...I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[email protected]

SaYs tHe OnE wHo TyPeD lIkE ThIs

[email protected]

not taking a side, is taking the side of inaction, which will inevitably result in oligarchy. You can say you don't care, withdraw, and refuse to participate, but don't pretend like it's not an active participation. You're actively in this life, you're just choosing to let the wrong team win.

[email protected]

This is moral purists lashing out with hyperbole since the Israel/Hamas ceasefire has castrated their big issue. They have to pretend letting Trump win by refusing to vote for Harris cuz she "supported genocide" was still the right thing to do, and they weren't just being impatient toddlers demanding a cookie RIGHT NOW OR ELSE.

[email protected]

Right on man! First they're telling you where to drive and how fast, then they're takin' away ur gunz!

[email protected]

Not caring about politics is a privilege of the powerful. All this shows is that you are lucky enough to be in control of your own life. Congratulations! Me too! No one is actively working to hurt me either.

I care about politics because not everyone is able to have that privilege, and they should.

[email protected]

And you are fully free to exercise that privilege, just don't shove it in my face and make it your life's mission to make this guy care about it as much as you do.

I had friends who told me they didn't vote, and you know what I said? " Ah okay whatever"

And this concept fucking baffles people

[email protected]

Hey boomer, it means I'm mocking whoever says that, if. You ascribed what was said in that text to your own beliefs that's on you bud

[email protected]

Most people will choose the side of inaction as long as they're comfortable enough. That's something I don't get with today's oligarchs. They are just as stupid as they are greedy. If they hoarded just a bit less -- if they were willing to live a lavish post-scarcity lifestyle while having as much money as a SMALL country rather than living a lavish post-scarcity lifestyle while having as much money as a midsize country -- they could live the exact same day to day existence without the working class being up in arms and in love with CEO assassins.

In the movie of their life, the only difference would be the "high score" text at the top of the screen.

But I guess if you value a practical good life over unchecked avarice and ego, you probably aren't cut out for the oligarch lifestyle.

Phoenixz

I agree that pureexpression is a horrible idea in combination with the internet. You can't allow people to just rile up eachother with misinformation and become terrorists over issues that don't exist. Be it Jewish space lasers, Mexican rapist immigrants or dumb conspiracy theories like vaccines causing autism.

Especially if you have a following, or echo chambers, content just has to be stopped.

Humanity is not ready for full free flow of information, not as long as dumb idiots believe anything they reas

[email protected]

Automatic sentient guns, that's what kills people.

Oh and people who happen to use guns to kill others

[email protected]

hey, that's against the rules. you can't mock people like that.

[email protected]

If you took away the internet and TV, People would riot like they never have before. You hit the nail on the head, enough of us who would do something are just comfortable enough not to. We have comfort food, alcohol, weed, TV, video games, and movies. All distractions. Take away the comfort, take away peoples last remaining reason not to revolt.

[email protected]

I'll defend the right for anyone to speak their mind, but I'll allow the masses to take their pound of flesh when their mind is filled with hate and bile.

just because you can speak your mind doesn't absolve you of the consequences of doing so.

[email protected]

So, I'm not the person you're responding to, but I have similar views. I'm going to skip some statements, as I can't speak for yggstyle, only my own stance.

You say rights exist until they encroach on others’ freedoms. But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others’ basic freedoms and safety. By your own logic, those views forfeit their protection.

Yes? Harmful statements should be removed, but if there's no explanation given, people are probably just going to roll their eyes about it.

You argue it’s important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views. That’s exactly what content moderation is - society collectively demonstrating opposition to ideas that threaten democratic values and human dignity.

Content moderation is simply the removal of rule-breaking content. Xitter removing Musk hate is content moderation, but not an opposition to harmful views. In order to actually oppose said views, a site needs to be more transparent about what a harmful view is and be able to say how removed comments are harmful.

You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers. But platforming hate speech (by claiming they’re something to be “debated”) creates echo chambers of hatred and drives away the very people you claim should be engaging in debate. Your approach actually reduces genuine dialogue.

There's a difference between platforming hate speech and letting people fuck up without immediately banning them. I was raised christofascist, and the only reason I was able to change my mind is because people engaged with me about why it was harmful to trust my family. If I'd just had content removed for opaque reasons, with zero explanation as to what I'd done wrong and didn't respond to questions about why it was wrong, I wouldn't've had a reason to distrust my family. Your approach also actually reduces genuine dialogue.

You’re basically saying “we must protect Alice’s right to a safe home by platforming Bob’s right to debate burning it down.”

Again, education isn't the same as platforming something. If somebody genuinely doesn't understand why arson is bad, I absolutely want to teach them why and not just tell them to get lost.

but every time you spend time trying I’ll just claim a new ridiculous thing - absolute “freedom of speech” is a godsend for bad faith actors.

The limit of "so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others" means it's not absolute freedom of speech though?

[email protected]

The US federal government is no longer legitimate; its actions are no longer representative of a properly-functional government. The insurrectionist felon who spent 4 years committing every crime he possibly could just got away with all of it. By our own laws, he is not eligible to be president. The supreme court made him essentially an infallible king, and the CEOs of corporations are bribing him to buy favor and influence.

IMO, if our government was legitimate and uncorrupt, it should have every interest and duty towards banning hate speech. Germany had it right when they banned Nazi hate speech.

[email protected]

But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others’ basic freedoms and safety.

Does it?
I've never seen that proven convincingly.
It goes against my experience lived embracing the tired old saying sticks & stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me around awful assholes spouting particularly offensive ideas at me.
Realizing that expression gave me power: their words matter not a damn to me as long as they don't turn into action.
Once they turn into action, however, a warning to call the authorities usually settles the matter uneventfully.

Words are bullshit.
Anyone can put words together: they're just noise.
People can spout nonsense forever & form their nonsense echo chambers as long as nothing comes of it.
They're not the problem, they're an indication.
Actions are the real problem.

If you don't want people putting their offensive ideas into action, then stop them, not their words.
Block that legislation from getting through.
Argue their ideas are garbage.
Change the minds of those in power.
Educate more people to your side.

It's so obvious, I'm stunned so many people need it explained.

[email protected]

IMO, if our government was legitimate and uncorrupt,

History has demonstrated that such a government can never be guaranteed. Germany had it right when they banned Nazi speech? They banned other types of "hate" speech not all that much earlier. Nobody knows what kind of "hate" speech they will be trying to ban tomorrow, or a decade from now. All we do know is that the people will broadly support it, just as they do now, just as they did a hundred years ago.

I'm going to repeat this again: Even though they are spoken, threats are not a form of speech. Threats are "violence" and "censorship" is not the appropriate remedy for violence. People who issue threats should be prosecuted, not silenced.

The government should not be allowed to shortcut the criminal process and merely prevent such violent people from being able to discuss their violent intentions in public. They should either be prosecuted, or ignored.

[email protected]

I once saw a guy on Twitter who edited the second panels compromise sign to say "You're both fucking stupid". He used it as his profile banner.

People like this actually exist in real life.

[email protected]

their speech organizes and hate and destruction though

Yggstyle

It would appear we have a lot to unpack in the replies - but your post checks most of the boxes so here we go:

A-are you actually comparing Elvis conspiracies with racial supremacy? Sounds like your logic doesn’t go further than “freedom of speech = good”

First and foremost the stammer was a nice touch. It really gives that extra oomph to the feigned offense. I chuckled.

When I composed that list I was very specific about which items were being added to it. Are you familiar with a dog whistle? It does have several "topical" meanings but in this case lets use the one talking about "frequency of sound." Now most people cannot hear a dog whistle - but are able to discern that dogs do hear it when they start flicking their ears about and behaving oddly in the presence of it. A post is text so I cannot use sound... however (and I love this example for... reasons):

If I showed 3 dots that were green, red, red to a group who were *colorblind *- all they would see three similar dots. However someone who saw color would be confused as to why a dot was standing out and might react to it. This is, in effect, the dog whistle behavior I spoke about.

On to my point: for most people I listed three obviously ridiculous concepts that are meritless easily disproven. For these people they might acknowledge my jab as amusing - but overall would not see anything but 3 of the same example. It wouldn't warrant a specific response... However - to someone who was looking to troll, disrupt, or perhaps even finds one of those topics to "not belong" in the silly notion category... they would jump all over it. Fight me Elvis fans. I'm ready.

Side note: What is so fantastic about this - is it got multiple hits and other people immediately identified the response to those hits. Its a demonstration of both the whistle and people seeing the result of the "unheard" whistle.

I have read your post completely and its pretty textbook; which I am certain you are aware of. I will do my best to cover your best shots though.

You argue it’s important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views... (moderation.)

It is important that people see both the views and the response to those views. If they are allowed to speak and are admonished, publicly - they are defeated and have no recourse. If they are silenced - they are allowed a "martyrs death" through repression. This is a tool used by many groups (not just hate groups) to deepen the rift between "us and them." It reinforces loyalty - because out there "they" don't understand you. This is the additional benefit of airing the dirty laundry - so to speak: when people talk things out they may find something they both agree on.. and learning can happen. In the case of say our much reviled "Elvis fans" they may realize that even if the king faked his death ... he probably did die of old age... So seeing him now is obviously silly. Yes that goes both ways - but the result is far more favorable to the party with their head screwed on right.

You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers.

It does. I spoke to this above - but to expand using another example: using capital punishment during the witch trials made a very binary situation. You are or aren't a witch or witch supporter. And while there were no definite ways to test for a witch... ...people were incentivized to report friends and family out of fear that they might be associated with them. This is why absolute moderation is a bad thing. Many mods will simply delete a post leaving some to wonder wtf even happened. Banning someone while posting a response is better - but the best way yet for reasons I outlined above - is to give them an opportunity to respond to the charges before a decision is made. This shows that discussion can occur and allows outsiders to grasp both sides and form their opinions on the matter.

How does that pertain to echo chambers? Simple. We are social creatures - we learn largely through negative reinforcement (that awkward moment in highschool with free rent in your mind was actually a survival mechanism at one point.) This is apparent in nearly every online community in some form or another but anywhere there are "point based systems" the results are self evident. Downvotes both discourage posts against the grain and because they are visible to all - are a stark reminder to not fall out of line. If you cannot beat them - join them. Its simple human behavior. Now what is the end result of beating down other schools of thought and the championing of bandwagoning? Self evident.

...you’re actually trivializing historical persecution

You've already played the righteous indignation / offense card already. I'll answer you earnestly though: My statements, as a whole, were put together in a way that clearly says - "these are my viewpoints, and I welcome discussion on it." I believe the statement you cherry picked for outrage here was followed by "It is important to debate and not silence people." People can be surprisingly rational when presented with facts and left to form their own opinions? How do you think history would have been different had it been acceptable to have a difference of opinion and matters of science were discussed openly rather than obliterated by those in power at the time? I imagine we'd be better off than we are now, personally. That is my perspective and you are absolutely welcome to disagree with me on it.

we must protect Alice’s right to a safe home by platforming Bob’s right to debate burning it down

I will quote @[email protected] because it is simple and to the point: You can fight for the legal right to be stupid and anti-social and still call someone out for being stupid and anti-social.

It sums it up nicely. If bob feels comfortable platforming his desire to burn down alice's home ... I imagine that would provide multiple people an opportunity to ... stop him. Wild concept - I'm aware.

it takes 0 effort to say “yggstyle hates people of color and that’s why they argue for people to have the freedom to say anything”

And yet I didn't get to lemmy today until not to long ago because of life stuff and wouldn't you know it: "But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong." I think those users covered it better than I could: simply by acting like rational people - and the result, in my opinion, is better than if I snubbed you myself.

I hope you can see why this rhetoric is bullshit and why people should not support anybody’s “freedom of speech” to debate people’s rights to exist.

And I hope that our exchange has taught you something.

My views are largely shaped by a psych professor whom I respect quite a bit: in his spare time he would find public rallies by hate groups and go to debate them. I was fortunate enough to be brought along a couple times... and I have to say some of the most satisfying things I have ever witnessed is watching hate groups get the platform they wanted and hang themselves with the rope he provided during the exchanges. He instilled in me the value of both hearing what your opponent says and presenting your views. In the end - you may agree to disagree... but frequently saner heads prevail.

Answering your post has been a blast - I welcome continuing it, should you be inclined... but hopefully I have cleared up any misconceptions you had.