So disappointing. I clicked on this hoping your userscript would teach me German.

Es wäre einfacher, Deutsch lesen zu lernen, als Beiträge in anderen Sprachen zu verbergen.

Hello, you who cannot see me. I'm all for blocks over bans.

Tolerance of evil kind of is far left.

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?

If only firefox would render to the framebuffer, I'd need neither X nor Wayland.

Wisdom ^

Yes, but m/FoxNews is not what you probably think it is.

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.

The communist far-left calls all disagreement "hate speech". It is not hateful to speak the truth.

Hold on, I dislike authoritarianism too. Isn't it authoritarian to ban users and magazines for expressing views with which you disagree?

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.

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.

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.

It's the default on reddit because you should like your own content in almost all cases.

I do it too, though I'll then change it to a downvote if I say something which is later demonstrated to be wrong.

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.

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.

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.

Even taking that paragraph out of context is misleading. The whole comment was about the purpose of freedom.

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it.

Pretty sure I'm the only one who'd appreciate it.

Amendment, if you must know.

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.

The only reason for RES is that Reddit is closed-source.

So happens I'm the moderator of m/FoxNews so, in a way, you're right!

Yes, 1:1 would be better. But whatever the ratio may be, uploads not conforming to that ratio should not get stretched.

No, I do not advocate for violence (except in self-defense situations where there's no other option).

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.

You have clearly never been to m/FoxNews.

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.

The sidebar also ignores bans. It's just a proof-of-concept.

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.

I agree that would be a false dichotomy. I disagree that I presented that choice. But I appreciate that you're actually engaging with ideas here.

I'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.

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?

Her name is Fluffy for obvious reasons.

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.

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.

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.

Click on the link to the magazine. I promise you you'll be happy you did.