People are allowed to support whatever political causes they wish, so long as they are willing to engage civilly and fairly with other people. This is how the modern world works, with dialogue and debate instead of censorship, cowardly avoidance and control.
Well, people are also absolutely free to choose not to associate with, use services from people whose opinions they find objectionable etc. Nothing wrong with that.
Of course they are. But once they start telling other people what to do, they are doing a different thing from that, are they not?
They're just expressing an opinion just like the Lemmy devs have. (note: I have not looked into what their views are exactly so I'm not saying parent poster is correct)
Nobody is being forced to do what they suggest.
It wasn't an opinion, but a direction. "I dislike lemmy.ml because it is run by communists" is an opinion. "Don't go to lemmy.ml" isn't.
At the end of the day it is just an opinion even if it is in the form of a direction because the one giving it has no real influence on or ability to make the readers do it and they know it.
Directions don't only become directions when you have power. They're just ineffective if you don't have it. Doesn't mean you're not at least trying to control people
That's really arguing about insignificant semantics just concerning the form and not the actual implications of the message.
That is not semantics whatsoever. "Don't open that door" is a direction whether it comes from a stranger or a police officer. Why should anything else be different?
I can't help you if you refuse to see any difference and don't find this constructive with you at this point.
There is nothing to "help" me with. You're just stubbornly refusing to see the point. Telling someone to do something is a fucking command.
Stop replying to me. This is a command.
LOL. Yeah, not going to do that.
When that opinion is shutting down dialogue, cowardly avoidance and censorship, it becomes a far dumber opinion than anyone else's.
I think there's absolutely things worth doing boycotts over. I don't really like to have much to do with anything that is benefiting Russia for example. We can both have our opinions.
I can agree with and support that. I would not extend that boycott to trying to silence other individuals though. I'd prefer to try to convince them.
And Tbh anyone saying anything else is probably just propaganda - Id be willing to bet the biggest racist and biggest tankie would be best friends given the right introduction. Good ol divide and conquer
I don't believe that you're consistent on this position.
I would be incredibly shocked if you had the same stance towards white supremacists, Nazis, or pedophiles that want to remove age of consent.
If you do, then cheers. You're practically a unicorn (in the sense that it's extremely rare). I don't disagree with that position as long as it's consistant
I disagree with what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it. If you don't hear that often, find better friends.
That's a very naive view, and ignores the existence of legitimately harmful opinions that must be fought
So we both agree that open dialogue is important and that censorship and control are bad.
That's great to hear that you also oppose the Chinese governments complete censorship of the Uyghur genocide. We should have an open dialogue that anyone who supports such authoritarian control should be made known as such.
Sure, that's fine and good, dialogue to your hearts content. But don't think fixing them is our job. Only war could save the Uyghurs, providing it did not go nuclear. And fighting a war against China is dangerous..
Their entire race is, unfortunately, dead men walking and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. China simply does not have to listen to our wishes. We need to worry about our people, not policing the rest of the world.
People are allowed to support whatever political causes they wish, so long as they are willing to engage civilly and fairly with other people. This is how the modern world works, with dialogue and debate instead of censorship, cowardly avoidance and control.
Well, people are also absolutely free to choose not to associate with, use services from people whose opinions they find objectionable etc. Nothing wrong with that.
Of course they are. But once they start telling other people what to do, they are doing a different thing from that, are they not?
They're just expressing an opinion just like the Lemmy devs have. (note: I have not looked into what their views are exactly so I'm not saying parent poster is correct)
Nobody is being forced to do what they suggest.
It wasn't an opinion, but a direction. "I dislike lemmy.ml because it is run by communists" is an opinion. "Don't go to lemmy.ml" isn't.
At the end of the day it is just an opinion even if it is in the form of a direction because the one giving it has no real influence on or ability to make the readers do it and they know it.
Directions don't only become directions when you have power. They're just ineffective if you don't have it. Doesn't mean you're not at least trying to control people
That's really arguing about insignificant semantics just concerning the form and not the actual implications of the message.
That is not semantics whatsoever. "Don't open that door" is a direction whether it comes from a stranger or a police officer. Why should anything else be different?
I can't help you if you refuse to see any difference and don't find this constructive with you at this point.
There is nothing to "help" me with. You're just stubbornly refusing to see the point. Telling someone to do something is a fucking command.
Stop replying to me. This is a command.
LOL. Yeah, not going to do that.
When that opinion is shutting down dialogue, cowardly avoidance and censorship, it becomes a far dumber opinion than anyone else's.
I think there's absolutely things worth doing boycotts over. I don't really like to have much to do with anything that is benefiting Russia for example. We can both have our opinions.
I can agree with and support that. I would not extend that boycott to trying to silence other individuals though. I'd prefer to try to convince them.
Then maybe we shouldn't go around telling people which instances to associate with.
And Tbh anyone saying anything else is probably just propaganda - Id be willing to bet the biggest racist and biggest tankie would be best friends given the right introduction. Good ol divide and conquer
I don't believe that you're consistent on this position.
I would be incredibly shocked if you had the same stance towards white supremacists, Nazis, or pedophiles that want to remove age of consent.
If you do, then cheers. You're practically a unicorn (in the sense that it's extremely rare). I don't disagree with that position as long as it's consistant
I disagree with what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it. If you don't hear that often, find better friends.
That's a very naive view, and ignores the existence of legitimately harmful opinions that must be fought
So we both agree that open dialogue is important and that censorship and control are bad.
That's great to hear that you also oppose the Chinese governments complete censorship of the Uyghur genocide. We should have an open dialogue that anyone who supports such authoritarian control should be made known as such.
Sure, that's fine and good, dialogue to your hearts content. But don't think fixing them is our job. Only war could save the Uyghurs, providing it did not go nuclear. And fighting a war against China is dangerous..
Their entire race is, unfortunately, dead men walking and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. China simply does not have to listen to our wishes. We need to worry about our people, not policing the rest of the world.