"Antiwoke" magazin on kbin.social posting bullshit like "how to end Wokeness" and "Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society" How to report ? he is the moderator of that magazin.
Noki@kbin.social to /kbin meta@kbin.social – 405 points – @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 š
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."
ā¤
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.
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.
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
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?
Thank you for being thorough
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.
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.
@KTVX94
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\_tolerance
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.
It actually is one of the strengths of the decentralized nature of the Fediverse. But there are still growing pains associated with it.
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.
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.
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 Ernest, we appreciate you āŗļø
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.
Wow, more new servers! Looks like the growth has been really explosive. It wasn't that long ago you migrated Kbin to Fastly right?
Those āantiwokeā people disgust me. I encourage disagreements. I donāt encourage thinly veiled hate disguised with code words. Tolerance isnāt āfar leftā.
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.
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, etcā¦
Not to mention the insidious evil of clean drinking water and food that won't poison you.
who?
such as?
the tu quoque is almost too tempting here
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.
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.
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.
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?
Except you don't have to be intolerant of Salafis. They can be Salafis or not for all I or anyone else cares, what matters is whether they hate people for who they are and spread or communicate that hate.
I'm personally not entirely sure about male to female trans athletes being allowed to compete in female-only leagues and am concerned about the wisdom of allowing sex change procedures for minors that weren't born intersex. I wouldn't marry a trans person and if a close family member suddenly came out as trans I might have long discussions with said family member for a while,
But that's it. I wouldn't even dream of hating someone for being trans or demonizing people who are. Even if I had religious beliefs against that kind of stuff it would at worst make me worry about such a person or make me pray for them.
If I were a moderator of a public space, I'd allow them to talk there without fear so long as they're not actively attacking others, same as any other group.
Likewise, you can believe that trans people are wrong and will go to whatever equivalent of hell your belief system has and I would tolerate you as long as you are civil about it, come from a position of compassion and empathy and don't try to force people to listen to you (like by using multiple accounts to circumvent blocks and/or bans) who have clearly communicated that they don't want to hear you anymore (same goes in the other direction, btw) and don't try to incite others to treat them as anything other than fellow human beings.
If someone from either side can't do that, that person lacks tolerance and in turn can expect the same level of tolerance being directed to them.
Alright you caught me in a good mood, so Iāll throw some articles out here to explain my line of thinking. I hope youāll see Iām not arguing with strawmen.
Article from October of last year describing right wing outrage to drag shows.
Fast forward to recent months and it appears that words have turned to action, in the form of legislation
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 faithā¦ oh well.
@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.
It belongs to the extremes, it is really worrying if you think that only in one of them.
It's a fucking circle, mate
If there's more people here like 10A it would be great if you could speak up so I could keep building my block list
It's kind of impressive that that already have -2000 rep
I just took a peek at that userās profile. Saw what magazines they moderate. Not surprised we have a different point of view.
Yes, but m/FoxNews is not what you probably think it is.
I think you're a malevolent, hateful, backwards bigot who shouldn't be welcome here... but I also genuinely appreciate the comedy in how you've been handling any references to your presence on m/FoxNews.
Fuck you, for sure, but also well done.
It's news about foxes, JUST AS I SUSPECTED
Ok you got me there.
The more people who will get on the platform the easier it will be to shut the intolerant and bullshitters out.
I've got a pretty good idea of what the "A" in "10A" stands for.
10 assholes?
10xAdolf
Amendment, if you must know.
You seem like the type of person who drives weirdly slow past preschools. It's always you types of fuckers projecting their shit onto people they want excuses to hate.
Trans people are pedos? Find me 10 articles of incidents of a trans person getting arrested for pedophilia in the last year.
I bet I can find 10 articles of priests and Christians raping kids in the past fucking month.
Quit projecting, get off the internet, look inward, and shut your fucking mouth.
Please look up the facts. Doctors don't "cut off sex organs" or do ANY other physical changes to trans children.
Sheesh, I know who that is already! I had them blocked ages ago. What a tool.
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?
Streisand effect for sure. There seems to be run of these types of posts in the fediverse lately. People donāt seem to realize that sometimes theyāre better off letting these situations take their natural course (and die), and not intervene unless it grows beyond manageability.
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.
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 donāt have an inherent sense of empathy. Thatās why they donāt 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 personās shoes.
Itās NOT an intelligence issue. Itās easy to write people off as stupid, but thatās not the case. For them, being unable to think with empathy is as natural as being unable to see infrared light.
Theyāve figured out that making themselves appear to be victims can sometimes make people listen, but they canāt fully explain why. That lack of understanding is why they donāt see the hypocrisy in banning people from their platforms, but then whining loudly when theyāre treated the same way.
This is all just guesswork, but itās the best explanation Iāve been able to come up with that doesnāt 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 (R) 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.
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.
What is the relevance of the US constitution? This is not a US platform.
It's one definition that is different than the definition that had been provided in the parent comment.
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.
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.
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?
Your post history already proves your a nazi. You aren't doing a good job of pretending otherwise.
I went through 3 pages of their comments and what Iāve read were respectful and well articulated comments from someone quite religious and with conservative values.
Maybe I missed some extreme stuff but I wouldnāt be surprised if you guys are completely making this up.
Go further, where they reminisce about the time when "homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp" which made it rare for anyone to think such behavior (being homosexual) was acceptable.
Their view that freedom shouldn't include the freedom to "exercise perverted pleasures of the flesh".
They are a modern nazi going full fascist to destroy the others they hate.
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.
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.
True, agreed. Iām only commenting on the idea that these people or groups shouldnāt get free advertising when people find them. These posts that are blasting their way to the top of āhotā just like a trending news article are counter-productive. On the Internet, which is fundamentally always at least partially an uncontrolled environment, itās better take actions for these things that are as invisible as possible.
#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.
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?
It's a rhetorical question, no need to respond. Someone else might learn something they didn't know before today. :)
I'd rather nip it in the bud. You're just letting things fester.
I donāt disagree with the sentiment, but it will become impossible to accomplish, practically speaking, as the fediverse grows. Thereās only so much that can be done with volunteers, and itās not like armies of paid staffers work much better (as weāve 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. Thereās 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.
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 doesnāt ban them, itās 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. Iām only suggested we donāt inadvertently promote this content by creating a front-page post denouncing it.
The point about it being impossible to accomplish is about perfection. Itās a wack-a-mole game. Since this content and people will always be there until found, itās better to not give them more of an audience.
No site will ever perfectly remove objectionable content. Itās one reason why the upvote downvote system is so valuable for a site like this.
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.
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.
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.
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 āhotā or āactiveā pages.
(Are we talking about the same person?)
If you take a poll of everyone in this thread I would bet almost everyone hadnāt 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.
You missed the whole point.
He said,
Thatās 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 theyāre 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.
Wisdom ^
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.
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.
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.
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-society
That'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.
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 will always advocate for blocking over banning because they can easily make new accounts to spread their hateful message. To block a user you must first read their message; their mission is accomplished.
Should the community have to continually deal with this baggage so that hateful people can intentionally misinterpret what "free speech" means?
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.
Yes, the mod of antiwoke is about to exercise proper judgement
What a fuckin psychopath.
I mean, one of those examples is
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.
"extreme trans lobby" is a conspiratorial misrepresentation of a group of people who would just like to live their lives.
Source?
Let me take one excerpt from that thread and I want you to ask that again
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?
I disagree: better to kill the evil in its infancy, rather than let it spread and hope it goes away by its own.
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.
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
Ha, I blocked the worst offender in the comments here, refreshed the page and now there are like... 6.
Block them too. They're not going to engage in good faith anyway.
Oh, no no. It was that I blocked one person and there were only 6 other comments left (all fine) :D
Blocking a person seems to remove any comment tree they're a branch in (i.e. their posts and all responses to those posts)
Hello, you who cannot see me. I'm all for blocks over bans.
Ive decided not to block him so I can follow him around annoying him and downvoting everything he says
i disagree with him obviously, but this just makes us (the people opposing him) look bad, dont do that
plus, engaging with assholes usually just prompts them to continue being assholes. it's a lose-lose
Perfect example of why voting should be public!
Blocking him is the right answer, it's the right thing to do and solves the problem of him presenting posts you don't want to see.
<3
Yeah I was worried this could become a problem, because I imagine a lot of chuds are turned off of lemmy because of the tankie devs. Which makes sense. But I don't think they should be welcome here, either. I'm trying to get away from that authoritarian shit, not get closer to the even worse kind of authoritarian shit.
Hold on, I dislike authoritarianism too. Isn't it authoritarian to ban users and magazines for expressing views with which you disagree?
No. You can always fuck off to stormfront.
Isn't it authoritarian to beat to death people expressing views with which you disagree with?
Something which you all but advocated in the thread in question? You just want a platform to advocate far more extreme methods than bans.
No, not whatsoever. Try reading my entire comment on the purpose of freedom, and not cherrypicking a few words that look damning out of context.
Also, I wrote "with which" so you didn't need to add another "with" at the end.
Edit: This was a bad answer. See below.
You know, even if it was cherrypicked (which it was not, I stand by it, and you're welcome to try to actually argue how that's not what you said and not pretend I didn't read it)
I just asked
You didn't answer with "I never said that"
You answered with
As far as I'm concerned you're just pretending to be a mature guy who wants people to debate, but in truth you just want to shame people away from the hate speech that's being spewed where people are either not responding or are making arguments in bad faith in response. Basically letting the text get onto the page and hoping everyone gives up.
I'm sorry. I was replying to a lot of comments, and I totally misunderstood yours. I thought you copied and pasted what I wrote, and added the word "with", because it ends with "with which you disagree with". I only saw the grammatical error, not the complete change of question. Please forgive me.
Yes, of course it's authoritarian to beat someone to death for expressing a different view! Goodness, how is that even a question.
I answered "No, not whatsoever" to your assertion that "You just want a platform to advocate far more extreme methods than bans."
I do like to debate, but I also like to keep things on topic, so I've been kinda trying to avoid debates in this thread, while also standing up for the relevant aspects of my rather unpopular opinions.
I certainly don't want to shame anyone for anything, and if I've inadvertently done that, I'm sorry.
Is TruthSocial just not up your alley?
Trunff Censhall!
We donāt want you here, bigot.
If it's just about disagreement, sure. But it's not, it's about whether you accept the paradox of the tolerance of intolerance.
Yeah, I really hope that shit gets nipped in the bud.
The frothing hysteria over "wokeness" (ie treating your fellow humans with respect) is just a smokescreen by the oil industry, which hopes it will take some pressure off it for, you know, slowly killing us all with global warming. You do know this, don't you?
I went through a young Republican phase, too. Then I realized that the party had nothing to offer ordinary people but contempt and cynical manipulation. Like telling people that they can be good Christians by doing the exact opposite of what Christ did. Like pitting Americans against each other for their differences. Like convincing people that the former president, a monster by any objective standard, is this country's savior when it's clear that he's just shaking the nation for loose change.
It's called "wokeness" because we finally opened our eyes, saw what was happening all around us, and decided to do something about it. You can either recognize the evil in this world, or become another oblivious victim of it.
Real progress and change takes work and money. Inflated social issues can be "solved" with policy. This whole mess is just policial theater that creates the illusion of governance at the expense of minorities.
This is a literal conspiracy theory.
It's not really. There is millions visibly spent on lobbying efforts against climate change, and invisibly stockholders invested in energy are board members of media companies. For example Jack Cockwell has over a billion dollars in Brookfield hedge fund, and that fund has been increasing it's holdings in energy for the last decade. There's some BCE board member that has millions of dollars in Wajax stocks (industrial equipment manufacturer), about half his net worth.
If you talk about industries with influence on one another from the perspective of ownership, you'll find it's all very incestuous as the richest people will diversify.
Weirdly, the people involved in Fox News only seem to own stock in FOX, but cash contributions to those people aren't shown in the market data I'm looking at. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I'm not a finance person.
And quite a creative one at that.
"free speech" absolutists can host their stuff on their own instance. No need to do it here.
agreed. im left wing and i dont agree with totally shutting conservatives down, or we will just seem like a censoring platform. i want them away from the general public, away from me, and their little communities (which will no doubt feed into itself and become more and more hateful) need to be heavily monitored and properly moderated for violent as well as hate speech, because theyre literally the only ones who ever have that issue of devolving into a straight up cult-like hate group anywhere they go. they for sure need to make their own instance and fuck off, supervised like children of course
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.
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.
People are allowed to have a difference of opinion. You don't get to silence people just because you disagree with them. Please do not go down that dark path.
Believe it or not there are people who do not subscribe to certain views, bur that does not make them "hate mongerers" anymore than the extreme opposition. It's only extremists and people who try to silence others for their views that are assholes. You live in a great big world full of a lot of differing opinions and that's what makes it beautiful. Silencing opinions because of your personal beliefs is not acceptable.
Transphobia, racism, etc aren't an opinion. They are hate speech. Full stop.
I am absolutely against silencing opinions. I am also absolutely in favor of silencing hate speech. Understand the difference.
What about when it's more nuanced like "I support trans people to do whatever they want, but I don't support transwomen in women's sports." Or "I am cautious about transitioning young children until we have a better medical understanding of gender dysphoria." Seems like many here would still consider my perspective to be "hate speech," which I, of course, find ridiculous.
When you're discussing traits inherent to a person-- not things they do or believe, but things they are, it's almost certainly hate speech. A quick test would be to swap the inherent thing you're talking about with skin color, since that one seems obvious to most people. So, would you say that an opinion that you support people of color, you just don't support them playing sports with people that aren't POC, be nuanced opinion or hate speech?
As for your second hypothetical, that is a discussion for doctors and experts, and they've already had it, and that's why children can't get non-reversible procedures until they're 18. No one is transitioning children; they are blocking their development so they can have a choice on how to proceed when they're adults.
False equivalence. XY humans destroy XX humans in sports, it's why we have men's and women's divisions - women are a protected class. Allowing XY individuals in women's sports is not fair to women, and undermines the entire purpose of sport and a women's division. Look at it this way : men's division is really an open division, but we created a women's division for the purpose of fairness.
Second point, let's just say you don't know how much I know about this topic or these issues. The question of reversibility by using hormone blockers is still being debated. We simply do not have enough data to know if its safe. You cannot treat hormone manipulation as some simple process. There are many feedback loops involved in the HPG axes.
Your logic means men (not trans women) should be able to compete in women's sports.
That's not nuance, that's just ignorance and a knee-jerk reaction to a very complicated issue which has to be left to experts, who, in addition to being normal people with compassion and love like most of us towards their fellow humans, know the most about their topic of expertise than any of us.
It is indeed nuance. Just because you're not well read or educated on the topic, doesn't mean I am not. I have been thinking about these things for years and years, and I do indeed have a formal education in biology. So, no, not a knee-jerk reaction, sorry. Again, I am all for letting trans individuals transition and exist how they want, and I am all for respecting pronoun usage, and whatever else - that is compassion towards fellow humans. I am just pointing out two aspects of this debate where I have my own thoughts that have some slight pushback on progressive perspectives.
If you were as "well read" as you think you are, you would know how much bullshit you're spewing right now. Especially about children getting the gender affirming care they need without any need interference from "well-mean" idiots like you.
Your "concern" is potentially killing young people, and you're here talking out of your ass, convinced you have compassion for people.
Nuanced opinions are worthy of discussion. That's not what I've seen on the community in question.
Racism is disgusting but transpobia? I don't believe that's hate speech. People can not like something but not wish death on the person or outright hate who they are as a person. People are allowed to dislike certain behaviors. It's not comparable to racism and its definitely not hate speech.
Uhhh...no, that is hate speech. It's in definition damnit.
I'm going down this thread and holy crap did you 180 from normal conversation into downright bigot.
But you do not disagree with someone doing or believing something. By defending transphobia you disagree with someone being one thing or the other. Because transphobia isn't based on disagreeing with what trans people are doing or believe in. It disagrees with their fundamental right to exist and wants to take it away. It's no different from racism or antisemitism.
That's the difference you seem to miss.
transphobia literally = "outright hating who someone is as a person". are you okay???
"Disagreements" are for things like tax milage, or whether or not a school needs a new football field. "Disagreements" are not for things like, "jews should be gassed", or "trans people are all pedophiles".
No, weāre not going to let shitheads like this ruin our community.
Disagreeing with someone having the right to exist is not an opinion.
If your "certain view" is that trans people, other queer people, and/or anyone left of Tucker Carlson shouldn't exist, you've opted out of the social contract of tolerance and should expect to be shunned.
Tolerance is either a two way street or a suicide pact and I'm not here to watch people die so the worst dregs of humanity can spew their garbage.
Whoa, I would never wish someone wouldn't exist anymore, wtf? Most moderate people I know just don't like the behavior, they don't hate the people... I know assholes exist who actually want to kill people who disagree with them but that exists on both sides of the aisle.
It's not "behavior", it's who they are.
what does that even mean? what is 'the behavior'? i'd like to see you try and tell me without generalizing literally millions of people
Exactly this why is this so hard for these motherfuckers to understand
complexity does not inherently make your argument better. "Slavery is is horrible and evil but free black people shouldn't have the right to vote" is a "nuanced opinion," but that doesn't mean it isn't racist and terrible.
I agree in principle but that's not a great example
Look up the tolerance paradox and then suck my dick
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."
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.
So happens I'm the moderator of m/FoxNews so, in a way, you're right!
mod of the foxnews mag lmfao. oh man, it keeps getting better and better
Guess it was only a matter of time before the Nazis colonized here with the server being open sign-up
You have clearly never been to m/FoxNews.
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:
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:
The communist far-left calls all disagreement "hate speech". It is not hateful to speak the truth.
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.
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.
The tolerance of intolerance leads to the loss of all freedom. You'd have to be either a fraud or a fool to try and sell the opposite as truth. So which are you?
If you are intolerant of intolerance, then you are intolerant. Full stop. If those are my only two available options, I must be a fool.
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 still haven't addressed my point. Do you think it is desiderable that homosexual people are beaten to a pulp? Is a YES/NO question, it shouldn't be difficult to answer.
No, I do not advocate for violence (except in self-defense situations where there's no other option).
Here is your exact quote, there is no "misrepresentation" here. You are firstly suggesting that the gays are worshiping (indirectly or directly) Satan and have no right to "freedom" because your fictionally sky daddy said so. Lets take a step backwards, so you are suggesting your all loving god, basically has doomed 3/5s (if not more until the white people came) of the world because he decided to only care about Europe and part of the middle east for hundreds to thousands of years because this all knowing being somehow couldn't have stable and growing amount of worshipers in Asia, the Americas, Australia, the pacific, etc dooming them all to hell (or purgatory depending on your denomination) because they as you say can't be able to accept "Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior."
You yearn for a day when everyone (in your neighborhood) had your stupid sky daddy's beliefs and if they didn't you wouldn't pull the trigger or what not but you aren't opposed because now we live in a world of sin and whatnot and you want them to repent because they decide to have their freedom that is instill upon them because they are born a fucking human not because a fucking fictional sky daddy said you have it.
It god damn hilarious you are also reiterating god damn fanfic, the cardinal 7 sins weren't a major concept until they were first enumerated by Pope Gregory I in the 6th century and further expanded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Then to top it all off, we as a modern society mostly know the configuration of hell by a god damn self insert fanfic by Dante Alighieri in "Divine Comedy" or to be more specific Dante's Inferno.
Also seems you aren't very godly if you aren't even following Jesus' own words
āYou shall love your neighbor as yourself.ā (Matthew 22:39),
Your love seems very conditional on the concept that they have to worship your god before they deserve any love. Its honestly disgusting and you are the posterchild of why people hate religious nuts. People can worship what they want if they aren't hurting people but holy shit the shit you are willfully allowing by decree people deserve no freedom if they don't have Judeo-Christians.
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.
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?
Unequivocally yes. You are clearly not engaging in good faith and tolerance of malicious disinfo is basically the main problem currently facing our culture.
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.
When they're seeking to have people beaten to a pulp? Yes, obviously. Freedom for a few fascist bullies is unfreedom for everyone else. They can fuck off to Gab or Truth Social or somewhere else they'd be welcome. Not here.
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.
Fuck off or grow up.
"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.
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
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.
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.
I am downvoting you because nobody should get eye cancer from your bullshit
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.
Which god? Zeus?
Zeus!??! Blasphemy. All father or no father I say. Odin for best God.
Your sky daddy is fake, and I, for one, will not live under your people's delusions of truth.
What if they don't believe in the Christian God because the Christian God is demonstrably not real?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
āDemons absolutely do existā lol
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.
āVerbal Kint
Haha hell yeah, hail Satan, am I right?
"Far Right" and "Extremist" are not Christian. Christian is John 13:34
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."
That's what being woke is. Loving one another, regardless of how we may or may not have sinned.
We are all happy to engage with competing worldviews
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.
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.
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 think you mistyped truth social in your URL bar. This place will not welcome you, I think.
Thank you for doing the investigation so I don't have to. He'll be going on many peoples block lists at this point.
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.
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.
@kbinMeta
@10A
Considering the issue about tankies on some lemmy instances, I think we understand how much left is too far left. And what you describe as "woke" isnāt it.
I concede that's a very good point. The term "far-left" (just like "far-right") is problematic because there's such a wide spectrum. In the center-left, you have old-school leftists like Bill Maher. On the far left you have tankies. In between them you have the woke. So what do we call that? I can't pretend to answer the question, but I recognize that you have a very good point. Personally I'll continue calling woke far-left until I learn a more appropriate term.
As a member of that group, we prefer to call ourselves "progressives".
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, Iāll find somewhere else to go.
I donāt even agree with these folks, but if people are going to start raising a big stink because people are saying things they donāt like, Iām out.
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.
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it.
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).
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.
Go hang out on Voat, bigot
It's not censorship, it's keeping people acting in bad faith from easily act in derogatory ways actively harming people.
Nazi Punks Fuck Off
I don't know what is going on with this new magazine, but are you suggesting that we can't be critical of "woke" culture and/or aspects of trans culture? I think both have some excesses deserving of some criticism, e.g. witch hunts on social media and transwomen in women's sports.
Edit: Unbelievable downvotes over a completely reasonable take. Perhaps there is no hope for the internet after all.
You're being downvoted for making a reasonable take, to a completely unreasonable set of posts.
The problem is basically people going "let them talk banning is free speech!" When the talk is either an article demonizing the trans lobby, or a post below it that takes a moment to talk about how back in the day it was acceptable to beat homosexual people to a pulp.
That is why you are being downvoted. Because you're trying to act like a reasonable response is to be expected to a set of unreasonable and destructive takes. There's a group here trying to normalize hate speech as something that can just be argued with when most of them are cherry picking their arguments or just arguing in bad faith in general.
Now I can confirm, the block button works :D
cringe. grow up you fascist loser, go back to reddit
Bigotry is not welcome here.
I agree with others that you just gave that ps guy what they wanted: attention. You should've messaged ernest directly to ask him for better report tools.
Meanwhile, go to beehaw if you need better protection from people like him.
@Noki
If you donāt like it:
Donāt censor what others may want to read.
I have not posted anything illegal, just articles from British press by journalists from left and right side of politics.
Have nice day.
Simply don't go to that magazine? Fuck, people....censorship is bad, but it sounds like kbin is committed to it. Is there a community I can join that has full free speech? This is a serious question.
can you be more specific. I can't find what you found.
@Noki @ernest I dunno. Sounds like they are trying to spread some interesting ideas which might have a positive impact on society.
It is called freedom of speech. So either provide a meaningful debate with an opposing view, or block them by yourself to create your own "safe space".
No, Iām not interested in engaging with bigots. Weāre going to defederate.
Again. Wanting to actively hurt people you think are unworthy of living in peace is not freedom of speech. It's hate speech. And it's a whole different thing.
You think climate change is made up
The mostly "reduced" posts in this thread open up a good time to discuss the benefits of federation in regards to removing problem users. Can we federate banlists, such that if, for example, you're banned from kbin.social for creating a community for hate speech, it also bans you from likeminded instances automatically?
Would be nice to form "zine alliances" to share the burden a little bit. Anyone who posts "end wokeness" stuff doesn't need to exist on any platform.
Woke: āthe belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.ā This definition is from Ron DeSantis lead counsel.
I donāt understand how anyone can argue with the concept of woke. If you are āanti-wokeā you are a racist mother fucker.