• Throwaway
    link
    fedilink
    -511 year ago

    Because the left hates freedom of speech, and assumes that it just means racism.

      • Throwaway
        link
        fedilink
        -111 year ago

        Im not good with legalese, Im not pedantuc enough, and I know thats a trap because Ive been on the internet more than two days.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          61 year ago

          If you think a simple attempt at discussion is pedantic and/or a trap, maybe a discussion forum such as this one is not a place where you will find many friends. I was sincerely trying to understand your point of view but it seems you won’t even try to justify it.

    • Madbrad200
      link
      121 year ago

      ANY internet platform that proclaims itself as a guardian of free speech is either overun by racists, xenophobes and the like or, at the very least, holds a significant number of them. There’s a reason most 2000s internet platforms (e.g, Reddit) eventually dropped ‘Free Speech’ as a policy over time.

    • Magnor
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      Found the conservative troll.

      In case you are not though, this not about “the left”. This is about ultraconservatives using “free speech” as an excuse to voice their hateful dribble while shielding themselves from any consequences. It is a dog whistle, and an obvious one at that.

    • @RightHandOfIkaros
      link
      English
      -7
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t exactly agree. I don’t think it needs to be political whether a person considers “free speech” equivalent to “racism” or not. But I do think it has to do a little bit with the currently magnified political divide.

      I think youll have a hard time finding a person who considers themselves politically left that says “free speech = racism” I think that expectation is not fully understanding the context, and is rather reductive.

      I think the issue comes down to what I mentioned before. Bigotry is a term that many people use as a shield to stop things they don’t want others to say, even if it is truthful or factual information. Both sides of the political divide employ this tactic, but it is approached in different ways.

      If a person makes a joke about XYZ religion for example, but a person of XYZ religion says that joke is bigoted, who is right? Who gets to decide what is considered bigoted?

      The person making the joke may be doing so because they hate all religion, or XYZ religion specifically, or they may be a member themselves and think its funny. The member of XYZ religion may be overly sensitive to jokes or remarks, or they may be particularly prejudiced against the person making the joke. There are many reasons a person can claim a particular statement is bigoted, but there is no way to say one way or another is definitively correct. Because of this, any person that is chosen to decide this is going to be effected by their own prejudice and bias. And sadly, such bias has become magnified so much greater in recent years compared to the past.

      Believe it or not, there used to be a time where you could have two people with opposite viewpoints talking to each other about said viewpoints, and they would walk away laughing and smiling, considering the other no worse than they did prior to the conversation. These days, people wont even listen to each other. It just becomes a screaming/silencing/downvoting/reporting war.

      • パンダ
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        “Oh hey buddy, I don’t think you should have the same rights as everyone else and you probably shouldn’t even exist. Let’s just laugh and smile and grab a drink, hahah”

        Yeah… No.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -41 year ago

          Nice hyperbole. Is the post your responding to talking about that level of things at all?

          Yeah… No.

          It shouldn’t even need to be said that isn’t ok.

          There’s an issue though with people claiming that’s happening when someone has disagreements in beliefs. A disagreement is not a denial of someone’s right to exist. A challenge of a core belief is not a statement that someone doesn’t deserve rights.

          For example: Someone saying “I’m not okay with the use of puberty blocking medicine in treatments of dysphoria” is not the same as someone saying “We need to gather up all those mentally deranged ladyboy pedophiles and gas them”, but they are often treated as equivalent through mental gymnastics. Like saying that puberty can greatly increase feelings of dysphoria, and feelings of dysphoria can lead to mental duress and suicide, so by the transitive property: disagreeing with the use of puberty blockers is equivalent to wishing trans folks to kill themselves, denying them the right to exist.

          It’s a multi step process to get from A to B amd it’s a ridiculous assertion, but I’ve seen that back and forth literally happen. More than once.