Suddenmoose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Reddit was filled with a special brand of retards always trying to police language always acting smug about taking about some weird moral high road it is exhausting to deal with. People irl dont have such tight asses about speech. And permabanning someone for having an opinion you dont agree with is an abuse of power (not like it matters much to people who are so zealous about policing public morality). Obviously dont be a shitter and start spouting off trump supporters special brand of koolaid but if you feel like trans women should not compete with biological women in professional womens sports then you are free to think that way.

        • Dr Cog
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          Speaking of speech:

          Using the word “retard” as a derogatory term is pretty offensive to those born with developmental defects. It’s similar to how we used to use “gay” in a similar way a few decades ago. It’s pretty shitty.

          • Suddenmoose@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            you are free to feel that way but the mods are not free to ban me for my shitty vocab. they can just call me an asshole and move on like every other website

            • patchw3rk@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You are entirely in control of what you say… but it sounds like what you meant is not in line with what you’re saying.

              Do you deliberately want to belittle people with developmental issues? It doesn’t sound like it. I think what @Dr_Cog is trying to say is that you should consider lining up the words you use with the message you’re actually trying to convey.

              • Suddenmoose@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Do you deliberately want to belittle people with developmental issues

                no one is attacking people with developmental disabilities by calling something retarded if you want to take it that way your are free to do so its your opinion not mine and even if you try to twist my words to suit your fucked up narrative i know what i mean and thats what matters to me

                • patchw3rk@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Sounds like you’ve had this conversation before and you are comfortable being on the merry-go-around.

                • Emotional_Series7814@kbin.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m honestly sure you don’t mean “retarded” as a personal attack against people with developmental disabilities.

                  There’s also a very long history of people using that exact same word to attack them. Many people who make arguments like yours, that they should still get to use the word, tend to also be prejudiced against these people and treat them poorly. Maybe you’re not like that, but using that word does make you look a lot more like these people.

                  You making an argument to try to keep using the word, even though it hurts people, essentially tells them “I will not change one word in my vocabulary to accommodate your feelings and history of being hurt by this word.” Your choice on if you want to change your words to in an effort to get people to interpret you in a way that better matches your intent, or if you’d like to stick to your guns even if it means lots of people will get hurt. After all, people are free to interpret words however they wish, including in ways that you don’t intend them to and ways you don’t mean. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people affected by this word to not want you in their communities if you want to keep using that word, at least if they didn’t promise you absolute freedom of speech.

                  • Suddenmoose@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Hey if the mods want to remove folks like me so be it. Do i make extensive use of such slurs in my day to day vocabulary? (Not really) i mainly want to test the waters and see how hard the mods and the community comes down on me for it. Can i speak like normal or will i have to sing song dance around subjects like on reddit.

              • Otome-chan@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                If we’re to start declaring how people speak, can all you word nazis please start cracking down on those people who use the Q slur to refer to LGBT people? it’s a literal slur, has been used to attack and harm large portions of the community, yet people will happily broadcast it.

                I feel that’s a better use of time than pushing offense over the word “retard” which ultimately doesn’t hurt anyone and hasn’t been used to hurt anyone.

            • Dr Cog
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I didn’t say anything about banning you, or stopping your speech. Just pointing out that most people look down on those who use that kind of derogatory language.

            • Grimpen@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Technically depends on the instance. The Fediverse supports free expression in the sense that you can spin up your own instance and say whatever you want. Flip side, any other instance can de-federate with your instance if they don’t want to listen to your BS^1.

              For instance, my instance^2 would probably police my ability to use slurs. Which is fine. I certainly am a member of some groups for which slurs exist, and if some asshole started spewing that BS in my house, I would express myself by kicking them the f*ck out. Likewise I chose an instance where I can be comfortable, and not have to deal with being harassed for who I just happen to be. My choice of an instance is largely founded on its Code of Conduct. In exchange, I extend the same courtesy to others on my instance.

              It’s almost like a social contract…

              Anyway, point being, as a consequence of different instances having different Codes of Conduct (even if just minor changes), you will technically be bound by both the CoC of your home instance and the home instance of the community/magazine.

                • Grimpen@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yep, the Fediverse can totally provide that. Self-hosting puts you in total control. I’m just making the point that free expression cuts both ways. Each instance is a free association of members who consent to that instances CoC. Each community/magazine has a home instance, and by joining that community you are also consenting to abide by that instances CoC.

                  This does mean that in effect you can be banned from either the community or your home instance.

                  Flip side of all this, is you have a bunch more variety of instances. You should be able to find one where you are comfortable, but still be mindful when participating in wider communities. You’re visiting someone else’s house in effect.

                  Finally, instances can de-federate if they don’t want to deal with another instances nonsense.

          • JasSmith@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Speaking as someone with a speech impediment, using the word “the” is super offensive to me. It’s basically a slur. If you don’t stop using it immediately, I have no choice but to report you for being a Nazi.

            • Dr Cog
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s sounds tough. You should probably not report people for generally benign speech, though, just because you personally find it offensive. Have you tried simply informing others of your problem with this language?

              • Otome-chan@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I would say that “retard” is less offensive than the Q slur used to refer to LGBT people. You say there’s a problem with calling stuff “gay” whereas I’m actually same sex attracted and have no issue with that. THe bigger issue is the Q slur.

                if you’re gonna just say “well my dictation of language is the only one that matters!” then you’re just being an authoritarian fascist nazi and are literally the problem.

      • Otome-chan@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        many people on the fediverse are extreme authoritarian progressives who call literally any other political view “nazis”

    • T0rrent01@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      In my experience, the people ranting about “free speech” the loudest are the most flagrant violators of the “my right to move my arms ends at your nose” maxim.

    • Otome-chan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      ehhhh… I think it says a lot about a person if they don’t care about free speech, or the encroaching censorship from the rich 1%ers. That’s literally the entire appeal of stuff like the fediverse.

      If you want a strong crackdown on speech, then go back to reddit?