Ohhh, Universal Monk slandered me again. No, an obvious exaggeration about instance-owners escalating their discouragement against Lemmy’s most block-evading troll is not somehow an endorsement of crimes, you adorable little dingus. You adorable vote-manipulating sockpuppet, if we glance at your own modlog and pretend that’s infallible.
So your whole ‘we know you’ schtick is just one guy clutching pearls about me saying what an asshole he is, huh? That’s disappointing. When I argue with sugar_in_your_tea, there’s notes. In our previous interaction he kinda defended actual Nazi newspapers, and I’ll give the benefit of context and nuance, but that shit’s coming up again. You play a weak game if you wanna come out accusing someone of murder fantasies and gangstalking, and your whole basis is - ‘but a tankie said so!’
Meanwhile, you’ve done less than nothing to distnguish yourself from any other conservative. You want to label me, and pretend that’s a substitute for any form of counterargument. Like. The whole accusation was, y’all just sneer at outsiders based on this ideology-as-identity, and reach for excuses to justify that kneejerk conclusion.
And your rebuttal was to do that three times in a row.
I don’t know who the sugar tea monk guy is, but by the sound of your rant, you’re proving my point. I don’t even know where your nazi newspapers example is coming from, or what you’re talking about. I’m not even talking about newspaper?! What?!
We’re talking about you being a jerk and now you are talking about how you read nazi newspapers?! WTF?!
Is your reply meant for me or for someone else?! You sound like you are having an entirely different conversation than what we were talking about.
I knew you were a jerk, but I didn’t know you were a nazi. You read nazi newspapers and brag about it. Fits your presonality, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Of course you are a nazi. Have you ever heard of the nazi bar? You’re who they talk about. I bet u worship Trump too. Eww, I don’t deal with fascists. Yuck, go away.
I don’t think I was wrong. My beliefs haven’t changed, and I stand by everything I said. My opinion of you hasn’t changed whatsoever. But I also recognize that this isn’t my community, so I will abide by the rules. But nah, fam, nothing has changed on my end. :)
I kinda did though, but I do think they’re misrepresenting it. It was in a different thread in a different context. I honestly didn’t recognize the user was the same because I don’t keep track of usernames unless they’re an obvious troll.
I was arguing for a “wait and see” approach to federation saying we don’t have enough evidence to say maga.place is bad enough to defederate. The evidence presented was the domain name (90% seemed to stop there) and posts in their conservative community using sketchy sources and nothing about their admins or mods.
The discussion shifted to the sources themselves, and they asked whether I’d support a ban on “Der Sturmer” (Nazi publication prior to WWII) and I said no, but I wouldn’t read it because I don’t like obvious propaganda. I don’t believe in banning any media and instead think good media should crowd out the bad. I’d say the same for any extremist propaganda because freedom of speech is very important to me.
I think it was meant as a gotcha question, since that seems to be how that user argues. I absolutely don’t read or support any Nazi anything, but I will defend their right to publish just as I would for anything else I disagree with.
Disinformation is not erased by correction. Brains don’t work that way. Reactionary radicalization must be prevented, because curing it is a thousand times harder. This is protecting people from harm through speech, as much as censoring directed threats or bigoted abuse. Polite phrasing on intolerable beliefs is just mobster speak: ‘it would be a shame if anything happened to your children.’
I think it was meant as a gotcha question
It was meant as a universal touchstone. Surely, I thought, everybody recognizes literal nazi propaganda should have been stopped, at some point. But no: that obvious extreme was met with milquetoast ‘well I wouldn’t read it.’ Neither did the Jews, buddy. Didn’t help. Systemic problems aren’t about you.
By the by, calling pointed questions “gotchas” is also a conservative tactic. I opened gently with acknowledgement that at one point the nazi party was just some schmucks. But not only did you suggest the problem with pro-holocaust propaganda was sourcing, you outright invited modern fascists to the table, so long as their racism is scientific racism. You can’t wedge yourself under a low bar and claim it was a trap.
No, one of the core tenets of libertarianism is that freedom means dealing with the freedoms of others. People will use their freedom in ways you don’t like, and that could be sieg hieling they way down the street or publishing a nazi newspaper, but exercising that right does not restrict yours. A popular saying in libertarian circles is, “your rights end where mine begin,” and that goes both ways.
I strongly disagree that allowing someone to exercise their freedom of speech harms anyone else, outside of extreme cases like yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. Speaking filth doesn’t itself harm others, the harm to others comes from what others do in response to that speech.
calling pointed questions “gotchas” is also a conservative tactic
It was a pretty extreme question given the context, and that’s frequently a type of “gotcha” question. It’s a form of reducto ad absurdum, which means arguing the most extreme logical end (i.e. “I support free speech” -> “So you support Nazi newspapers?”). Whatever the intent, it looked like a “gotcha” question.
you outright invited modern fascists to the table
I didn’t say anything to that extent. Saying someone should have the freedom to say what they want isn’t “inviting them to the table.” Inviting them to the table means having them on a popular TV network to discuss their views or something, inviting them into the bar is like having their newspapers on display at your store. What I’m talking about is just not kicking them out of your city for having bad ideas.
Speaking filth doesn’t itself harm others, the harm to others comes from what others do in response to that speech.
Yet harm is done. People die because of speech. How do you weigh the right to live, versus the right to speak? Are they equally important? Speech, moreso? Or are we simply pretending that the predictable outcomes of blood libel are disconnected from that blameless act of merely saying words?
(i.e. “I support free speech” -> “So you support Nazi newspapers?”)
When the answer is YES, this complaint doesn’t work. I expected a no! I was looking for common ground!
I didn’t say anything to that extent.
if Lemmy is going to be an actual competitor to Reddit, it needs to attract people from all ends of the political spectrum, with the caveat that bad behavior is not tolerated. I don’t care if someone is from the left wing, the right wing, or some other wing, they should have a seat at the table as long as they’re respectful and bring evidence to support their assertions when in communities that expect that.
Response: “Nobody needs ‘all ends of the political spectrum,’ when that includes Nazis.”
But we do. Nazism was a popular movement, and we need people to understand it or we’re doomed to repeat that era of history. If we hide it, people will forget why it was so bad and it’ll fester until it gains enough power to cause problems.
Not only did you absolutely say that, you seem to think we need nazis around in order to know that nazis are bad. (How can we teach about the evils of slavery, unless there’s still slaveholders?) Fascist propaganda is harmless until you censor it, because that’s what spreads the ideology. Obviously we should let people sincerely push scientific racism, with whatever evidence bolsters their intolerable bigotry… unless they’re interpersonally impolite. Telling someone to fuck a rake, well now, that’s not free speech.
And that was over mere federation. How could that be any closer to having their newspapers display at our store?
Ohhh, Universal Monk slandered me again. No, an obvious exaggeration about instance-owners escalating their discouragement against Lemmy’s most block-evading troll is not somehow an endorsement of crimes, you adorable little dingus. You adorable vote-manipulating sockpuppet, if we glance at your own modlog and pretend that’s infallible.
So your whole ‘we know you’ schtick is just one guy clutching pearls about me saying what an asshole he is, huh? That’s disappointing. When I argue with sugar_in_your_tea, there’s notes. In our previous interaction he kinda defended actual Nazi newspapers, and I’ll give the benefit of context and nuance, but that shit’s coming up again. You play a weak game if you wanna come out accusing someone of murder fantasies and gangstalking, and your whole basis is - ‘but a tankie said so!’
Meanwhile, you’ve done less than nothing to distnguish yourself from any other conservative. You want to label me, and pretend that’s a substitute for any form of counterargument. Like. The whole accusation was, y’all just sneer at outsiders based on this ideology-as-identity, and reach for excuses to justify that kneejerk conclusion.
And your rebuttal was to do that three times in a row.
I don’t know who the sugar tea monk guy is, but by the sound of your rant, you’re proving my point. I don’t even know where your nazi newspapers example is coming from, or what you’re talking about. I’m not even talking about newspaper?! What?!
We’re talking about you being a jerk and now you are talking about how you read nazi newspapers?! WTF?!
Is your reply meant for me or for someone else?! You sound like you are having an entirely different conversation than what we were talking about.
I knew you were a jerk, but I didn’t know you were a nazi. You read nazi newspapers and brag about it. Fits your presonality, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Of course you are a nazi. Have you ever heard of the nazi bar? You’re who they talk about. I bet u worship Trump too. Eww, I don’t deal with fascists. Yuck, go away.
They’re an odd sort of troll.
Could you please cool it? We really don’t need these kinds of personal attacks.
I disagree with this person too, but that doesn’t make it okay to slander them. Attack arguments, not people.
Understood. But when he said that about your conversation with him, I got annoyed, because you’ve never defended any Nazi newspapers.
But you’re right, no need to stoop to their level.
My level being an accurate reference to specific events I’m prepared to source.
When you recognize you were wrong, your beliefs are supposed to change.
I don’t think I was wrong. My beliefs haven’t changed, and I stand by everything I said. My opinion of you hasn’t changed whatsoever. But I also recognize that this isn’t my community, so I will abide by the rules. But nah, fam, nothing has changed on my end. :)
The person in question told you I was right, and you agree with them, but still pretend I’m wrong.
Which is different from the ingroup-based reality I described… somehow.
I think you are misrepresenting his response, which is something you are prone to do. In fact, he said, “but I do think they’re misrepresenting it.”
I won’t give my real thoughts on you, as I don’t want to go against the rules of the person who runs this community.
Again, I stand by everything I said. My opinion about you hasn’t change at all. :)
‘He kinda did.’
‘I kinda did.’
Troll.
I kinda did though, but I do think they’re misrepresenting it. It was in a different thread in a different context. I honestly didn’t recognize the user was the same because I don’t keep track of usernames unless they’re an obvious troll.
Here’s the discussion.
I was arguing for a “wait and see” approach to federation saying we don’t have enough evidence to say maga.place is bad enough to defederate. The evidence presented was the domain name (90% seemed to stop there) and posts in their conservative community using sketchy sources and nothing about their admins or mods.
The discussion shifted to the sources themselves, and they asked whether I’d support a ban on “Der Sturmer” (Nazi publication prior to WWII) and I said no, but I wouldn’t read it because I don’t like obvious propaganda. I don’t believe in banning any media and instead think good media should crowd out the bad. I’d say the same for any extremist propaganda because freedom of speech is very important to me.
I think it was meant as a gotcha question, since that seems to be how that user argues. I absolutely don’t read or support any Nazi anything, but I will defend their right to publish just as I would for anything else I disagree with.
Does should mean will?
Disinformation is not erased by correction. Brains don’t work that way. Reactionary radicalization must be prevented, because curing it is a thousand times harder. This is protecting people from harm through speech, as much as censoring directed threats or bigoted abuse. Polite phrasing on intolerable beliefs is just mobster speak: ‘it would be a shame if anything happened to your children.’
It was meant as a universal touchstone. Surely, I thought, everybody recognizes literal nazi propaganda should have been stopped, at some point. But no: that obvious extreme was met with milquetoast ‘well I wouldn’t read it.’ Neither did the Jews, buddy. Didn’t help. Systemic problems aren’t about you.
By the by, calling pointed questions “gotchas” is also a conservative tactic. I opened gently with acknowledgement that at one point the nazi party was just some schmucks. But not only did you suggest the problem with pro-holocaust propaganda was sourcing, you outright invited modern fascists to the table, so long as their racism is scientific racism. You can’t wedge yourself under a low bar and claim it was a trap.
No, one of the core tenets of libertarianism is that freedom means dealing with the freedoms of others. People will use their freedom in ways you don’t like, and that could be sieg hieling they way down the street or publishing a nazi newspaper, but exercising that right does not restrict yours. A popular saying in libertarian circles is, “your rights end where mine begin,” and that goes both ways.
I strongly disagree that allowing someone to exercise their freedom of speech harms anyone else, outside of extreme cases like yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. Speaking filth doesn’t itself harm others, the harm to others comes from what others do in response to that speech.
It was a pretty extreme question given the context, and that’s frequently a type of “gotcha” question. It’s a form of reducto ad absurdum, which means arguing the most extreme logical end (i.e. “I support free speech” -> “So you support Nazi newspapers?”). Whatever the intent, it looked like a “gotcha” question.
I didn’t say anything to that extent. Saying someone should have the freedom to say what they want isn’t “inviting them to the table.” Inviting them to the table means having them on a popular TV network to discuss their views or something, inviting them into the bar is like having their newspapers on display at your store. What I’m talking about is just not kicking them out of your city for having bad ideas.
Yet harm is done. People die because of speech. How do you weigh the right to live, versus the right to speak? Are they equally important? Speech, moreso? Or are we simply pretending that the predictable outcomes of blood libel are disconnected from that blameless act of merely saying words?
When the answer is YES, this complaint doesn’t work. I expected a no! I was looking for common ground!
Response: “Nobody needs ‘all ends of the political spectrum,’ when that includes Nazis.”
Not only did you absolutely say that, you seem to think we need nazis around in order to know that nazis are bad. (How can we teach about the evils of slavery, unless there’s still slaveholders?) Fascist propaganda is harmless until you censor it, because that’s what spreads the ideology. Obviously we should let people sincerely push scientific racism, with whatever evidence bolsters their intolerable bigotry… unless they’re interpersonally impolite. Telling someone to fuck a rake, well now, that’s not free speech.
And that was over mere federation. How could that be any closer to having their newspapers display at our store?
Word salad.
Good day.
I’m not gonna take anything you say seriously. And you are against third parties. So nah, fam. We ain’t gonna be friends.
You are functionally illiterate.
This is true most days, so yeah, I can cop to that! :)