@ernest how do I report a Magazin on kbin.social ? There is a usere called “ps” who is posting to his own “antiwoke” Magazin on kbin.social. Please remove this and dont give them a chance to etablish them self on kbin.social. When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin? Seems like a problem. Screenshot of the “antiwoke” Magazin /sub on kbin.social. 4 Headlines are visible, 2 exampels: “Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society” “How to end wokeness” #Moderation #kbin #kbin.social 📎
edit: dont feed the troll, im shure ernest will delet them all when he sees this. report and move on.
Edit 2 : Ernest responded:
“I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author.”
❤
Thank you for exposing all the people who want kbin to be just like Reddit. If that is what kbin turns into then it can join spez right where he belongs.
Your calls for censorship should get YOU and your peers in this thread banned.
Nazi Punks Fuck Off
It’s not censorship, it’s keeping people acting in bad faith from easily act in derogatory ways actively harming people.
Go hang out on Voat, bigot
I mean I don’t know or even care to censur on that level but thanks for the heads up so I can block. Im thinking it would be nice to have a recommened block magazine
It’s not censorship, it’s self-defence.
A single shitposter, with only downvoted posts. without attention they would have stopped posting, but now it has attention.
While the content is stupid and vile, is he breaking any rules?
I mean, one of those examples is
“Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society”
That is a global rule violation on most sites. Hate speech.
Genuinely curious what is hateful about that? Rejecting something does not equal hate or I guess I need to file a claim against universities and friends who rejected me.
Let me take one excerpt from that thread and I want you to ask that again
Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp, so it was extremely rare for anyone to think such behavior was acceptable.
And to summarize: He’s basically advocating “good Christian morals” as being transphobic.
But also to the original post: It is wording the advocates for trans people as being extremists who are harming our society.
Did they claim that you were harming society?
“extreme trans lobby” is a conspiratorial misrepresentation of a group of people who would just like to live their lives.
Source?
I disagree: better to kill the evil in its infancy, rather than let it spread and hope it goes away by its own.
Respectful Behavior
We expect all users to treat each other with respect and kindness. Harassment, hate speech, or any other form of harmful behavior will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to remove any content or user that violates these guidelines.
Isn’t this standard for anywhere that doesn’t want to end up as T_D or 4chan?
The posts itself are not rulebreaking, but i could be wrong.
But the reply here is breaking the rules
https://kbin.social/m/antiwoke/t/101045/Time-to-reject-the-extreme-trans-lobby-harming-our-societyThat’s mostly the problem with those posts, while not rule breaking, they are hate magnets.
If the moderator refuses to properly moderate the comments this would be a proper reason for a ban.
What a fuckin psychopath.
Incidentally the person breaking the rules is making the biggest stir in this thread about not banning people.
Guy literally is advocating beating people to death as a good Christian moral while also trying to advocate he shouldn’t be banned for it.
No, I did not advocate for beating people to death, and I would never advocate for that. Try reading the whole post and not taking a few words out of context.
The whole post was even more disgusting. Others are welcome to read it, Static linked it, but I stand by what I said.
If the devil did exist, he resides in your church, raising monsters.
And these are the people who would lecture about prejudice… Nothing but prejudicial bad faith in this entire thread.
Being a filthy reactionary, I was really hoping that the fediverse could become something like the reddit of 10 years ago, but it seems like the dyed-in-the-wool redditors couldn’t help but bring their intolerance with them.
Thank you for actually bothering to stand your ground. God bless.
they are hate magnets.
And they were posted with the intent to be so. That suffices in my opinion. It’s not the lone post itself, but the context of the magazine as a whole.
If the moderator refuses to properly moderate the comments
Yes, the mod of antiwoke is about to exercise proper judgement
Nah, we’re nipping this shit in the bud because the shitposting is only the Trojan horse.
This shit’s already here. Now we gotta shine a light on it and deal with it.
Streisand effect for sure. There seems to be run of these types of posts in the fediverse lately. People don’t seem to realize that sometimes they’re better off letting these situations take their natural course (and die), and not intervene unless it grows beyond manageability.
Respectfully, I disagree. If you are running a bar and a nazi comes in with all their nazi periphranalia and orders a drink and behaves. You still kick them out. Because if you don’t the next time they will bring all their nazi friends and it will be much harder to kick them out and then your other patrons stop showing up because of all the nazis around and now you are running a nazi bar.
Ban hate trolls. Ban them immediately. Because if that content festers on the site it will be much harder to ban later.
So here’s my issue here.
This guy is clearly not a small issue. He’s being as loud and obnoxious as possible.
If there’s nothing in place to deal with one huge troublemaker, what’s to stop a dozen who come to Kbin and start making hateful communities?
My concern at this point is that Kbin itself gets defederated because the other instances don’t think it’s taking moderation seriously.
In what way is it a huge deal? In what way was it loud? (Until now)
This person had a handful of heavily downvoted posts and interactions so they never made it to the “hot” or “active” pages.
(Are we talking about the same person?)
If you take a poll of everyone in this thread I would bet almost everyone hadn’t seen these posts or heard of the username.
But now they have, with the help of this post.
Speaking for myself I’ve seen both 10A and ps making these comments. 10A has managed to amass at least -2732 downvotes, ps -653, that’s not a trivial amount of interaction. I came across an antiwoke post on the front page (I think just right after it was posted, so bad luck). And I’m holding off advocating people move to kbin until I see a moderating policy that results in banning them.
It sounds like you were viewing the “new” tab?The hot/active tabs on Kbin wouldn’t receive that content so early. It will always be a wackamole game, no platform will ever succeed 100%. Once there are more advanced moderation tools, I would suggest silently removing objectionable content or users.
Also, I’ll have to disagree slightly, thats not a lot of interaction. This single post alone has over 300 upvotes since posted. The volume of either is simply an indication of how strongly people react.
It sounds like you were viewing the “new” tab?
I don’t think so, but I couldn’t swear to it.
thats not a lot of interaction
Probably we just have different thresholds for a lot. People seeing hate 3000 times on the platform seems like a lot to me.
You missed the whole point.
He said,
what’s to stop a dozen who come to Kbin and start making hateful communities?
That’s exactly my point. Even when there are better moderating tools and the site admins have time to delete magazines, they will still pop-up faster then you can stop them. No site on the internet has ever fully solved this issue.
Since that is the reality, by avoiding inadvertently promoting them before they’re removed, a site is much more efficient at managing the workload.
Posts like this can have the unintended consequence of spawning more trolls or objectionable actors, this can and does actually make the site management harder.
I think with better moderation tools, it’s absolutely possible to silence hate speech. The modern sanitized internet has managed to do it with child porn, which was EVERYWHERE in the wild west days. It’s possible with motivation.
Hate speech is profitable, so companies generally have a profit incentive to keep it around. The fediverse doesn’t.
#1 rule on the internet: don’t feed the trolls. Downvote them, block them, move on. They’re not here to engage in good faith.
As someone who genuinely does enjoy trolling on rare occasion, I think you misunderstand what a troll is. Speaking sincerely held ideas from across the political spectrum does not make someone a troll. A troll is insincere yet playful. That’s not to say I shouldn’t be blocked by anyone who wants to block me, but it’s not for being a troll in this context.
A troll is insincere yet playful.
I chuckled at least. A troll’s motivation for the rise that they seek is largely inconsequential, as is the delivery mechanism. ;) Let’s not go and disenfranchise the majority of the internet’s trolling population with narrow typecasting!
While we’re on the topic of trolling, are you familiar with Sealioning?
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”, and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.
It’s a rhetorical question, no need to respond. Someone else might learn something they didn’t know before today. :)
No such thing as free speech on these “niche” social platforms. Pitchforks and torches, if this was real-life they’d be throwing you in a pond tied up and waiting for you to float…
14 day old account on its home instance, its only posting activity is within this thread, and both comments are low effort outrage farming with images.
The emotionally evocative hyperbole in the second sentence was pretty good though. Is it your own material? If so, can you write some more persecution porn for us? You don’t need images as your crutch, you’ve got some real writing talent going for you here.
A picture is worth a thousand words and just sums up this toxic thread and witch hunt.
Nah, it’s just your addiction to outrage farming on Twitter/Facebook showing. :)
The problem is that by that point it will have grown beyond manageability. You know the “Nazi bar” saying.
There’s a bunch of people (who are Nazis) and they seem cool, quiet, well spoken, just having a drink. And they bring their friends and those guys are cool too. Then those guys bring their friends and those guys are less cool and now normal people don’t drink at the bar anymore and you look around and it’s a Nazi bar and you can’t make them leave or they’ll start causing “problems”. So. I’m all for just using the brutal hammer of censorship.
It’s not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was.
True, agreed. I’m only commenting on the idea that these people or groups shouldn’t get free advertising when people find them. These posts that are blasting their way to the top of “hot” just like a trending news article are counter-productive. On the Internet, which is fundamentally always at least partially an uncontrolled environment, it’s better take actions for these things that are as invisible as possible.
I’m no Nazi, but I get your point. What you don’t realize is once the bar kicks the Nazis out, they start their own bar, and there their numbers grow. A more intelligent approach is to rationally talk with them, as Daryl Davis has with KKK members.
They want the bar for the traffic. They can start their own bar but the extreme nature of it deters people from even setting foot.
They want to sit in places that look neutral or even friendly.
You can’t reason a person out of a stance they didn’t reason themselves into.
For instance: How would you even begin to reason with someone that believes in demons? Where could any discussion even go if one side can waive away anything they don’t agree with by claiming it is a trick from a demon?
Just a general rule of thumb there little guy, when it comes to anything political if you find the nazis are on your side, you are on the wrong side.
Hate speech is not part of free speech anyways. Fuck nazis. Everyone that gets offended by that can get fucked as well.
Something else that occurred to me. If someone posted something that was pro-woke in /r/conservative or on Parler or any of those other apps, they’d get banned immediately. “Free Speech” only seems to be a concern when it’s right-wingers posting on left-leaning forums, never the reverse.
I think that taking the free speech argument at face value in the present day just means you’re gullible.
I think hardcore conservatives simply don’t have an inherent sense of empathy. That’s why they don’t really care about the victims of a crime, disaster, etc. until it happens to them personally. They do not have the perspective to put themselves in another person’s shoes.
It’s NOT an intelligence issue. It’s easy to write people off as stupid, but that’s not the case. For them, being unable to think with empathy is as natural as being unable to see infrared light.
They’ve figured out that making themselves appear to be victims can sometimes make people listen, but they can’t fully explain why. That lack of understanding is why they don’t see the hypocrisy in banning people from their platforms, but then whining loudly when they’re treated the same way.
This is all just guesswork, but it’s the best explanation I’ve been able to come up with that doesn’t make my head explode.
Cross out the “hardcore”, lack of empathy is very much a core part of conservatism no matter which side of conservatism, social | fiscal, you lean into and by how much. If you’re socially conservative you want every social aspect to stay as it is which proves inherently a lack of empathy. If you’re fiscally conservative you want monetary value to stay as is (in terms of inflation and cost-cutting etc.) no matter whom it hurts (as long as it doesn’t hurt you, of course).
Which is why I personally think it actually is (also) an intelligence issue, because the people that are not socially conservative and only fiscally conservative usually vote for the party of big government and military spending ® which goes against anything fiscally conservative and as a “cool” side effect also proves to be detrimental to social values of different people and groups.
You probably know the quote by George Carlin, as its a told tale as old as day. I think the quote nicely illustrates the voting game in the US.
With the very rare exception, absolutely.
Reminds me of a quote by Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels from 1935, after the Nazis took power:
“Wenn unsere Gegner sagen: Ja, wir haben Euch doch früher die […] Freiheit der Meinung zugebilligt – –, ja, Ihr uns, das ist doch kein Beweis, daß wir das Euch auch tuen sollen! […] Daß Ihr das uns gegeben habt, – das ist ja ein Beweis dafür, wie dumm Ihr seid!”
– source
Rough translation:
“When our enemies say: But we’ve granted you […] freedom of opinion back in the day – –, well, yes, you granted it to us, but that is no proof that we should do likewise! […] The fact that you granted it to us, – that is only proof for how stupid you are!”
For fascists at least talking about freedom of speech and the like is just another tool they try to wield in their quest to gain power, nothing else.
It depends on your definition of free speech, the US constitution does consider it part of free speech.
The US constitution also considers free speech a right that protect a websites right not to repeat hate speech, not a users “right” to force a website to host their speech. In the constitutions view of the world free speech is protection against the government, not a tool to force other people to host your speech.
I really do not care about your constitution. I’m from Germany not the US.
‘“Germany places strict limits on speech and expression when it comes to right-wing extremism” or anything reminiscent of Nazism. Hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity also is banned in Germany.’
And I think this is the way all countries should handle it. No need to defend people promoting hate speech by debating me or your definition of free speach, I do not adhere by it.
Edit: I will wear 10A(ssholes’) downvote as a badge of honor, thank you!
I’m actually not from the US, I was just giving it as an example because it is the most famous one that unequivocally does include it.
What I’m really saying is “free speech” isn’t really one thing. It means different things in different contexts. For instance the breadth of “free speech” you should allow in what you promise to repeat (that’s what hosting something is) is much smaller than the breadth of “free speech” that you should not think less of someone for saying is in turn much smaller than the breadth of “free speech” that you should not wield the power of government to punish. And people legitimately disagree on where each of those boundaries lie.
I do think I missed the mark with the comment you replied to rereading it. I raised it because when someone says “It’s not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was” they are using the american republican-troll’s definition of free speech that means “anything but child porn”, and I think your reply was misunderstanding their comment as a result. But I don’t think I successfully conveyed my point.
Everything else aside, how you gonna say you don’t care about the US Constitution and then bring up the German Constitution? No one cares about that one either.
Appending:
Free speech also doesn’t mean “freedom from consequences.” And sometimes those include getting your shit deleted from a website or dragged up and down social media.
What is the relevance of the US constitution? This is not a US platform.
It depends on your definition of free speech
It’s one definition that is different than the definition that had been provided in the parent comment.
Wisdom ^
So you advocate your own posting taking its natural course and dying off? I can think of a way you can hurry up this process.
Dude, he’s mocking you all and you don’t even get it. The more you scream the more attention you’re bringning to his magazine.
You people are hopless.
Dude, he’s mocking you all and you don’t even get it. The more you scream the more attention you’re bringning to his magazine.
Other people are not as stupid as you think. But the question between not giving it attention to challenge it and possibly giving it food to fester or not giving it attention and also not challenging it is not easily answered. Looking at the repulsive backlash, drawing attention to it was the right choice. Sure, some more people might flock there, but the vast majority strongly disapproves and now knows that kbin.social (unsurprisingly) has awful people on it as well.
The rules of the internet remains unchanged, regardless of platform. Do not feed the trolls.
You are replying to the troll yourself lol
Sometimes the mobile U/I wins, but I decided to let it stand regardless of replying to the wrong comment. Maybe the troll learns something, though I doubt it.
and not intervene unless it grows beyond manageability.
I’d rather nip it in the bud. You’re just letting things fester.
The biggest thing im afraid of happening to Kbin/the lemmyverse is that it will end up like Ruqqus, especially now that it seems to be swamped with trolls.
I expect that instances will get more locked down, perhaps those of us on an instance can vouch for new users who might join, but I can’t see how a volunteer admin could police a million user instance. I used to run a 10k user discussion site and while that wasn’t a fulltime job it was still a giant pain in the ass at times. If we can get in a steady state where an instance has a core of active posters and lurkers then that seems better than infinite growth.
That then surely leads to federated instances that each represent the tolerances of their admin(s) and they presumably federate or not with other instances with similar sensibilities.
In the end the nazis will get their nazi instance and federate with likeminded types - they get defederated everywhere else and wont really be a problem (maybe for the FBI). (Though I’m not certain that all internet nazis truly are, i think there a group of trolls that get their kicks from being controversial and will get no joy by being surrounded by people who accept them)
The problems are going to be in the gray areas. For example, the argument that trans people don’t deserve to exist… I find that abhorrent, but there are people who will happily say that on TV, and there are CEOs of $44B social networks that appear to agree. Some instances will tolerate that on the grounds of free speech and others will not, then the admins are left trying to decide what’s grounds for defederation.
However in my limited experience, the thing that kills projects like this is too much navel gazing. There will always be some trolling and noise, but if the remaining users expend all their energy talking about it then the whole thing collapses in on itself. I feel like this is starting to happen on reddit where lots of subs are consumed by meta, but the best thing we can do here is get out and create active communities.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but it will become impossible to accomplish, practically speaking, as the fediverse grows. There’s only so much that can be done with volunteers, and it’s not like armies of paid staffers work much better (as we’ve seen the major tech corps try to do).
There is a sociological aspect to this, numerous studies have confirmed the effects of highlighting bad actors. There’s a copycat effect (as studies on mass shootings show) as well as what we call the Streisand effect. Both inadvertently encourage others to perpetuate the behaviour rather than serving to limit it.
Where does this sentiment come from? Reddit for the most part already does this. Twitter before Elon showed up did this. Most modern sites already do this
The only place I can think of where this is commonplace is 4chan, because they don’t moderate.
Yes, highlighting bad actors over a course of time can be problematic. But the point in this case is the point out that we don’t have the tools to deal with said bad actor. The tools that other sites have. It’s not being said in vain, the goal is to make aware that something needs to be done so that people don’t even see the bad actor to bring attention to them.
There is a purpose to the current efforts. I think everyone understands that constantly bringing attention to them will do no good, but the goal here is to bring attention to tools that are needed, so that it doesn’t happen again, or at the very least to this extent.
You’d might be conflating my comment with someone else? I’m not against moderating. I just think it’s a bad idea to blast these communities or users onto the front page when they’re found.
No example has been able to squash out bad actors and unwanted content completely. That’s the impossible task I’m referring to. Neither volunteers, nor paid staff have accomplished this for any site. In all your example there are still areas flying under the radar.
As such, it’s better to not inadvertently fan the flames when you find the fire, don’t make their soapbox bigger. Instead put it out quietly so it doesn’t harm anyone else.
Examples are good when trying to point out a problem actually exists and not have certain people trying to tone it down and make it not seem like as big a problem as it is, despite even the devs acknowledging there’s a problem.
The final point is more tools are being worked on, the thread did do something, so trying to argue a point that would basically have prevented it just seems…poor taste.
Everything you’re talking is perception, friend. You chose to take my comment that way. The dev tools were being worked on long before this post.
As I said before, I’m not making this up, the phenomenon is studied and the effect is proven.
Allowing bad actors to advertise themselves is highlighting them. Banning them and deleting their communities is the opposite of highlighting them.
Exactly. We agree? Thats what I said/mean. This post doesn’t ban them, it’s inadvertently advertising their content. There have been several post like this recently. While they may mean well they likely have the opposite effect.
So your solution is to just give up and let hate fester? When has appeasement ever worked?
Not at all. I think you’re conflating what I said with someone else. I’m only suggested we don’t inadvertently promote this content by creating a front-page post denouncing it.
The point about it being impossible to accomplish is about perfection. It’s a wack-a-mole game. Since this content and people will always be there until found, it’s better to not give them more of an audience.
No site will ever perfectly remove objectionable content. It’s one reason why the upvote downvote system is so valuable for a site like this.
I think the problem is that at the moment, the system is new enough that there’s no way to get this sort of content removed. Hence this front page post. It’s not about calling attention to the magazine, it’s about calling attention to the entire issue…
You can’t avoid hate and hope it recedes. You have to take it directly head on and stomp it out immediately.
If they decide to move elsewhere, then follow them there and continue rooting them out.
Just “letting people decide” is useless and will only enable them to continue.
Agreed, I think you’re still conflating things I never said. Nothing was in the “let the people decide” vein.
Thats why I think it’s better to silently remove them rather then making posts saying “look at this bad guy right there”.
clowns always trying to censor somebody… hunting for some low level degenerate to turn him into “antihero”
these people can’t seem to just enjoy a place with out starting a witch hunt
I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author.
Everyone appreciates your effort here, ernest. Spez hasn’t gotten 92 upvotes on a comment in years lmao despite Reddit having millions of users, it really shows how the difference.
The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly.
I have been wondering how instance-wide moderation will end up looking on kbin, once you’ve had a chance to get a team in place for that. While it is (I assume) a “generalist” instance, it’s important to keep in mind that you can’t please everyone. Trying to have too broad of an audience will just result in retaining those with a high tolerance for toxicity (usually highly toxic themselves), while everyone else leaves in favor of better-managed spaces.
Communities in general, and particularly on the internet, need to understand what their purpose is, and be proactive about filtering out those that are incompatible with that purpose. This doesn’t mean judging those people as wrong, or “bad people”, it just means recognizing that not everyone is going to get along, and that some level of group cohesion needs to be maintained.
Agreed, that’s part of my problem with generalist instances. They’re so broad that they serve multiple communities with differing expectations, and it forces admins to take sides.
I think there is value in having both generalist and specialized instances, and the big landing spots for new users should probably strive to be more generalist. As you point out though, there are limits to how broad of an audience one can practically cater to.
Could you clarify what you would do in cases like this? Censor based on misinterpretation of the clickbait headline, even if it does not contain hate content at all?
That’s the best bait you could come up with? Come on, you can do better.
thank you!
I appreciate all you do and your quick respond.
Multipile Things I noticed as a creater of this thread:
can I close comments ?
can I hide comments ?
can I pin a response?
can I quickly see from what server peope are interacting?I am no coder but would love to support you with all the work that is done.
At least some of the costs can be taken of your shoulders:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/kbin
Edit: Can you close this thread for me ?
All the things you mentioned are in the roadmap. However, we can either do it quickly and potentially encounter issues in a few weeks or months, or take a bit more time for a more thorough approach. I’ve decided to move away from playful prototyping. From now on, every change will be tested before it’s approved for kbin.social - it’s no longer just my code (https://lab2.kbin.pub/). I’d like to close this thread for you… but can we just agree not to respond in it anymore? ;p
Thank you for being thorough
I don’t think closing threads is a great idea or in keeping with how this all works. I think it’d be nice to be able to mute a thread as an individual, but by its nature these discussions are open and shared with many instances. If we close it on kbin.social, other kbin instances, lemmy instances, and even places like mastodon and pixelfed could keep discussing, if I understand activity pub correctly.
In such important tasks, I would like to engage in community-driven development. When I start planning these tasks, I will come to you with my whiteboard and sketch out the individual stages. Together, we will look for the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution, the weak and strong points. This is to jointly make a decision on whether the change makes sense on kbin.social but also in the perspective of the entire federation. It can be a great fun ;)
Let’s all agree that of its many issues, locking/deleting open threats to targeted minority groups and pro supremacist propaganda meant to hurt or influence vulnerable people was NOT a drawback of the Reddit experience.
Yes, it’s a difficult thing to enforce a subjective line of a basic standard of decency, but it’s also what a society is and one of the main reasons we gather as people. The quality of a group is shown in how they accommodate the weakest and most vulnerable among them.
If we aren’t prioritizing a way to send this CHUD and people liked them to the hypothetical edge of town, to be sure they can’t bombard the young person struggling with their gender identity with targeted hate at their weakest moment, then what are we doing here?
Oh go start your own malignant instance.
Funny if joke
Otherwise, bad attitude 😕
It’s a bad attitude to tell an unapologetic transphobe to get lost?
Edit: In case you didn’t realise, that’s the user this entire post is complaining about.
No, I didn’t realize that. Sorry.
Kindly go spread your nazi bullshit somewhere else, thanks buck.
I joined kbin recently and I’m kind of concerned about the implications of this. I don’t support those posts at all, but who gets to say what’s worth banning and what not? Wouldn’t that go against the decentralized nature of the site? Or is it the specific instance that magazine is on that has the authority to ban what’s inside? How does all of this work?
Edit: my bad, I got kbin and kbin.social mixed up. Noob mistake.
Wouldn’t that go against the decentralized nature of the site?
No, it’s exactly the opposite. The entire point of a decentralized federation is that while yes, the admin is in complete control of what content is allowed on his or her own instance, users who don’t like what the admin is doing can just spin up their own new instances.
Ernest can ban this type of content if he likes. Others can take the kbin software and make a new instance where it’s welcome. Ernest can choose not to federate with that instance if they continue to push content that’s against his rules, but Ernest doesn’t have the power to dictate the direction for hundreds of millions of users’ experience like a certain centralized site’s mad CEO or admin board does.
What would be against the nature of ActivityPub is if Ernest built something into the software to prevent it being used for types of content he doesn’t like, even on other instances.
Remember, kbin.social is just one instance of kbin. Ernest banning something on kbin.social does not mean banning it from the fediverse.
It could pop up on another fediverse site or even another kbin site.
kbin.social administration controls only what is published on kbin.social, and what content from elsewhere kbin.social users can see. An user banned from kbin.social can make another account, on another site and start recreate there his banned community. kbin.social will be able to ban this remote user and remote community, but this restricts only what kbin.social users can see.
Exactly the same for another /kbin or lemmy site - just replace the domain name accordingly.
While I kind of agree with you in being concerned about who gets to control what we see and don’t see and the censorship aspect, there is also “the paradox of tolerance” to be considered and maybe in that light it is correct to not tolerate that subs intolerance.
Regarding the Paradox of Tolerance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_toleranceThe Paradox of Tolerance is hot garbage:
It actually is one of the strengths of the decentralized nature of the Fediverse. But there are still growing pains associated with it.
A friendly reminder; Please don’t forget to take your time and step away from Kbin whenever you need a break. Your mental health is just as important, if not most important, for the project to succeed.
You are correct.
I’m bookmarking this page to return to later. Time to pull up some weeds!
Wow, more new servers! Looks like the growth has been really explosive. It wasn’t that long ago you migrated Kbin to Fastly right?
Thank you Ernest, we appreciate you ☺️
this entire thread is such a massive waste of time & an embarassing dogpile of pessimistic blanket assumptions.
“X will inevitably turn into Y if we don’t do something now!”
or maybe facilitating the existence of two fediverses on opposite, equally-corrupt ends of the political spectrum will only lead to the maximum possible amount of hate in the end (from both sides). sounds fun!
pessimism versus optimism. the latter exposes us to more risk (someone could be a shit, racist person down to their very core), but i think the potential reward is better for giving people the benefit of the doubt that they just don’t understand. that’s just me though. feel free to disagree. i won’t think you’re rotten for doing so.
in general, people don’t just wake up and decide to change their opinion on X out of nowhere. and telling someone to think something is useless… at best.
people need to be surrounded by different people just living their lives in order to open their own eyes and form their own opinions. otherwise everything they see on TV/FB/etc is true in their minds.
“nipping this in the bud” early just prevents self-discovery that can lead to less racism/hate existing in the grand scheme of things.
not all people who have a bad/hateful opinion are bad/evil/right-wing. i reckon it’s better for all of us if these people gain passive/active exposure to those they’re biased against and realize the media is wrong, rather than reinforce that opinion by hiding away in this thread, spending countless hours peering into our glass ball and seeing the future that will 100% without a doubt inevitably come to pass (because all far right ppl are exactly the same and deeply motivated by hate on a daily basis and are not only unwilling to change but unable!)
we need more cross-political-spectrum crossover in the world. not less. if you/someone doesnt have the mental energy to interact with or see certain people, that’s totally fine. mental heath matters. block/mute & go about your day. but i think letting everyone else continue to interact positively/neutrally in the meantime is desirable. some people aren’t bothered by certain things and can discuss them with “the other side” to positive effect. let them do so?
interacting with somebody who has differing/bad opinions shouldn’t be seen as support for those opinions, though i think sometimes it’s seen that way.
walls are bad when they’re between different types of people, but they’re desirable when they’re protecting you from the elements or providing privacy. live within your own walls when you need to, for your own well-being/sanity. but we shouldn’t encourage walls to be built that keep out hundreds of good people just because there’s a handful of bad apples in the bunch. that’s pessimistic as hell & sounds like something straight from a certain US Presidential campaign trail.
if the goal of an instance is just to co-exist exclusively with like-minded people, that’s fine i guess, but if the goal is to encourage diversity, personal/societal growth, creativity, then defederating with anyone the moment they have a different/uninformed opinion is a bit bonkers.
not every hateful sentence (from the reader’s perspective) stems from a hateful thought. nobody can read minds.
sometimes the hate is assumed because of our own biases (which is kinda ironic).
sometimes it’s just an uninformed or ignorant thought (until everyone goes and proves them “right” by fighting ignorance with fire).
if everyone just engaged with others as their mental/emotional capacity permitted without expecting the same from others, we’d be better off in my opinion. we don’t need instance god-admins to protect us.
<not proofread at all. sent from my Nintendo Wii>
Well said.
It’s not about political disagreement though, it’s about the fundamental rights of people to exist.
The defederation questions are not over disagreements on “how much should we pay in taxes”, it’s “should this group of people be allowed to publicly exist”.
Is it “healthy political discourse” to allow antisemitic propaganda in furtherance of fascism? I’ve noticed the vast majority of “free speech absolutists” belong to groups that are not currently being targeted by hate groups.
who decides what is hate speech? and why must it always be handled for the individuals by the authorities? sometimes i think people post harmful things because they’re confused/scared/ignorant. in fact, i’d venture to guess that’s what happens a majority of the time. in these cases, their mind isn’t set in stone, making it a prime time for someone to step in and engage in a hopefully-fruitful conversation with said person. even if they dont change their mind, they just had +1 neutral/pleasant conversation with someone they would normally write off (thanks to mainstream media) as unreasonable/aggressive/whatever.
stopping these engagements from happening is worth the risk that a truly bad apple exists in the public eye (before being banned or whatever), because these seemingly inconsequential interactions can lead to a better social ecosystem that is more self-sustaining. one that balances itself out from within, by individuals’ efforts, not the efforts of admins. admins should focus on keeping obviously illegal activity at a minimum, not on deciding what is morally good or bad. individuals have the block/mute button for that?
it’s impossible to erect walls, virtual or physical, that keep only bad actors at bay. inevitably, vulnerable individuals/people will find themselves trapped on the wrong side of enemy lines. in real life, that’s much scarier than online. defederating from one’s neighborhood isn’t a thing. online networks can indirectly (maybe??) help make those neighborhoods better by leading by example and providing evidence that everyone can get along and benefits from doing so. people in certain parts of the world will never physically interact with X or Y kind of people. the internet is people’s only exposure to certain cultures and ideas. might as well help make that exposure good instead of hoping whatever exposure they get elsewhere is positive.
i think the internet can be an incredibly powerful force for changing minds for the better (which can create a safer IRL space for all, indirectly), but that doesnt happen if zero discussion ever happens, even if that means including some differing/bad voices at times.
we aren’t fully aware of the powerful tool in our hands, especially when outside the grasp of centralized capitalist platforms. now’s the time to reimagine social media and not play by some megacorp’s growth-at-all-costs rules. hate fuels algorithms. hate keeps their social media platforms alive & monetized. we’ve been conditioned to believe hate must always beget hate… because it’s profitable. online, everyone is weirdly guilty until proven innocent. it’s easier to believe that’s true when people aren’t in front of you too. they’re just NPCs with funny names & avatars, not complex humans that have their share of good & bad days.
just because something is said, or discussed, doesn’t make it true or dangerous. the human mind is cool because it can can basically create VMs and toy around with ideas without risking damage to the rest of the mind. devil’s advocates aren’t devils when they take off their cosplay horns.
“free speech” to me isn’t being able to harass or incite violence. it means being free to say & think things without always meaning them. or being allowed to be wrong/uninformed. freedom of speech depends heavily on context, and i think that’s partially why encouraging free speech online is so hard (compared to with friends or in offline classrooms), but it’s worth attempting (i think). IRL, it’s far easier to see when someone is genuinely curious, joking, aggressive, confused, etc.
the alternative is for any and all controversial discussions to only happen behind closed doors, online or offline. but that seems likely to improve nothing from where it stands today.
it’s easy to de-federate from instances with content deemed hateful to some (yes, i worded that carefully), but that means that certain individuals’ notions of those other people will never be challenged. this protects one’s fediverse but shifts the conflict IRL potentially. not everyone can just “turn off” the ignorant people around them.
do you know how hard it would be for a far right person to hate the queer community (for example) if they found themselves surrounded by non-combative, creative, talented, similar (in other ways lol) people? i think (i’m only guessing) that a similar thing happened back in the day with tattoos/piercings. seeing normal (& exceptional) people regularly that look a certain way can absolutely erode preconceived notions over time, like water drops carving the Grand Canyon.
that is what changes minds. seeing other people, kinda like you, also kinda unlike you, living life and being cool.
i think wodespread defederation ensures all negative preconceived notions largely stay in tact. federating and handling issues on a case-by-case basis (or letting individuals handle their own disagreements, gasp!) just seems like a better strategy to me. but i could very well he wrong. i have zero relevant credentials to speak on any of this.
i guess i just personally believe individual humans can & should look after themselves, their friends, and their communities without the need for overprotection by centralized powers — most of the time.
maybe i went off topic there a bit. sorry! this entire discussion fascinates me and frustrates me to no end. i truly think we could miss out on an opportunity to create a better Internet/network based on how this is all handled.
First of all, thanks for engaging in a thoughtful way. I’m going to try to respond to all your questions, apologies if I inadvertently group a few.
who decides what is hate speech?
Depends on the context. Often an individually community determines what falls into that category for them, but for example the UN defines it as “offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace.” source
and why must it always be handled for the individuals by the authorities?
It’s definitely not always handled for individuals by authorities. In case of private individuals (e.g. lemmy instance owners), they may simply not want to pay for / engage with that content. In case of public individuals (e.g. elected representatives), they have a duty to act on behalf of their constituents to enact protections to allow everyone to safely exist in society.
sometimes i think people post harmful things because they’re confused/scared/ignorant. in fact, i’d venture to guess that’s what happens a majority of the time. in these cases, their mind isn’t set in stone, making it a prime time for someone to step in and engage in a hopefully-fruitful conversation with said person. even if they dont change their mind, they just had +1 neutral/pleasant conversation with someone they would normally write off (thanks to mainstream media) as unreasonable/aggressive/whatever.
That probably represents some cases, but it is not the responsibility of impacted communities to deprogram hateful people. People change because of real relationships, built over real shared values, not over shitposting on the internet.
stopping these engagements from happening is worth the risk that a truly bad apple exists in the public eye (before being banned or whatever), because these seemingly inconsequential interactions can lead to a better social ecosystem that is more self-sustaining. one that balances itself out from within, by individuals’ efforts, not the efforts of admins.
“Can lead to a better social ecosystem” is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here. I think for the majority of people, the infinitesimal chance of maybe having a positive change is far outweighed by the negative consequenses of allowing unfettered harassment and abuse.
admins should focus on keeping obviously illegal activity at a minimum, not on deciding what is morally good or bad. individuals have the block/mute button for that?
Admins should focus on whatever they want, they are the ones managing the space. The inconvenience to you is having to visit another website, the inconvenience to users targeted by this harassement is a lot more than that.
it’s impossible to erect walls, virtual or physical, that keep only bad actors at bay. inevitably, vulnerable individuals/people will find themselves trapped on the wrong side of enemy lines.
People make choices. If you find yourself on the wrong side, time to switch sides. If you don’t, then maybe you don’t actually believe you’re on the wrong side.
in real life, that’s much scarier than online. defederating from one’s neighborhood isn’t a thing. online networks can indirectly (maybe??) help make those neighborhoods better by leading by example and providing evidence that everyone can get along and benefits from doing so. people in certain parts of the world will never physically interact with X or Y kind of people. the internet is people’s only exposure to certain cultures and ideas. might as well help make that exposure good instead of hoping whatever exposure they get elsewhere is positive. i think the internet can be an incredibly powerful force for changing minds for the better (which can create a safer IRL space for all, indirectly), but that doesnt happen if zero discussion ever happens, even if that means including some differing/bad voices at times.
A lot of people rely on their internet communities to be safe for exactly that reason. Can’t put up a pride flag on your apartment because last time you got a brick through your window? At least you can be safe to be yourself in the online communities you chose. Nobody is stopping folks from interacting with online communities, you just have to agree to follow the community rules.
we aren’t fully aware of the powerful tool in our hands, especially when outside the grasp of centralized capitalist platforms. now’s the time to reimagine social media and not play by some megacorp’s growth-at-all-costs rules. hate fuels algorithms. hate keeps their social media platforms alive & monetized. we’ve been conditioned to believe hate must always beget hate… because it’s profitable.
Ironically defederation is the biggest boon we’ve been given. No longer subject to “engagement” based algorithms, communities are free to decide what they want to engage with. Defederation is not hate.
online, everyone is weirdly guilty until proven innocent. it’s easier to believe that’s true when people aren’t in front of you too. they’re just NPCs with funny names & avatars, not complex humans that have their share of good & bad days.
Spend any time on IRL social networks (e.g. LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, etc), and you’ll see that people don’t give a shit even when presented with real names and faces.
just because something is said, or discussed, doesn’t make it true or dangerous. the human mind is cool because it can can basically create VMs and toy around with ideas without risking damage to the rest of the mind. devil’s advocates aren’t devils when they take off their cosplay horns.
Devil’s advocacy is only useful when used to strengthen arguments, otherwise it’s just an excuse for people to hold a position without taking responsibility for it.
“free speech” to me isn’t being able to harass or incite violence. it means being free to say & think things without always meaning them. or being allowed to be wrong/uninformed. freedom of speech depends heavily on context, and i think that’s partially why encouraging free speech online is so hard (compared to with friends or in offline classrooms), but it’s worth attempting (i think). IRL, it’s far easier to see when someone is genuinely curious, joking, aggressive, confused, etc.
Everyone is free to say what they want, however, they are not free from the consequences. This is true of all interactions, IRL or online. People vomiting out every thought in their head instead of carefully considering is part of what leads to so much conflict.
the alternative is for any and all controversial discussions to only happen behind closed doors, online or offline. but that seems likely to improve nothing from where it stands today.
Controversial discussions can happen wherever people want to support them, and under the rules they set.
it’s easy to de-federate from instances with content deemed hateful to some (yes, i worded that carefully), but that means that certain individuals’ notions of those other people will never be challenged. this protects one’s fediverse but shifts the conflict IRL potentially. not everyone can just “turn off” the ignorant people around them.
The conflict is already there IRL. It is the responsibility of the individual to learn and grow, not for communities to proselytize.
do you know how hard it would be for a far right person to hate the queer community (for example) if they found themselves surrounded by non-combative, creative, talented, similar (in other ways lol) people? i think (i’m only guessing) that a similar thing happened back in the day with tattoos/piercings. seeing normal (& exceptional) people regularly that look a certain way can absolutely erode preconceived notions over time, like water drops carving the Grand Canyon. that is what changes minds. seeing other people, kinda like you, also kinda unlike you, living life and being cool.
Hateful people self isolate by choice, only interacting to attack those communities. Queer people are not welcome in their churches, bars, neighborhoods, social circles, etc.
i think wodespread defederation ensures all negative preconceived notions largely stay in tact. federating and handling issues on a case-by-case basis (or letting individuals handle their own disagreements, gasp!) just seems like a better strategy to me. but i could very well he wrong. i have zero relevant credentials to speak on any of this.
If you look at any of the truely “open” communities, they are essentially cesspools of hate and violence. Yeah people can clean dog shit off their own lawns, but much better if the shit wasn’t there in the first place.
i guess i just personally believe individual humans can & should look after themselves, their friends, and their communities without the need for overprotection by centralized powers — most of the time.
Disagree. You even disagree with yourself in your own definition. What is the responsibility of an individual who looks after themselves, their friends, and their communities? Maybe taking action to protect those friends and communities, instead of forcing them to protect themselves?
maybe i went off topic there a bit. sorry! this entire discussion fascinates me and frustrates me to no end. i truly think we could miss out on an opportunity to create a better Internet/network based on how this is all handled.
The internet is people, it’s not some mystical new social order. I want the fuckheads to stay away from me, just like IRL.
Can’t you just block users and communities you don’t want to read from?
When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin[e]?
When someone reported one of my posts (they thought it was spam) in my magazine I got a notification in my magazine panel, yes. No alert telling me there was a notification, but a notification.
Am unsure if admin likewise get a ping but almost certain they would be too busy to notice if they did.
Why do you care? Is kbin.social not a free speech platform? If not, I’ll find somewhere else to go.
I don’t even agree with these folks, but if people are going to start raising a big stink because people are saying things they don’t like, I’m out.
I don’t even agree with these folks> if you sit at a table with 7 nazi that table contain 8 nazi
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it.
until it’s hate speech. then you shouldn’t have the right to say it. because that makes you a dick-head who has broken the social contract.
Buh bye
There’s free speech in good faith, and the one in the bad. But that’s not even about that. If someone’s speech is basically “all trans people are a pedophiles and belong on the cross in defence of good christian values” (not a direct quote, just a representation) it’s not free speech. It’s hate speech and that kind of speech is not protected. Free speech is meant to protect voicing opinions. Thinking some people are not deserving of worthy living is not an opinion.
Those “antiwoke” people disgust me. I encourage disagreements. I don’t encourage thinly veiled hate disguised with code words. Tolerance isn’t “far left”.
I agree, I think it’s good to have a discussion, and polite disagreement is quite acceptable. But like you said, encouraging violence and hatred is not acceptable to me.
Tolerance of evil kind of is far left.
Tolerance of evil kind of is far left.
@10A Hatred, bigotry, scapegoating of vulnerable minorities, lies, gaslighting, opposition to democracy and the rule of law is what defines the modern right. That is textbook evil, and you seem very committed to defending it. Look around, those left of you do not tolerate it. Almost every other comment is from people who want to block you or show you the door. Features are being added to this platform to specifically block your hate speech.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
not really lol far lefties just want to use the bathroom without getting harassed or murdered
yeah “far left” in the US is just wanting basic human rights, something something overton window.
The far-right brings messages of hate, violence, intolerance, and attempts to pass legislation to justify their views. The far-left has brought us the weekend, the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, etc…
the far-right
who?
messages of hate, violence
such as?
intolerance
the tu quoque is almost too tempting here
pass legislation to justify their views
this is a joke, right?
Oh, and I didn’t know people like Henry Ford and the 2nd Baron Trent were “far-left”. I guess the horseshoe really does exist after all.
Stop beating strawmen, your ideological muscles are only gonna atrophy further.Alright you caught me in a good mood, so I’ll throw some articles out here to explain my line of thinking. I hope you’ll see I’m not arguing with strawmen.
Article from October of last year describing right wing outrage to drag shows.
I believe some else mentioned the Paradox of Tolerance, but I will link it again just in case you missed it.
I hope this clears up my line of thinking. No invisible boogymen here - just some examples of,
In my opinion, things changing for the worst. And if you were not arguing in good faith… oh well.The “Paradox of Tolerance” is garbage. An interesting thought experiment where Popper came to the wrong conclusions. You can’t believe in “Freedom of Speech” AND “The Paradox of Tolerance”. They’re incompatible.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/
I’ll take “freedom of speech” over “governmental censorship” any day.
Because nobody thinks about what happens if a fundie takes power and decides that abortion is “intolerable” and arrests people who make pro-choice arguments because they’re being offensive. Or if anyone makes fun of religion, that’s intolerance and you must go to jail.
TLDR: Fuck “The Paradox of Tolerance”. It’s dumb.
Yeah I get where you’re coming from but this all hinges on the concept of Popper’s Open Society taken to its most extreme.
Have you ever considered why this whole “children must be able to see drag shows” notion didn’t show up just 20 years ago?Idk, this kind of devil-on-the-wall “this is trans GENOCIDE” rhetoric when it comes to shit like increasing penalties for indecent exposure and not allowing children to attend drag shows really just says the quiet part out loud.
the tu quoque is almost too tempting here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
We can’t be tolerant of people who are intolerant towards e.g. LGBT people; it doesn’t work out in the end.
Nonsense, we most certainly can. In fact, most countries “worked out” without ever needing to be tolerant in the first place.
Popper doesn’t even acknowledge that this notion can be universalized, and then you’re just back to square one with Carl Schmitt and the Concept of the Political.
Take your LGBT example. For that to work, you must be intolerant of, say, Salafis. Then the Salafi can respond that his in-group (the faithful, true to God, whatever) are being threatened by those who must necessarily be intolerant of him by nature of their own allegiance.
Thus you still end up with a value judgment despite Popper’s veneer of neutralization and depoliticization. That’s where the real philosophizing begins. How do you justify allegiance to one side of the friend/enemy distinction over the other?
The apparent paradox is solved by viewing tolerance as a social contract. Only those who adhere to the contract and are tolerant of others can have a claim to receive that same tolerance. Similarly those who are intolerant should have no expectation to be tolerated since they do not adhere to the social contract which should provide that tolerance.
Not to mention the insidious evil of clean drinking water and food that won’t poison you.
How is one guy saying (to extremely paraphrase) “some people have used the label of freedom to exploit vulnerable people” relevant to this? Like, thats a given, that some people will use this as a guise. Now, is there a systematic problem of leftists arguing for the freedom to assault children? No, only in the imagination of projecting right-libertarians.
Michel Foucault, Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler aren’t just “some people”, they are three of the most influential thought leaders of the (post-)modern Left. Foucault of course being joined by heavyweights like Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze, de Beauvoir, Sartre, Barthes etc. etc. and so on and so forth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws
The point of course being that this thread is full of idiots who have never even heard of the likes of Foucault or truly appreciate how badly they jumped the gun here (turns out there was still some “intolerance” left). Your cult of transgression and tolerance is not philosophically sound.
With all due respect poststructuralist academics (many of whom are dead) are not the sociocultural leaders of anyone.
That 1977 petition is heinous, but I don’t think that being influenced by poststructuralism some 47 years later means anyone has to agree with those politics.
Survived just fine through Judith Butler though.
When I took a couple of critical theory oriented literary courses at uni these were the names that came up again and again, but there was no mention of their ultimate transgression. This is how the myth of an entirely dangerous right and an entirely harmless left is propagated. Just don’t mention the bad parts of the left and create one continuous antagonist group out of everyone from Ted Cruz to Heinrich Himmler. Every rightist is implicated in the actions of their most radical thought leaders, but leftists are afforded the luxury of not associating with characters like Foucault, Lenin or Mao at their own leisure.
And I know that you know this but a “thought leader” doesn’t need to be alive, so that’s not really an argument. These people are tremendously influential and popular in our time (and Butler and Rubin aren’t even dead), as demonstrated by the negative response to the Derrick Jensen lecture clip linked above.
It belongs to the extremes, it is really worrying if you think that only in one of them.
It’s a fucking circle, mate
Its nice to see all the bigots popping up in one place. Makes it easier to block them. And we really need to get some instance level mods.
Welcome to the real world, where people disagree with you, and sometimes they’re right and you’re wrong. You can learn from everyone’s perspective.
Is kbin meant to be a far-leftist echo chamber?
its a far right talking point, do you want extremist on kbin.social?
Edit: Funny, your the guy agreeing with “ps”.
“No normal person who obeys the laws of sexual morality calls himself a “cis”. It’s a slur used by those who hate being called something they don’t call themselves (their God-given gender), but have too much cognitive dissonance and too much hatred for normal people to let that stop them. We need to reopen the asylums yesterday” - this you ?
more hatefull stuff from you “We may not all have been Christian back then, but almost all of us were, and everyone supported Judeo-Christian values without question. Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp, so it was extremely rare for anyone to think such behavior was acceptable.”
Unfortunately I don’t know how to report magazines/users so I can’t help you there but I just want to add my support to what you’re asking because this sort of thing is against the kbin terms of service:
We expect all users to treat each other with respect and kindness. Harassment, hate speech, or any other form of harmful behavior will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to remove any content or user that violates these guidelines.
The communist far-left calls all disagreement “hate speech”. It is not hateful to speak the truth.
“We need to reopen the asylums yesterday” isn’t the truth, it’s your opinion.
In my opinion, words like this are propaganda intended for radicalisation, and dehumanize people that don’t fit into rigid definitions of acceptable lifestyle. Your opinion states that these people should be deprived of liberty and free movement, and deprived of autonomy over their own bodies.
In my opinion, I don’t need to tolerate you in my social circles, and Ernest doesn’t need to use his own computing resources to enable your shit take on what freedom is.
Kindly go and have your “free speech” using resources that come out of your own pocket, not an unwilling person’s.
I respect most of what you wrote. Yes, that one sentence you quoted at the top is nothing more than my opinion. Yes, you could consider it propaganda. But I didn’t intend it to be for radicalization, and I wouldn’t hope that to be its effect.
I don’t mean to dehumanize anyone, no matter what. But I do agree that I have advocated for a somewhat rigid definition of acceptable lifestyle.
With regard to depriving anyone of liberty, free movement, and autonomy, that’s specifically for those who need mental help. For many years we used asylums to contain such people. Many of our current social ills began when we closed the asylums down, and changed the DSM to redefine conditions formerly considered types of insanity to now be considered perfectly healthy. This too is just my opinion, but I’m trying to clarify that it only addresses people who need mental help.
You most certainly don’t need to tolerate me in your social circles, and I won’t be offended if you choose to block me.
Ernest doesn’t need to do anything at all, and I think we can all agree we’re grateful for what he’s done. Personally I hope he establishes a free speech policy, but in any case we’ll see what happens.
With regard to money, I’ve bought Ernest coffee and I hope you have too! That doesn’t entitle me to anything, of course. But it’s just to say that yes, I have contributed.
and changed the DSM
Side note, that’s more an indictment of the DSM and the rigor of psychology than anything else. Whether something is a disorder or not depends on how popular it is, the whole thing reeks of quackery
If you genuinely can’t see that it’s hate speech, then you need to be blocked and not debated because you are immune to reasoning.
Amusing. If I can’t accept your obviously incorrect position, then you must shut down conversation because I’m immune to reasoning? Take a look in the mirror.
This is not a conversation. Nothing of value will be lost by shutting it down.
You are longing for the times when “Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp”. Isn’t this hateful?
It would be if that’s what I said, but I never said I was longing for anything, and I never threatened to harm anyone.
That’s called masturpraying.
You’re not hurting anyone (in the physical sense) but you’re getting off on the idea that bad things should happen to other people, people you consider to not be in your “in group”, and this is usually done in the name of and for the glory of God.
It’s a fancy sin that preachers don’t tell people about because they’re usually guilty of it themselves.
Masturpraying is direct service to and worship of Satan, and he really enjoys it because the people who do it do it in God’s name as they commit spiritual violence against the kingdom of God and its occupants while thinking that they are doing good.
Okay except no, I wasn’t doing that whatsoever.
Whatever, I copied your whole paragraph in another comment, and the context is pretty clear for anyone who cares to read it. I didn’t claim that you personally were threatening to do the beating, only that you thought that the beating was desiderable for the “program of western civilization”. If you really don’t want homosexual people to be beaten to a pulp, then you should seriously reconsider how you express your ideas.
Even taking that paragraph out of context is misleading. The whole comment was about the purpose of freedom.
You keep to coded language. Congratulations. Don’t think we can’t read it.
No, actually I say what I mean. You might try taking the context of the entire comment into account. It was about the purpose of freedom.
There is no disagreement when it comes to gender identity. You don’t get to disagree with how someone lives their life when it doesn’t effect you. It is not a “communist” ideology to support trans folks and you’re exposing how little you actually understand about politics with these types of assertions.
It’s off-topic to debate that here, so I’ll refrain. But suppose you’re right, and I understand nothing. And suppose the antiwoke mod knows nothing either. Would that be suitable grounds to ban a magazine and/or ban us as users?
Well that depends, you’ve been pretty thoroughly educated in this post, so now what will you do about it? I fully expect you’ll return to your far right anti-woke hatemongering, in which case yes you should be blocked.
Or you can retract it, and maybe there’s hope for you yet.
Fuck off or grow up.
I don’t usually go to through other people’s comment history, but this one is a goldmine
“It made sense back when everyone was, more or less, on board with the program of western civilization. We may not all have been Christian back then, but almost all of us were, and everyone supported Judeo-Christian values without question. Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp, so it was extremely rare for anyone to think such behavior was acceptable. At this point we need to ask ourselves what the purpose of freedom is. Are we a free people so we can exercise perverted pleasures of the flesh, the slaughter of innocent babies, and genital mutilation of children without their parents knowledge? If you answer “yes”, you just might be repeating the whisper of a demon.”
“woke neo-marxism claims that any normal person is bad. That means its practitioners openly discriminate against conservative white Christian men, especially if they practice heterosexual behavior in a traditional marriage.”
“Ironically, secession is about the most American thing we could do at this point”
keep digging, your doing “gods work” ;)
strange to see someone as crazy as 10A on kbin.social, feels more like a Fox-Viewer who chose the wrong server.
His name’s 10A… he may well be as sovcit too. Par for the course.
mod of the foxnews mag lmfao. oh man, it keeps getting better and better
Click on the link to the magazine. I promise you you’ll be happy you did.
i’m not in the mood for comedy so i’ll pass, but thanks C:
Guess it was only a matter of time before the Nazis colonized here with the server being open sign-up
I mean who can argue with that. Things got weirder on the second page of this thread. I just can’t take this seriously.
Thank you for doing the investigation so I don’t have to. He’ll be going on many peoples block lists at this point.
Woke is far-leftist neo-Marxism. What you call “far right” and “extremist” is actually normal, conservative, and Christian. What you call “hateful” is actually just truth telling.
Downvote me all you want, but you sound like naive child who hasn’t learned how to engage with competing worldviews.
We are all happy to engage with competing worldviews
What you call “far right” and “extremist” is actually normal, conservative, and Christian. What you call “hateful” is actually just truth telling.
This isn’t a competing worldview, or rather, it’s a competing worldview in the same way that phrenology and alchemy are competing ways to view anatomy and chemistry. Like, it’s possible to genuinely believe in these things if your conditions of childhood existence are so constrained, isolated, or manipulated that you are happier living life in your own personal ‘Truman show.’ But the rest of us don’t have an obligation to play along with your fantasy.
Most of us here on the internet have at some point met someone we’ve had a reasonable political disagreement with but could walk away understanding each other better due to those disagreements. Most of us would even say thise diagreements have gone in both political directions. The same cannot honestly be said for folks with your version of a ‘world view.’ It’s like a method actor but worse because it lacks any goal, it’s like a person suffering mental but worse because the cause (Patriarchal models of religion) is external, intentional, and had been prosthlytizing delusion as a worldview for millenia.
Woke is far-leftist neo-Marxism
Lmaoooo with the buzzwords. Define far-left neo marxism and give some examples of it being promoted by US politicians.
I’d be happy to do that, but not in the context of this thread. If m/antiwoke survives, maybe we can have a mutually respectful disagreement about it there in a few days.
I think you mistyped truth social in your URL bar. This place will not welcome you, I think.
If you answer “yes”, you just might be repeating the whisper of a demon."
So, wait… people who have a competing world view from yours are listening to demons? Now who’s naive? xD
Demons absolutely do exist, and I’m happy to discuss that in a different context. It’s pretty off-topic here, though.
“Demons absolutely do exist” lol
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.
—Verbal Kint
Haha hell yeah, hail Satan, am I right?
Trust me, this guy told some people a thing and they wrote it down, and while no one has seen or has proof, its real.
I think the people downvoting you know exactly how to engage hate.
Hatred is not speech you disagree with. It’s not speech that hurts your delicate feelings. It’s not speech that contradicts your values. It’s none of that.
I’m fine with downvotes, although I miss old-school reddiquette back when we upvoted content that should be seen, regardless of whether or not we agreed with it. But this discussion is about banning people and magazines, not downvotes.
Can you explain how a post that was aimed towards “trans lobby harms our society” is not hatred?
I mean I somewhat blame the OP for not linking the posts for some context, but after a bit of looking around it sounds like the posts in question are in fact hate speech and not just things to disagree with.
Since you read in context, could you tell me where the hate speech is?
I only see one article where they spend most of the time making a disclaimer in favor of trans rights, followed by a critique of non-diagnosis and surgery on children, or how nothing is allowed to be questioned. That last one we can see in this thread, people are foaming at the mouth over a title (which includes "extreme, btw…), it’s crazy.
What if an article was titled “Christian lobby harms our society”? Would you consider that hateful? Personally, as a Christian, I certainly wouldn’t upvote such an article, but I wouldn’t try to get it banned either. People have viewpoints based on personal experiences, and some people find harm in some political lobbies. It’s not hatred to speak what one believes to be true.
Jesus wore dresses, get over it.
Hatred is not speech you disagree with. It’s not speech that hurts your delicate feelings. It’s not speech that contradicts your values. It’s none of that.
Right. It’s speech that tells people they’re not worthy of or welcome to exist.
Thanks for playing.
That’s not exactly what hate speech is, but it’s also not what I said. Standing up for conservative Christian behavior is wholly different from telling anyone they’re not worthy or welcome to exist. We are all made in God’s image, all of us able to repent, be forgiven, and live according to God’s will.
So perhaps you should repent for actively hurting your fellow children of God. Because unless you’re not a hardcore old-school christian, freedom of choice on how to live ones life if it doesn’t hurt anybody is a God given right. And you actively want to take that away.
Which god? Zeus?
What if they don’t believe in the Christian God because the Christian God is demonstrably not real?
Your sky daddy is fake, and I, for one, will not live under your people’s delusions of truth.
Do you remember when I called you an asshole?
I’d like to expand that you’re a mi-sogynist , homophobe, and your support for fascists leaves me with no compunctions presuming you hold racist beliefs as well.
In short, I want to make clear this is not a case of what you may have read in Mathew 10:22. You are not being persecuted, and it is not “for righteousness’ sake”. You are a hate filled asshole who pursues policies which will harm society, and you seek to insert and establish the dominance of (what you believe to be) the word of your god while desiring safe space free from the calling out of your hate.
I also suspect you might be closeted.
That last line is not served as a “gotcha”. I want you to know community and acceptance can exist outside what you seem to have found convening with some very dangerous ideology on the right. I suspect at some level you want to be lead away as as you say yourself there are places you could hang out that would not challenge your beliefs. You are here in a “den of sin”.
I will commune with a few gods (not yhwh; different better gods) to see if they can bless you with the conviction to choose kindness over cantankerousness.
Change is possible.
You are not broken beyond repair.
I Love You.I have faith in your ability to be a better person than you have thus-far demonstrated yourself to be.
Wow, this is such a well composed comment that I almost want to upvote it. Nice work with all of the links and research. You deserve a better reply than I have the energy to write, as I’m tired of this conversation. Sorry.
To address a few of your accusations:
- I am not racist. I’d like to remind you that the southern slaveholders were all Democrats, and the Republican party has always opposed slavery. To this day, Democrats are obsessed with skin color, in their CRT and BLM, while Republicans advocate for color-blind meritocracy. Let’s not argue about politics here, please, but no, I am not a racist.
- I am not closeted. I do confess that I endure other sorts of evil temptations on occasion, though, just like any human being does, so I can certainly relate to those who suffer from SSA. But as a Christian, I pray that I may be shielded from such temptation when I encounter it, and prayer works.
And lastly, quickly, to address two other high-level points you made:
- I’m here because there are a large majority of non-Christians here, many of whom have no exposure to the word of God or anyone who praises it. I believe the Great Commission tells me to be here, if the community will accept me. I may get plenty of downvotes (seriously, look at my reputation score!), but if I can plant a seed in the fertile heart of even just one other person, the Holy Spirit will do His work.
- Despite your rejection of the one true living God, I truly appreciate your expression of love, however sarcastic it may have been (I can’t tell). I am certainly not broken, though I was a broken, drugged out nihilist in my youth before I found Jesus. I love you too, @FfaerieOxide.
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption I am interested in debating you.
I am not. Nor do I care to hear you loudly proselytizing as a certain other group of people do.
I invite you to consider why you get the reaction you universally seem to to your posts, and proffer that it is not because everyone is jealous that Jesus loves you more than them.
I am not however here to convert you, nor do I intend to platform fascist talking points by treating them as worthy or needing of debate.I will leave you with the words of one of the prophets of my faith,
“You ain’t a vampire; you don’t have to suck.”
No one needs to see this, you are throwing out extremely basic arguments that all of us encounter every day in this regressive society. You aren’t speaking truth to power, you’re just being part of the power right now. You aren’t making yourself look good and you aren’t making the world a better, freer, more nuanced, or happier place.
People: Hey, stop being a jackass.
Conservatives: OMG, yoU WANT TO CREATE A FAR LeFTIST ECHO CHAMBER
Every fucking time.
OMG, yoU WANT TO CREATE A FAR LeFTIST ECHO CHAMBER
You do realize that this post is specifically about ideological censorship, right?
Hatred invites and deserves censorship.
I am downvoting you because nobody should get eye cancer from your bullshit
You know, calling everyone not on your political compass “Not Normal” is kindof not coming off as mature as you think it is…
Basically rather than “disagree” with people, you’re creating strawmen to debase anyone speaking to you, so you don’t have to disagree with them.
I’m sorry. That sounds reasonable. I’m really trying to avoid political debate here, and just stand up for kbin allowing a diversity of perspectives. I understand how that might come across as you describe.
Who are ya gonna believe, me; or your own eyes?
You present the false choice between hateful extremists and left wing extremists.
I agree that would be a false dichotomy. I disagree that I presented that choice. But I appreciate that you’re actually engaging with ideas here.
I don’t want kbin to be a far-leftist echo chamber. I also don’t want kbin to be a far-right echo chamber. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to want to protect a community from extreme and hateful views, regardless of which side they come from, because those views tend to attract the type of horrible, toxic people such as yourself who advocate beating the shit out of people for being different in a harmless way.
Welcome to the real world, where people who are different from you exist and mind their own business. If you can’t put up with people who don’t affect you in any way, I don’t think the rest of us owe it to you to put up with you, either. Go find a cesspit to wallow in.
I upvoted you because your response was based on a misunderstanding of me. I never advocating for harming anyone, and I would never do that.
Oh, and about sexual morality, here’s how that works:
If it doesn’t involve children, animals, the deceased, or non-consenting people, it’s none of your business. Persecuting people who have done nothing to you is immoral.
Your notion of how that works is not rooted in the Bible.
Matthew 7:5 -You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Maybe worry about yourself first, guy who pines for the “good old days” when gay people used to get the shit beat out of them. Nobody corrupts the God’s word like loud, intolerant far-right Christians.
can you be more specific. I can’t find what you found.
Yeah, I really hope that shit gets nipped in the bud.
Is there a way to block seeing any comments or posts from exploding heads?
You can block domains if you click on the domain next to the post, go to the sidebar and block it like a magazine
That hasn’t been functioning for me, I’ve had to go to each magazine individually to block them.
If I click the button on the instance it doesn’t do anything, I still see the posts in my feed. I’ve tried on a few of the non-english instances (since I don’t know other languages).
cringe. grow up you fascist loser, go back to reddit
Bigotry is not welcome here.
Now I can confirm, the block button works :D
