As far as I see that instance is a far-right cess pool. Everything I’ve got from that instance were low-quality transphobic “news articles”.
As far as I see that instance is a far-right cess pool. Everything I’ve got from that instance were low-quality transphobic “news articles”.
deleted by creator
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Read up. Then punch a nazi. Don’t need that shit anywhere in society.
They really should make an exception to the law for punching Nazis
I really wish it was socially acceptable to punch a Nazi. Cops don’t like that, so I don’t do it.
.
While it’s crucial to oppose harmful ideologies like Nazism, we must be wary of how we define such harmful groups. If we broaden these definitions arbitrarily, we risk encapsulating people who merely differ politically, diluting the term’s significance and unjustifiably alienating individuals. In doing so, we inadvertently shrink our own communities, polarizing society to the extent where a moderate viewpoint might be mistaken for extremism. Right-leaning communities fall into this trap as well, resulting in fragmented realities where each group exists in its own echo chamber. This division deepens societal fissures and undermines moderate views, which, in my belief, are grounded in reality and thus instrumental in achieving balanced discourse.
You’re not entirely wrong, but when we are actually talking about actual literal self-declared fascists who are obviously talking and acting fascistic, then it definitely does apply. This is a long way past any sort of grey area, dude!
This is where the need for nuance comes in. If we were dealing with a platform overrun by advocates for genocide, then defederation would be a reasonable step. But the lack of nuance creates an issue. If any perspective slightly outside your tolerance threshold is immediately labeled as Nazi, where do we draw the line? At what point on the right or the left spectrum does a viewpoint become unacceptable? The challenge lies in defining these boundaries and promoting dialogue without promoting hate.
Soooooo here’s a helpful hint to tamp down that utter confusion you seem to be having:
The guys who want armed guard genital inspectors in front of every bathroom are the bad guys.
Who exactly holds the authority to label ‘the bad guys’? Sure, some actions are undeniably harmful, but does that warrant placing all perceived wrongdoers in the same category, from internet trolls to murderers? Is there no nuance or room for varying degrees of transgressions? I hope you can ask yourself if you’re always on the side of righteousness, or might you be perceived as 'the bad guy" from another perspective? It’s important to understand that the world is not simply binary, and such a mindset can dangerously oversimplify complex issues.
What you are suggesting is that we, as a society, are incapable of discerning right from wrong and enforcing societal norms at all ever. Because who knows? Who has the power to determine these things?? hand wringing, pearl clutching
Let me tell you who: Anyone with two brain cells and a heart. Fascism has a clear definition. People who are being called Nazis because they openly hate and advocate for the genocide of trans people are being called Nazis because THEY ARE ACTING LIKE NAZIS.
We absolutely have no obligation to air their bigoted, make believe grievances in public. We have every right to shut them down and shut them up to protect vulnerable minority populations.
Stop JAQing off and pretending otherwise.
Nazis exist, and they are abhorrent. But is it fair to label the entire community of exploding-heads as such? Or, is it that the platform tolerates a broader range of discourse than you are comfortable with? Yes, Nazis may be part of the mix, but so too might be their staunch opponents. Assigning people to preconceived boxes based on assumed beliefs isn’t conducive to understanding. While we concur on opposing Nazis, I refuse to disregard an entire group’s perspectives because I may disagree with some. It’s crucial to engage with opposing views for a balanced discourse, a principle applicable to everyone.
It is NOT crucial to engage in any kind of discourse with fascists who advocate genocide (aka Nazis)
And you know what you have if a “normal” person sits down to dinner with 10 Nazis? You have 11 Nazis.
There is no room for tolerance of Nazis, nor of those who coddle and enable Nazis.
So yes. It’s fair.
Therein lies the problem, who says they’re nazis? Just some person on the internet? I’ll decide if someone is a nazi for myself, I don’t need protection.
Bro everyone knows you don’t find nazis abhorrent. Fuck off.
Lol, don’t hurt yourself proving my point now.
People who don’t get their rocks off by investing more effort into hating the marginalized.
This isn’t about me and this isn’t about subtlety. On the whole LGBT+haters are nazi adjacent and they get a kick out of hating the marginalized, and they do it VERY LOUDLY.
Like literally it’s the AMERICA FIRST!ers here that are now specifically hating on like the two or three trans people in each state who play sports, and like the maybe handful of total trans people in each state in comparison to state population.
Sounds to me like you group everyone who has an even remotely different viewpoint than you in to one category so you can easily hate and discredit them all without ever actually thinking critically.
You’re just bringing up ideas you don’t like and then creating a strawman character that you can hate. You know they think the same way about you right? Do you not see how this leads to misinformation and unnecessary hatred? Solving nothing and creating even more division is not something I will stand behind.
Sounds to me like you’re definitely a fucking nazi
Or maybe I’m moderate and would like to not feel like an extremist for trying to find the truth that’s somewhere in the middle.
Paradox of Tolerance in action, right here.
Right, they never stated otherwise, but transphobic measures doesn’t necessarily make one a nazi. It makes you awful but there are different kinds of awful than just nazism. The risk of calling everyone a nazi is that you dilute what the word actually means so that you risk generalizing and uniting the awful people instead of separating them based on their various horrendous opinions.
The vast majority of people screaming about bathrooms in the US are in fact Nazis or nazi adjacent.
There is NO reason to dump that much hate on like two or three people per state unless you just enjoy the cruelty.
True but neither ideology deserves a spot at the table of civilized discourse. So it’s a bit of a moot point.
It’s not a moot point when we consider the fluidity of language and the potential for any group to manipulate terms to suit their interests. If someone can blanket-label their opposition as a ‘transphobe’ or, more extreme, a ‘Nazi’, it bypasses meaningful debate and eradicates the chance to understand differing viewpoints. This not only oversimplifies complex discussions, but it also fosters a lazy and destructive discourse that can fuel animosity rather than understanding. We need to be challenged. A tree that grows without wind will not have the strength to stand in a storm.
Imagine using the ammo of “complexity” and the subjectivity of language to defend wholly unsubtle people who explicity want others harassed/harmed/dead for being their authentic selves and that authenticity has absolutely NOTHIGN to do with them personally
A lot of free speech arguments falter in situations like these, imo, since they are predicated on the speech involved being genuine feelings/ideas/emotions. Troll groups like explodingheads and /r/the_donald are/were less about exchanging ideas and more about inflicting ideas on others. When the_donald was isolated, their community essentially started to die because there wasn’t much genuine interest in discussing politics - their only interest was in ‘redpilling normies’.
Ugh. Time to post that always relevant Sartre quote again. I hate that it’s still relevant almost 80 years later:
Some people, like Elon Musk, want us to believe that social networks are a “digital town square”, but imo that’s a pretty poor metaphor. Social networks are more similar to “digital pubs”. They are places where you go to meet, chat and share with your people. Of course it is a public place, and anyone can listen to your conversations, and in principle, even join. But social networks, as pubs, and as any other human interaction, are governed by (mostly unwritten) social contracts, codes of conduct and etiquette. You are not supposed to join a conversation uninvited, and if you are invited, you are supposed to treat the others with respect.
However, these groups systematically and purposely violate the social contracts, they hijack spaces and conversation where they were not invited and insult, harass and harm anyone who doesn’t think like them or simply if they find it funny. They are the drunkards that instigate bar fights. And as in real life, the owners don’t want disruptive elements in their pubs.
At this point, the Internet is 40 years old, and mass-adoption happened more than 20 years ago. Most of us have been part of many communities before lemmy and/or kbin. And the disruptive elements are always the same. There are many groups of people with different opinions on religion, social issues, economical policies, etc, and yet only the far-right insists on the on-line persecution of their opponents. And their strategy works as long as the apologist support them.
This isn’t a matter of echo chambers. You can hear many different voices on lemmy/kbin. The only requirement to have you voice heard is basic respect, and that is something that the far-right refuses to do.
You know kbin is a communist project named after the ak47, right?
Citation needed
Oh no! Guess I’ll just have to figure out why that matters or why you think I would care.