this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
255 points (99.6% liked)
Reddit Migration
84 readers
1 users here now
### About Community Tracking and helping #redditmigration to Kbin and the Fediverse. Say hello to the decentralized and open future. To see latest reeddit blackout info, see here: https://reddark.untone.uk/
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Through constant vigilance, anyways. Every time you see some little fuck dogwhistling about FREE SPEECH or CENSORSHIP, you gotta make sure they aren't welcome in these parts.
??? wat
"Far right buffoonery" starts with people batching about how they're being """censored""" for saying slurs or trying to have "honest conversations about race" or whatever.
Nip 'em in the bud and voila, no Nazis on your kbin.
they're just asking (((questions))) ugh
Obligatory nazi bar story copypasta:
I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out."
And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them."
And i was like, ohok and he continues.
"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.
And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.
And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.
One of my good friends does tattoos, and he doesn't do them for pretty much this exact reason. Like on one hand, fuck Nazis and he doesn't want to do it. On the other hand, money is money. They're gonna get it done, so might as well be the one that gets paid.
But ultimately he doesn't want to make anyone else who comes in uncomfortable, and he doesn't want to slowly become known as the guy who does all the Nazi tattoos. It makes him look bad and means he will get fewer people. So it's best to just tell them no.
I remember concrete dog whistle accusation generally falling into two categories:
My conclusion: dog whistles are a reason to look deeper. Keep an eye on those people. However, don’t just condemn them.
The very point of dog whistles is to appear innocuous and even invisible to "normal people". False positives are inevitable, and after seeing a dozen actual dog whistles, pareidolia will make you see their shapes everywhere.
There's a Lemmy instance perfect for you then: exploding-heads.
We are more than welcome to decide what behavior is and isn't appropriate in our own community. If you don't like it, then you don't have to be here. You aren't entitled to our friendship.
You've already been given a suggestion for just that kind of instance. If you want to see that kind of content, there's a spot for that.
Or are you just upset that there are places who don't welcome those kinds of dumbfuck takes? Is it that you want to see the content for yourself, or that you want to make the content and force everyone to see it?
Either way, this instance isn't the place for you. Exploding heads is. Go there, be happy.
Do you prefer having a centralized authority dictating your exposure to content? What prevents you from personally blocking instances you disagree with and allowing others to make their own choices? Is it possible that the idea of critical thinking is discomforting and it's more convenient to be shielded from diverging opinions, rather than exercising personal discernment?
The community itself is kindly asking you to fuck off with its comments and downvotes, no central authority needed
EXACTLY. Downvotes and disagreement are the cornerstone of a functioning human society. It shows that we're engaging in a discussion where various perspectives are presented. What I'm advocating for is not an echo chamber where everyone bows to some transient and fluctuating ideal of "correctness", but a platform for the diversity of thoughts and ideas. So, the downvotes don't bother me, but rather embolden the importance of speaking what I believe to be true and attempting to understand the beliefs of others. If people like me don't speak up then we will just create echo chambers of intolerance on both sides of the spectrum. Debate me, prove me wrong. Downvotes don't prove me wrong, they only prove discomfort and anger. Despite engaging in several discussions, I've yet to understand the benchmarks being used here for branding someone a 'nazi'—a very strong term used liberally here and even against me in another thread for sharing views similar to what I've expressed here. I shouldn't be called a nazi for believing in individual autonomy, it discredits a persons entire argument if they can so easily warp a terrible insult like that just to fit their own narrative. The ease with which people advocate for authoritarian censorship, despite having personal control over their content exposure, genuinely worries me. I find it unsettling how readily people will relinquish their intellectual freedom.
This is the approach I support. don't like certain content? block, downvote, move on. don't demand that everyone else be prevented from seeing it.
Blocking a person or instance still allows the bigotry to spread.
The problem here is what gets defined as bigotry and who gets to define it? I was called a nazi for expressing the same opinion I'm expressing here. Do you think that might be a bit much? How long until the bubble of acceptable thoughts and opinions shrinks so much YOU get defined as a nazi?
Your argument is known as the "slippery slope fallacy", @Kantiberl.
Edit: I'm guessing it's a bug, but I can't get this comment to reply to the right person.
It's not a fallacy when it has already slipped to calling all Republicans (or even people who wish to hear their opinions) nazis and fascist. Why don't you think it will slip further?
Who defines what counts as "bigotry"? I think the guys over at beehaw are extremely bigoted. does that mean that we should prevent everyone from speaking with them simply because I think they're bigots?
Fuck off to your sad shithole, nobody has any obligation to be nice to Nazis. To the contrary, every decent person should feel obligated to strongly tell them to fuck off. You don't have a space here, we don't want you here, you are not welcome.
I'm not talking about letting nazis be here, I'm talking about not calling everyone you don't like nazis.
Like, you mean, a website? That's what you mean by "centralized authority", right? A website? With its Terms and Conditions, following the applicable copyright and IP laws, following the relevant laws of the jurisdiction it operates in? Yeah, I'm fine with that.
If you're not, go to Exploding Heads. They welcome you. They want you.
We don't.
I don't want exploding-heads. I would have blocked the instance myself if it hadn't been blocked already. My issue is I don't like having content blocked FOR me because I'm a functioning adult that can make my own decisions about what I see and think. You should be careful with how quick you are to cede control of what you're allowed to see to others. Might make you pretty susceptible to hate and give you a false sense of reality.
Oh, I see. You want 4chan.
Well, good news! 4chan exists! Go there.
I like how you're acting like you aren't toxic yourself
When did I say that? I'm very toxic towards people who are cool with the view that I should be either "sentenced to death" or "hunted with dogs".
Oh, you're not cool with it, you just want to force me to listen to it anyway. That's so different.
Go back to 4 chan, otaku.
I'm not an unreasonable person. I just wanna chat, share my thoughts, share what I'm into, without being censored to hell because some perpetually offended people took offense at regular everyday human things, or noticing things going on in society and thinking about what might cause such.
I don't want to send people death threats, I don't care to say the slurs everyone knows are slurs (but fuck you if you're gonna declare regular speech to be a slur, or medical terms to be a slur).
I just wanna be able to talk to people online? why is that so hard for people to accept? Why should I be literally banned from civilization simply for acknowledging the medical science on my own diagnosed medical condition; merely because some perpetually offended morons were offended by science?
Why should I be silenced, simply for wanting to discuss things without blindly believing idiots with money?
Are those exploding-heads guys dicks? sure, probably most of them are. are they correct about what they're saying? I don't know, I'd like to talk to them and hear where they're coming from, and tell them about my own thoughts. why do you feel the need to get in the way of that discussion when you aren't even a part of it? if you don't wanna chat with those guys, why is it so hard for you to just use the block button? why must you prevent everyone from speaking with them?
I genuinely do not understand that viewpoint, and no one who is on the side of "censor everyone" seems to want to explain it. They'd rather just block/censor/ban you and shut down the conversation entirely. why? are you afraid you might be in the wrong?
The issue I have with this overzealousness to censor is that the people who are most eager to censor others, are often the most bigoted, hateful, and misinformed. The suggestion of going to exploding-heads is just dishonest. They are undeniably right-wing. What I wish for is an open platform where left and right can speak freely to each other in polite discourse, not simply just be exposed to whatever dogshit takes some far right people post. going to exploding-heads would then limit my ability to see other positions.
Are you suggesting that I should have an account on each fediverse instance, just to get all of the content? If so, then what the actual fuck is the point of federation in the first place?
Oh, I see. You're delusional. You honestly think I should be having "polite discourse" with people who either want me dead, or are ok with voting for people who want me dead.
Because, see, what's left? What makes a Republican want to claim to be a Republican other than the culture war bullshit? What do they stand for? They haven't stood for "fiscal responsibility" or "small government" since W was in office. The straight-up write things like "We stand against teaching critical thinking in schools" (see: Texas GOP party platform) into their guiding documents. And you think they're going to have a civil conversation? You think I owe them a civil conversation?
Every server we allow those people on freely will become exploding heads or 4 chan. Go look at r/politicalcompassmemes if you need an example. I don't know how many times we have to watch it happen before you get the picture, or maybe this is your first ever internet community experience. But you're wrong. Their bad-faith rhetoric, carefully-stated death threats, and direct personal attacks will drive everyone who isn't one of them away, leaving only Nazis. If the admins call them out and ban them for that stuff, they'll end up banning all of them and we'll be having this same conversation. If the admins allow their speech, but don't allow us to say "Fuck off, weeb, nobody likes you" without censure, then guess who gets to control the "discourse"? And if the admins don't ban anyone for it, we'll become Voat. Since only the slimiest members of humanity can tolerate that vibe for long, guess who ends up owning the server by default?
You wanna see that shit, you enjoy being called slurs and told to go kys, you are free to seek out the communities who will do that for you. But fuck all the way off with telling me I must put up with it, too.
Oh, I can block them? No I fucking can't. I blocked you days ago, and your shit still shows up in my notifications. So, again, fuck off. If I have to listen to whatever dumb shit spills out of your brain, against my will, then you get to listen to my toxicity.
...you... honestly thought... the fediverse... was supposed to be a centralized content aggregator...?
What.... uh, so, what... what do you think the fediverse is?
have you.... talked with them? I try to speak with everyone and pretty much none of them actually want me dead. If you want to talk about voting criminals into power, look at the democrat party, who legit rigged the 2020 election to vote a known pedophile rapist and warmonger into power. a guy who literally pushed racist and homophobic policy. a guy who literally is fighting to repeal racial equality. a guy who literally openly said he'd deny me healthcare. should we then shut down conversation with every democrat voter? why are you so eager to shut down conversation? do you not realize that creates echochambers, which increases the extremism and polarization?
If you actually spoke to them and tried to understand where they're coming from, maybe you'd learn that :) instead you choose to shut down conversation, ban them, censor them, any chance you get. So of course you don't understand why they hold the views and say the things they do! you never listened to what they had to say!
Regardless of how offended you might feel or say you are, the reality is that there are actually decent points to be made by people in both major political parties; as well as the varying 3rd parties. Personally, I found my own view on things that matches neither cleanly, so where's that put me? should I just be on the side of censoring both democrats and republicans? or are you suggesting that anyone that holds any view other than your specific view should be censored and banned? is anything other than openly accepting and celebrating human sacrifice something that should be silenced, censored, and banned? serious question. is going against that "being hateful and intolerant"? where is your line? how about pedophilia? are people against pedophilia just "hateful bigots who are intolerant and mean for no real reason"? where is your line?
The reality is that there's a lot of, and growing, opposition to progressive ideology because it is causing harm to real people. Surely, if something is causing harm, we should try to stop that harm? IMO the proper thing to do is to try and base our views on science (not feelings), and to try and heal and help as many people as possible reach their potential, while also avoiding societal setups that would inevitably lead to problems. Is this an unreasonable stance?
I think you'll find if you talk to a lot of registered republicans that they do actually hold those views, but that many of the establishment career politicians hold different views than the people voting for them. Ironically, people who are against sending obscene amount of money to ukraine are now called "bigots". so if they push for small gov and fiscal responsibility, they're a bigot. but if they don't, they're a hypocrite? aren't you being unfair?
I don't think you owe anyone anything. I think that you're in the wrong, and are an authoritarian tyrant and bigot yourself, if you try to shut down a conversation between two consenting people who are completely unrelated to you and aren't addressing you. If you don't wish to speak to someone, that's on you, feel free to ignore them or block them. But it says a lot about you if the second you run into a disagreement, or if you think someone's doing something wrong, instead of helping correct their behavior or ideas, you instead shut down the conversation and let them keep doing what they're doing. Do you have no feeling of obligation to help improve society? if not, I'd say that puts you as worse than them. While they may be misinformed or perhaps hateful due to their ignorance, you are openly admitting that you don't wish to improve society. I'd much prefer a misinformed and ignorant group who want to do the right thing, than someone who neglects the possibility of improving society.
I thought "reality has a liberal bias" and all that? Surely, if we allow people to discuss, to debate, to converse with each other, and to let everyone speak rather than a few, we should arrive at what is true, yeah? if you're saying people will become conservative after fair uncensored debate and discussion, then surely they are right? No one is asking for 4chan. there's a difference between fair, uncensored, civil polite discussion, and shitflinging slurs around. exploding-heads themselves have a ban on slurs.
One of the best subreddits for actual discussion between people of differing ideas? I'd prefer if more places where like that, personally. What issue do you have with them? They're a meme sub but the civility there is awe inspiring.
I can't say that's ever been my experience in right wing spaces. I've only ever had that experience in progressive spaces. Perhaps what you're experiencing isn't a problem with right wing people, but rather the hostility and polarization between two groups that are constantly at each other's throats because they refuse to hear each other out?
Why do you feel that their insults shouldn't be allowed, but yours should? Isn't that unfair? Either we prevent all insults and have civil discussion (my preference), or we allow all insults from both sides. Surely that's fair?
The opposite is actually happening here. You are trying to push your content preferences onto everyone else. All I'm saying is: let the users decide. If you wanna block them, go ahead. Craft your own echochamber. But why should you being offended at civil discussion mean that no one else can discuss things?
Fair enough. This seems to be a bug then. I agree that should be fixed. blocking should prevent you from seeing the blocked content.
My understanding was that I'd sign up on a single site, and then have access to content from across the federated sites. Not: have to sign up an account on each individual site, and only see that one site's content. Isn't that latter way just a centralized platform? where is the "federated" part then?
Sign up on one site -> see content from all the sites. is this not the point of the fediverse? are you really saying the fediverse is: sign up on one site -> see only that site's content? because that just sounds like a regular centralized platform to me.
Discourse can't exist when one party believes the other party has no right to exist
Yes exactly. Both sides need to take a long look in the mirror and stop projecting their self hatred on the other side.
If me and you are having a discussion, but the topic is the fact that I want to kill you, how long will it take before you stop wanting to talk to me?
"But it's just words!"
Well, we know that's not true, so how long would it take before you stopped wanting to be around me?
Oh, also I promote pediphelia. Just as a little fun thing. Just the casual story of raping kids.
I get the appeal. I do. I 1000% do. I get it. But also fuck Nazis. I don't want to be around them. I'm gay, so they don't want to be around me. Fuck pedophiles. I don't want to be around them. So if a site is filled with Nazis and pedophiles, I'm gonna go to a different site. Now you have an echo chamber of Nazis and pedophiles. The thing you wanted to avoid. But you're stuck with only talking to Nazis and pedophiles.
Meanwhile the bubble without Nazis is a really large bubble encompassing everything except Nazis and pedophiles.
Which hardly looks like a bubble.
I'm not advocating for unchallenged platforms for nazis. What I'm concerned about is the dangerous broadening of the term 'nazi' to include any viewpoint differing from one's own. Neither you nor I hold all the answers. However, I'm not the one categorizing wide-ranging groups as 'nazis' to conveniently dismiss dissenting views, while complacently considering myself superior to all those being arbitrarily mislabeled as 'nazis'. It SERIOUSLY weakens your entire argument when you throw that word around so carelessly.
Well we don't use it for just anyone who has any different opinion. So the problem right there is solved. We do use it frequently. But that's when we see thing like homo/transphobia(Nazis hated queer people), antisemitism(another group Nazis hated), racism(also Nazis), and sexism(once again, Nazis). There seems to be a pretty fucking large overlap of what modern day Republicans preach and what the Nazis preached. Including as of lately "eradicating transgenderness" and "erasing communities." As well as the amount of terrorist attacks that ha e actively been encouraged.
So if you would prefer we could just call everyone bigot, since that includes them all and not everyone personally considers themselves a Nazi, but I hardly see the difference between a Nazi, the KKK, Proud Boys, 3%ers, etc, when they all preach the exact same stuff. At that point you're not arguing anything except semantics. It's like the whole "race realism" thing. It's racism, but more palatable to racists who think the name racist is mean, but not the mentality.
I guess another way to look at it is as people keep bringing up, but there's a German saying about this. If you have a table with 9 people and 1 Nazi, you have 10 Nazis.
This also doesn't change the actual argument being made, which is about a forum that is open. In which case, you do get Nazis. Like not even what we mean when we call Nazis as Nazis, but people who call themselves Nazis. We have seen that over and over and over. You get Nazis, and you get pedophiles. Then everyone else starts to leave and you are stuck with Nazis and pedophiles.
So once again, I get the mentality behind it. In a lot of ways I would love a site like that. But it's also a little different for those of us that are having people call for our deaths on a regular basis.
I don't think I jive with the notion that kbin is somehow "above" hating Nazis.
How do we define 'nazi' and who is the authority that applies that label? If the word 'nazi' is carelessly applied to anyone exhibiting even slightly right-leaning tendencies, it diminishes its significance and undermines your credibility. This kind of naive approach and severe lack of nuance will lead to an intolerant echo chamber.
Fuck nazis, but also fuck anyone who dilutes the meaning by inappropriately labeling any viewpoint they don't like as nazism or fascism.
Carefully, on a case-by-case basis; and the community.
It's not nearly as complicated as it seems on the surface - and you're trying to make any definition of "nazi" as complicated as possible, because you're wanting to delegitimize any rejection of nazis or nazi speech.
Remember how you said you don't care if people like you, you just want to push your topics on other people?
No one cares if the Nazis think they're "credible" or not. Each and every one of them will tell you they're not a nazi and they 'hate' nazis - while defending themselves and their nazi buddies from critique by insisting the label for their ideology is, for example, "cheapened" if applied to anyone who is not a card-carrying, armband-wearing, farcical exaggeration of stereotypical Nazis in full Reich dress regalia.
They always send the clean cut, quiet, polite one in first. And that guy puts a foot in the door, argues that their pals aren't really nazis, and that everyone in the room are the real baddies for judging those other guys unfairly - and tries to pry the door wider so their Nazi buddies can come in. Sure enough, every time, you let enough nazis in the room and the room is a nazi space now - so the whole gang of them don't have to pretend at being polite non-nazis anymore. The polite veneer, the deep care for "debate", and "respect for all viewpoints"? Those are all just tools, trying to whitewash and re-legitimize an ideology whose end goal is harming other people.
Notice how I'm casually referring to you like you're one of them? That's not some wokist over-use of the term. You're standing here defending them, you're trying to shove a foot in the door for them, laying down apologia for their views and their right to share them - you've spent like a week around the Fediverse arguing against any actions that have served to limit Nazis access to polite and adult spaces within the Fediverse as a whole. I don't care what you believe about yourself, or your views, or your ideology.
If you're going to stand with Nazis, if you're going to stand for them, consistently and repeatedly - don't get all offended and playact at being victimized when people assume that you are a member of the group you chose to stand with.
I'm not aligning with nazis, but advocating against the misuse and overuse of the term (which is utterly rampant here). The problem with using such powerful labels casually is that it muddies the waters and blurs lines that should be clear but now aren't precisely because of the misuse of the term. It's this very misuse that is leading to misinterpretations, such as the one we're facing here, where I'm inaccurately labeled as standing with nazis. My stance is about nuanced understanding and precision in communication, not about sympathizing with hate ideologies. I am defending thoughtful dialogue, not nazis, and it's important not to conflate the two. Since everyone is so happy with misusing the term, what are we going to call ACTUAL nazis so that we can differentiate people you disagree with and ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS. The semantics you're playing with are a dangerous game, and do nothing but prove my point.
You're aligning yourself with nazis while engaging in sophistry to pretend that neither you nor they are nazis.
All these wild mental gymnastics to explain how it's not like that, or the farcical posturing of academic exactitude and "nuanced understanding" - those are the exact same shit as nazis sending in the quiet well-spoken guy to break the ice and get a foot in the door.
You're doing triple overtime to figure out ways to argue compassion for cryptofascists and nazi sympathizers, while going even further out of your way to avoid having the faintest shred of empathy for people who simply want nothing to do with any of that bullshit.
You can call them whatever you want. You don't get to demand that we call them what you want us to. You don't get to demand that we ignore your choice to align yourself with them, to defend them, and to try and make their views sound more palatable and more reasonable than their end goals.
I completely understand that you absolutely refuse to get it and will continue to avoid getting it forevermore - but I'm going to say it for the rest of the room anyways.
Those guys are the "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS".
They just understand that pretending that they're not is the only way to get through the door of spaces dominated by the reasonable mainstream they'd like to sell their ideology to. They know that the reasonable mainstream wants nothing to do with "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" so the "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" dress up as the people you're currently defending and trying to make this conversation about. And anyone in that group that you're trying to defend the nazis by pointing towards, any single person among them who doesn't want to stand with nazis - changes where they stand so that they're not with the nazis anymore. You're staying still while trying to defend that decision.
The "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" don't dress up in SS Uniforms and 'heil' each other in the comments sections - they pretend to be reasonable mainstream people and in order to present their views and their talking points wrapped in rhetoric that masks its nazi roots. They want to win over the mainstream, they want to convince people they're "on to" something, they want to exploit our willingness to engage in discourse to sell their views and advance their ideology. They are not here to engage in debate - the debate is merely a vehicle towards seizing power and then acting out an ideology of violence and hatred.
I'm not 'playing semantics' - I'm not even engaging with yours.
We are not going to split hairs and massage academic definitions until "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" aren't actually nazis anymore. Either you're a useful idiot and not qualified to try and talk down on folks about the intricate semantics of "nazi" - or you're actually on their side.
You accusing them of being a Nazi was inevitable it seems. You don't even realize the irony.
thats weird. i never get called a fascist, and nobody i know gets called fascists, and i've never had to worry about other people calling me a fascist when i disagree with them. huh...
I get called a fascist nazi all the time merely for agreeing with the 1st amendment of the USA which guarantees the right to free speech. If simply supporting the right to freely speak means you get called nazi/fascist, then I'd be wary of anyone who wasn't accused of such.