• 10A
    link
    fedilink
    6
    edit-2
    1 year ago

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

    When you ban people, you tell them to go form an echo chamber where they’ll flourish.

    A more intelligent approach is to imitate Daryl Davis, who has convinced hundreds of KKK members to leave the KKK, simply by respectfully talking with them.

    You might actually learn a thing or two in the process.

    • Erikatharsis
      link
      fedilink
      34
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      For every Daryl Davis who can successfully talk down 100 Klansmen, you’ll find 100 Black people begging for their lives trying to reason with the Klan in their last moments. For every thought of “I can fix them!” that you may have, you have to weigh that against how many more people you’ll need to fix if you platform their ideas and treat them as something worth “respectfully debating”.

      Convincing people to leave hate groups is a great thing to do, but if respectful debate were effective on the large scale, and we have no shortage of people respectfully arguing that hate is a bad thing, why is the far right a bigger threat now than it was ten years ago? Do not tolerate the intolerant, do not debate the undebatable, do not respect the unrespectable.

      • 10A
        link
        fedilink
        6
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The “far right” is growing because the left keeps moving further left, and normal people realize they’re now considered conservative.

        If you want an echo chamber, go on and kick me out. You reap what you sow.

        • Deceptichum
          link
          fedilink
          311 year ago

          What insane version of reality are you living in?

          Globally the Overton window has shifted drastically right these past few decades.

          Not too long ago leftists were holding ceos hostage and fighting armed conflicts, it’s so watered down people think someone like Bernie Sanders is a radical communist when he’s basically centrist.

        • VoxAdActa
          link
          fedilink
          181 year ago

          The “far right” is growing because the left keeps moving further left, and normal people realize they’re now considered conservative.

          I guess there really is no floor for how simple an idea can be when it’s not beholden to reality. Thanks for the example.

        • Neato
          link
          fedilink
          151 year ago

          I’m sorry I’m trying to give you rights and you feel attacked by that.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          71 year ago

          This talking point is a deliberate strategy of the far-right that has no basis in reality.

          The far-right is growing because people like him are allowed platforms to groom people for extremism. And whenever that platform is at risk, they start trying to guilt people by bleating about “censorship” and “free speech” and “echo chambers”.

          Just ban him. He will never contribute anything of value. We’re already aware what the opinions of assholes are, we don’t need reminding.

          • 10A
            link
            fedilink
            61 year ago

            It’s absolutely true. Look at the DNC policy from 20+ years ago, and you’d think it looks like RNC policy of today. Moving leftward is part and parcel of the notion of “Progressive” politics — moving progressively leftward.

        • DarkThoughts
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          Your dumbass hillbilly country does not have a left. Your political spectrum ends pretty close to the center.

          • 10A
            link
            fedilink
            51 year ago

            Should I be surprised that someone so radically far-left, so as to believe the US has no left, is someone who freely dishes out insults?

            • DarkThoughts
              link
              fedilink
              -11 year ago

              If I’m “radically far left”, where would you place tankies and the likes then? Seriously, get your head checked and open your eyes as to what is happening in your idiotic country. If you don’t like my harsh tone, then simply start to do better, be better, be a decent human being. Until then I’m not going to touch you with velvet gloves because your behavior and decisions over there have a crucial impact on the rest of the world. Until then you can continue to suck my pucker, because that somehow would still make your shit spewing mouth somehow cleaner. o7

    • czech
      link
      fedilink
      211 year ago

      You sound like you’ve never argued with fascists online.

      They only exist in echo chambers, anyway, and do not debate in good faith. There is nothing similar to what Daryl Davis did except in the most superficial way possible. Go visit /r/conservative and you might actually learn a thing or two.

          • Deceptichum
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Hahahaha.

            “You were mean to me and called me a fascist so I’m going to commit genocide against a people’s”

            Fucking ey mate, way to prove me wrong.

              • Deceptichum
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                Oh fuck up shit sucker.

                If you’re getting called a fascist, take a look in the mirror. If you think being called a fascist explains why people become fascist you’re a fucking moron.

                  • Deceptichum
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    I’ll always hate fascists, I make no excuses.

                    Now fuck off kid.

      • 10A
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        I was active in r/Conservative, and here I’m the primary contributer to m/Conservative. Hi, nice to meet you. When I’m engaged in arguments involving the word “fascist”, it’s rarely me using that word (unless we’re literally discussing Mussolini), and usually me who’s called that for favoring levelheaded conservative principles. I enjoy mutually respectful debate, but I find most others prefer to fearfully call me a “fascist,” downvote everything I’ve ever written, block me, and walk away feeling sanctimonious.

        • Deceptichum
          link
          fedilink
          271 year ago

          You were active in the biggest alt-right safe space echo chamber in all of reddit? Colour me surprised.

        • Xariphon
          link
          fedilink
          131 year ago

          I was active in r/Conservative, and here I’m the primary contributer to m/Conservative.

          This is already a point at which you should go home and rethink your life. Everything else you’ve said only digs the hole deeper.

          • 10A
            link
            fedilink
            81 year ago

            Yes, everyone whose point of view differs from yours must obviously be inferior to you.

        • czech
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          That’s a hilarious turn; my statement was meant to be rhetorical. But you really have never argued with fascists!

          And I never said YOU were fascist… but I guess that doesn’t fit with your canned response then, huh?

          • 10A
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            Fascists haven’t existed since 25 Luglio in 1943. You can find a tiny number of exceptions over the years, but as a broad statement it’s true. I’m not old enough to have argued with fascists, and I bet you’re not either.

            • czech
              link
              fedilink
              81 year ago

              Fascism:

              a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

              Yea wow, we’ve never seen that in the last 7 years!

              I can see I really triggered you with that word. It’s hilarious that you self-identified with it and got defensive.

              • 10A
                link
                fedilink
                51 year ago

                It certainly does sound like typical leftists if you squint. Everyone in this thread opposing free speech is an authoritarian. But if you actually read that definition word for word, it’s a position almost nobody supports. What’s more, the definition has been changed from the original political affiliation. I’m not surprised Miriam-Webster’s open to redefining words, but try as they might, words still mean what they originally meant. Still, their definition is close enough to the original to demonstrate my point that there are no fascists left, unless you squint and look at modern leftists.

                • czech
                  link
                  fedilink
                  51 year ago

                  Ah, right- There are no fascists but if there are it’s the leftists! Thanks for a good laugh today. Don’t ever let facts get in your way, bud.

                  • 10A
                    link
                    fedilink
                    51 year ago

                    Hmm, let’s break it down:

                    a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti)

                    Could be leftists, conservatives, or any other political group.

                    that exalts nation and often race above the individual

                    Well that excludes conservatives, because conservatism celebrates rugged individualism.

                    Leftism, by contrast, embraces groups above individualism. This is what conservatives usually refer to as neo-Marxism. It’s also known as identity politics. It’s this idea that we’re all members of a group, and that group gives us our identity. Then with intersectionality, you have multiple groups defining identity.

                    Two caveats:

                    1. Christians are the exception to the rule, where many conservatives do embrace an identity that can be defined as a group.
                    2. Leftists do exalt groups above the individual, but those groups are not normally the nation (at least not in the US).

                    and that stands for a centralized autocratic government

                    Yes, in general, conservatives support small government, while leftists prefer government regulations over private business, government handouts for the poor, government taxation of the wealthy, and government control of every little thing in life — basically big government.

                    Centralized? In the US, centralized means federal control whereas decentralized means State and local control. Leftists generally prefer the former, whereas conservatives generally prefer the latter.

                    headed by a dictatorial leader

                    Not applicable in the US, but I wouldn’t put it past the Left in the near future.

                    severe economic and social regimentation,

                    Yep, see this thread for instance. Leftist love regimented control over what we’re allowed to think, and they love silencing the opposition.

                    and forcible suppression of opposition

                    Oh, you mean like when Biden has his primary opponent, Trump, tied up in court with accusations and a threat of imprisonment? Or, you mean like this very thread where leftists are trying to silence the TERFs? Yes, leftists absolutely love the forcible suppression of their opposition.

                    In conclusion, no, it’s not a perfect fit for leftists, but it’s loosely close — and it certainly doesn’t fit conservatives even slightly.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          And did you give such flowery speeches about people’s “freedom of speech” over in r/Conservative when they routinely banned people for not just disagreeing, but for not agreeing enough?

          Or, like them, is your sense of injustice reserved entirely for straight, white reactionaries?

        • czech
          link
          fedilink
          -11 year ago

          Are you saying there are no fascist conservatives at all? What are you some kind of bigot?

    • SlowNPC
      link
      fedilink
      131 year ago

      I have mixed feelings about this

      On one hand, Daryl Davis is a hero, and his method actually works to de-radicalize people. I prefer using this method when I encounter bigots irl.

      On the other hand, allowing bigoted speech in your online platform has the potential to drive away normal folks and turn your platform into the echo-chamber where bigotry flourishes that you mentioned. This is basically what happened to Voat.

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

      I agree with this, but it’s beside the point. This isn’t a public space like a street corner, it’s a managed public/private space like a bar, where the bouncer will kick you out for abusing other patrons.

      • 10A
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

        A group of patrons sitting at a table in a bar, quietly discussing their TERF perspective, is entirely different from one of them walking up to a trans table and picking a fight. The former is an exercise of free speech, whereas the latter is cause for ejection.

        • Chetzemoka
          link
          fedilink
          13
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No. You don’t have the right to debate other people’s right to exist. Such speech is an act of violence and should be treated as such.

          I don’t want a group of people sitting around “discussing” whether or not black people are inherently inferior either. That is not speech we should accept in the public sphere

          • 10A
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Have you never heard “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me”? It’s preschool 101. Speech is never an act of violence.

            Additionally, nobody is debating anyone’s right to exist.

            • Chetzemoka
              link
              fedilink
              111 year ago

              Says the person who’s never heard their own right to exist or the rights of their loved ones called into question publicly.

              You don’t have the right to “debate” other people’s equal rights.

              • 10A
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                Except really, nobody’s ever debating anyone’s right to exist. That’s absurd.

                Consider this: If a mass murderer was captured and imprisoned, he could claim that the justice system opposes his right to exist. The trouble with that is he’d be completely incorrect. The justice system opposes his behavior of murder. No matter how much he believes his very existence is inextricably bound to his behavior of murder, the reality is he murders by choice, and it is that intentional action which the justice system opposes.

                • Chetzemoka
                  link
                  fedilink
                  91 year ago

                  Did you just compare trans people living their lives without hurting anyone to murder?

                  • 10A
                    link
                    fedilink
                    31 year ago

                    Sure, and I could have chosen any other action, but I chose murder because it’s not contentious to express a disapproval of it.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              91 year ago

              “Speech is never an act of violence” mfs when I use a public platform to smear them as child molesters, while simultaneously encouraging acts of vigilantism against “paedos”: 😯

            • Chetzemoka
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yes I support the use of violence to defend minorities against violent oppression. And yes, I have this interesting tendency to disagree with fascists and bigots. I’m glad we understand each other.

                • Chetzemoka
                  link
                  fedilink
                  3
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Free speech is not now, never has been, and never will be an unlimited right. Get off it.

        • static
          link
          fedilink
          111 year ago

          They’re not discussing quietly, everyone can hear them, and they want to be heard.

          • 10A
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            I only know about them because I subscribe to m/kbinMeta. If you stick to your subscribed magazines, as I do, you only hear those to whom you intentionally listen.

        • Deceptichum
          link
          fedilink
          91 year ago

          Except it’s more like a group of patrons at a bar talking about killing a trans person, and than the next day one of them actually does it.

          • 10A
            link
            fedilink
            61 year ago

            What kind of absurd hyperbole is that? Nobody has called for murder. And certainly nobody has committed a murder based on a call for it.

              • 10A
                link
                fedilink
                71 year ago

                I don’t condone murder under any circumstances. But using 56 murders as an excuse to silence anyone online is a disgrace to the principle of free speech.

                • czech
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  The principle of free speech, in America, has nothing to do with forcing people to tolerate hateful rhetoric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States.

                  In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government.

                  As long as the government isn’t arresting you for your opinions then nothing going on here has to do with “free speech”. Individuals and corporations silencing you online is not a “disgrace to the principle of free speech”.

                  • 10A
                    link
                    fedilink
                    41 year ago

                    You’re conflating the principle of free speech with the US 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment is predicated on the principle of free speech. The 1st Amendment is completely inapplicable here. The principle of free speech is 100% applicable here, as it is foundational to western civilization.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                61 year ago

                He knows. That’s why he’s desperately trying to hold on to his little platform.

                Pick almost any mass shooter at random and look at their online history and you’ll find the same story over and over again; “progressively radicalised by social media”.

                They’re absolutely aware these domestic terrorists come from their midst. Find a far-right enough chat room and they openly celebrate it.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    Sure thing little reactionary. I guess you’ll just have to hope that if any vulnerable people find this thread, they don’t spend 5 minutes checking before throwing their lives away for your cause.

    • Balios
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      If there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis.

      • 10A
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        That misunderstanding is why echo chambers grow. Your fear of being perceived as a Nazi only reveals that you’re overly concerned what other people think of you, which strongly suggests that you’re young and naive. As you grow up, you’ll stop caring what others think of you (hopefully you will — no everyone does), and you’ll learn to respectfully engage in conversation with people of divergent viewpoints (even if they happen to believe their personal level of melanin justifies their superiority complex).

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          61 year ago

          As you grow up, you’ll stop caring what others think of you (hopefully you will — no everyone does

          Good people care about what their friends and family think of them more than they care about grooming school shooters.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              51 year ago

              Oh well at least you’re openly admitting you’re not a good person and are encouraging others to not be good people 🤣

        • Balios
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          The fact that you think that quote is about “owno, they’ll think Imma Nazi ;_;” reveals sooo many flaws with your world view.
          Absolute “I am 12 and this is deep” material, hilarious.

        • Balios
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Hating Nazis isn’t even leftist, it’s normal.

      • 10A
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        You’re confusing that “Voltaire” quote (which wasn’t actually said by him) with the American First Amendment.

        The American First Amendment is predicated on America’s cultural basis in the principle of free speech, which is embodied by the quote. The American First Amendment indeed applies only to government, restricting its overreach. But the principle of free speech is one of the core principles of American culture. It goes far deeper than the First Amendment.

        If you don’t want to debate with them then don’t subscribe to their magazine, and leave them alone.

        • static
          link
          fedilink
          61 year ago

          How would the first ammendment apply to a Polish website?

          • 10A
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            It wouldn’t. At all. But the principle of free speech certainly does.

          • 10A
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I find it interesting that, at the heart of our differences, is a disagreement over the nature of the internet itself — whether it’s public or private, more like a town square or more like our own living rooms. If you go back to the '90s, when the Web was nascent, I think technologists would have been surprised to learn that the issue is still so unsettled in 2023. I suppose it’s a tough issue to settle. Ultimately, neither of our traditional notions of “public” and “private” fit it well.

            We agree that people who want us dead should not be invited into our living rooms. My position is that by surfing kbin we are putting ourselves in the middle of a town square, and opening ourselves up to any and all perspectives, disagreeable as they may be. As an American, my sentiment is “bring it on.”

            • static
              link
              fedilink
              4
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The internet is public, go register a domain for hate speech, or “free speech” as some call it.
              Websites are private property and do have moderation.

              • 10A
                link
                fedilink
                41 year ago

                This would be true iff signups were by invitation only.