Are TERF-centric magazines allowed on this insurance?
https://kbin.social/m/modernmisogyny
I ran across that magazine recently and every post is transphobic af. Does that fit within kbin.social's code of conduct?
You are viewing a single comment
https://kbin.social/m/modernmisogyny
I ran across that magazine recently and every post is transphobic af. Does that fit within kbin.social's code of conduct?
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall fight to the death to defend your right to say it.
When you ban people, you tell them to go form an echo chamber where they'll flourish.
A more intelligent approach is to imitate Daryl Davis, who has convinced hundreds of KKK members to leave the KKK, simply by respectfully talking with them.
You might actually learn a thing or two in the process.
For every Daryl Davis who can successfully talk down 100 Klansmen, you'll find 100 Black people begging for their lives trying to reason with the Klan in their last moments. For every thought of "I can fix them!" that you may have, you have to weigh that against how many more people you'll need to fix if you platform their ideas and treat them as something worth "respectfully debating".
Convincing people to leave hate groups is a great thing to do, but if respectful debate were effective on the large scale, and we have no shortage of people respectfully arguing that hate is a bad thing, why is the far right a bigger threat now than it was ten years ago? Do not tolerate the intolerant, do not debate the undebatable, do not respect the unrespectable.
The "far right" is growing because the left keeps moving further left, and normal people realize they're now considered conservative.
If you want an echo chamber, go on and kick me out. You reap what you sow.
I have mixed feelings about this
On one hand, Daryl Davis is a hero, and his method actually works to de-radicalize people. I prefer using this method when I encounter bigots irl.
On the other hand, allowing bigoted speech in your online platform has the potential to drive away normal folks and turn your platform into the echo-chamber where bigotry flourishes that you mentioned. This is basically what happened to Voat.
I agree with this, but it's beside the point. This isn't a public space like a street corner, it's a managed public/private space like a bar, where the bouncer will kick you out for abusing other patrons.
A group of patrons sitting at a table in a bar, quietly discussing their TERF perspective, is entirely different from one of them walking up to a trans table and picking a fight. The former is an exercise of free speech, whereas the latter is cause for ejection.
No. You don't have the right to debate other people's right to exist. Such speech is an act of violence and should be treated as such.
I don't want a group of people sitting around "discussing" whether or not black people are inherently inferior either. That is not speech we should accept in the public sphere
Have you never heard "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me"? It's preschool 101. Speech is never an act of violence.
Additionally, nobody is debating anyone's right to exist.
Says the person who's never heard their own right to exist or the rights of their loved ones called into question publicly.
You don't have the right to "debate" other people's equal rights.
Except really, nobody's ever debating anyone's right to exist. That's absurd.
Consider this: If a mass murderer was captured and imprisoned, he could claim that the justice system opposes his right to exist. The trouble with that is he'd be completely incorrect. The justice system opposes his behavior of murder. No matter how much he believes his very existence is inextricably bound to his behavior of murder, the reality is he murders by choice, and it is that intentional action which the justice system opposes.
Did you just compare trans people living their lives without hurting anyone to murder?
Sure, and I could have chosen any other action, but I chose murder because it's not contentious to express a disapproval of it.
Did it ever occur to you that it's "contentious" to express "disapproval" of trans people existing because...there's nothing WRONG with trans people existing?
Hmm, sounds like you missed my entire point. Nobody objects to any people existing. Some people object to particular behaviors.
You don't think trans people exist and that being trans is "a behavior" equivalent with murder.
I definitely understood the "point" of your bigotry perfectly well.
Except it’s more like a group of patrons at a bar talking about killing a trans person, and than the next day one of them actually does it.
What kind of absurd hyperbole is that? Nobody has called for murder. And certainly nobody has committed a murder based on a call for it.
Speech has real life consequences.
"Known transgender killings increased 93% in that four-year period -- from 29 in 2017 to 56 in 2021"
https://abcnews.go.com/US/homicide-rate-trans-people-doubled-gun-killings-fueling/story?id=91348274
"Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime"
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/
I don't condone murder under any circumstances. But using 56 murders as an excuse to silence anyone online is a disgrace to the principle of free speech.
The principle of free speech, in America, has nothing to do with forcing people to tolerate hateful rhetoric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom\_of\_speech\_in\_the\_United\_States.
As long as the government isn't arresting you for your opinions then nothing going on here has to do with "free speech". Individuals and corporations silencing you online is not a "disgrace to the principle of free speech".
You're conflating the principle of free speech with the US 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment is predicated on the principle of free speech. The 1st Amendment is completely inapplicable here. The principle of free speech is 100% applicable here, as it is foundational to western civilization.
the principles of free speech do not guarantee you a platform upon which to spread hatred. They do not give you the right to force others to serve your positions over the internet.
there might be something to be said about "platform neutrality," but it's still a competition of rights that doesn't really justify forcing a platform—especially a small platform like kbin—to host content it views as extremist, or especially likely to result in violence. Maybe you can argue that we should have higher scrutiny in the case of a monopoly or similar large social network due to the power of strong network effects, but... I don't know how much scrutiny would you need to apply to say "aha, this company is banning terfs for insidious reasons!" no, they're obviously banning terfs because their bigotry is dangerous and hurtful and giving them a platform just feels incredibly shitty.
A while back, I thought—well, I still do think—that platform neutrality should be used to frame the issue of large social media sites that ban talk about their competitors, like when Twitter deprioritized Substack (facebook messenger has banned competitors as well). I'd also argue this principle could be used to ban, for example, Facebook from manipulating its algorithm overtly (expliciltly, specifically) to favor a particular political party or an advertiser (outside of the ad itself—that one is already illegal, ads need to be disclosed as ads). But applying such a rule to general political standards and where you think the norm or neutral position should be is dangerous and stupid.
You sound like you've never argued with fascists online.
They only exist in echo chambers, anyway, and do not debate in good faith. There is nothing similar to what Daryl Davis did except in the most superficial way possible. Go visit /r/conservative and you might actually learn a thing or two.
I was active in r/Conservative, and here I'm the primary contributer to m/Conservative. Hi, nice to meet you. When I'm engaged in arguments involving the word "fascist", it's rarely me using that word (unless we're literally discussing Mussolini), and usually me who's called that for favoring levelheaded conservative principles. I enjoy mutually respectful debate, but I find most others prefer to fearfully call me a "fascist," downvote everything I've ever written, block me, and walk away feeling sanctimonious.
That's a hilarious turn; my statement was meant to be rhetorical. But you really have never argued with fascists!
And I never said YOU were fascist... but I guess that doesn't fit with your canned response then, huh?
Fascists haven't existed since 25 Luglio in 1943. You can find a tiny number of exceptions over the years, but as a broad statement it's true. I'm not old enough to have argued with fascists, and I bet you're not either.
Fascism:
Yea wow, we've never seen that in the last 7 years!
I can see I really triggered you with that word. It's hilarious that you self-identified with it and got defensive.
It certainly does sound like typical leftists if you squint. Everyone in this thread opposing free speech is an authoritarian. But if you actually read that definition word for word, it's a position almost nobody supports. What's more, the definition has been changed from the original political affiliation. I'm not surprised Miriam-Webster's open to redefining words, but try as they might, words still mean what they originally meant. Still, their definition is close enough to the original to demonstrate my point that there are no fascists left, unless you squint and look at modern leftists.
Ah, right- There are no fascists but if there are it's the leftists! Thanks for a good laugh today. Don't ever let facts get in your way, bud.
Hmm, let's break it down:
Could be leftists, conservatives, or any other political group.
Well that excludes conservatives, because conservatism celebrates rugged individualism.
Leftism, by contrast, embraces groups above individualism. This is what conservatives usually refer to as neo-Marxism. It's also known as identity politics. It's this idea that we're all members of a group, and that group gives us our identity. Then with intersectionality, you have multiple groups defining identity.
Two caveats:
Yes, in general, conservatives support small government, while leftists prefer government regulations over private business, government handouts for the poor, government taxation of the wealthy, and government control of every little thing in life — basically big government.
Centralized? In the US, centralized means federal control whereas decentralized means State and local control. Leftists generally prefer the former, whereas conservatives generally prefer the latter.
Not applicable in the US, but I wouldn't put it past the Left in the near future.
Yep, see this thread for instance. Leftist love regimented control over what we're allowed to think, and they love silencing the opposition.
Oh, you mean like when Biden has his primary opponent, Trump, tied up in court with accusations and a threat of imprisonment? Or, you mean like this very thread where leftists are trying to silence the TERFs? Yes, leftists absolutely love the forcible suppression of their opposition.
In conclusion, no, it's not a perfect fit for leftists, but it's loosely close — and it certainly doesn't fit conservatives even slightly.
Great theory, but lets take a look at reality.
Have you heard of MAGA?
While Trump announced he "plans to eliminate executive branch constraints on his power if he is elected president in 2024"
See the last point..
Like Jan 6th.
You can't just make up whatever you want when you're not in /r/conservative. You are constrained by reality. Nobody is here to delete my posts and ban me for you.
Yes, well the MAGA crowd isn't very conservative if you ask me, and personally I support DeSantis. I think Democrats are strongly pushing for a Trump nomination because they know he's unelectable, and it's an easy play.
But to your point, I concede that most people do consider MAGA to be right wing, and that Trump has on several occasions said things suggesting he'd like an autocracy. I think we can agree that'd be undesirable. I just don't think it's very conservative.
All that was, was a group of jaded voters who believed (rightly or wrongly) that there was election fraud. Personally I see no evidence of fraud substantial enough to change the election. But at the same time, I recognize that for someone who truly did believe there was election fraud, they were upset and they wanted to protest about it. That's all it was — a protest that was legitimate based on what they believed.
And I'm glad about that, 100%. I wouldn't want you banned.
But back to the definition, you can't just pluck a couple of words out of there and say it's a match. The whole definition fits the left way better than the right, and yet in truth doesn't fit either completely.
"lol, I hate the main conservative group in the US because they're not the right kind of
Scotsmanconservative. Instead, I love the guy who been pushing the most extreme book-banning policy in the US."did you forget that this was a conversation about fascism when you brought DeSantis up, or do you not know who he is?
lol no
who do you think tricked them into believing that? or do you think it was all one massive coincidence?
That's what you did. So I responded with actual examples, using the conservative front runner- and you replied with "no true Scotsman".
That makes absolutely no sense.
Oh wow did somebody place you under arrest for posting your opinions online?? Or does this have absolutely nothing to do with free speech, again?
I'm not saying "no true Scotsman." I'm saying Mussolini was a legitimate fascist, and his party died a long time ago. Some people today have similar traits, especially on the Left, but nobody is really part of his party anymore.
Free speech is a delicate principle. It requires everyone to firmly agree that everyone is allowed to speak freely, and we're all prepared to fight to the death, literally, to defend their right to say it. It's delicate because as soon as people abandon it, the entire project of western civilization can be destabilized. What we are permitted to say on kbin and every other online platform is the essence of free speech.