Indeed it does, thats why i shit so much on political extremeism, it inevitably ends in censorship.
My advice would be that if it makes you feel uncomfortable (and you still whant to use lemmy), change instances, like i said, shit.just.works doesnt do that, dont know which other instances do and doesnt. I think lemmy.ml absolutelly does.
Yes, try it if you whant, my instance does allow that type of words.
Dont know about yours though.
You can always delete it after the fact if it makes you uncomfortable having it in your comment history
Not really if you get into political talk, you will be shit talked into oblivion, and in the subject of pornography, i find the one here on lemmynsfw bland af, its mostly tje same chicks posting over and over again. But other than that I have seen before complaints from people on the lemmy.nsfw community that they are surprisingly puritan with the nsfw content allowed, and if you look for that type of content you will realize that its true, like i can think of various extreme fetishes that are banned that i rather not type here in public, but some that are more perplexing are like csncs, which its just a type of roleplay between 2 consenting adults and thats banned for some reason, and rape hentai, while i understeand while that would be controversial, its still a fetish sone people would have and its in draw form so no harm done to anyone, also some other gross stuff that nobody likes like scat or guro (drawn ofc)
Which like i said nobody whants to watch those last 2 except for the people that do and there even are comunities of those in reddit, so its very weird that there arent any equivalents here.
(Btw when i say banned i mean that they dont allow comunities that post that type of content.)
(And before you ask no im not into any of that type of the aformentioned shit)
Now you could say “well change instances”, but i heard bad things from the other ones here that do allow some of that stuff, specially the hentai focused ones, which i heard are mainly legally dubius shit and a little dangerous to go there so i rather look for porn/hentai somewhere els
Ive seen that in reddit shadowbanning is rampant on new accounts, so mayve that has to do with something. Specially if you have been banned before.
many users have radicalised and extremist mindsets,
I think thats the whole internet nowdays, unless you decide to exclusivelly consume cat content (and even then theres gonna be a way to jam in extremist political views by some nutter somehow).
Although i have to admit that the ones here are of a diferent breed than most, mainly tankies and people on that side of the compass (and yes they are very annoying about it).
One upside to lemmy is that ,at least up untill now, the mods and admins are very neutral and i rarelly see deleted comments (or maybe they are hidden… i dunno) and that theres genuine free speech in here, i mean if you whant you can look at my comment history, i get downvoted to oblivion most of the time but my comments are still up and not censored.
Although there is this weird thing on other instances (im in sh.itjust.works and they dont do this i know i tryied it) that delete words on peoples comments and posts, mainly slurs and politically incorrect words. Really, i seen that some months before, dont know if it still like that now with the world users, but if you type something like fa***t in .world you will get “deleted” in that word specifically irc
“Culture wars” = divide and conquer
This is very funny.
Having said that, i rather not be involved in that conflict.
Those guys seem to have beef going on from babylonian times where everybody themsleves where diferent people afaik.
Seems to me like the holy land itself is cursed and its neighboors too.
So yeah i rather just lol at this meme.
They both subsist off of each other and thrive by creating vitriol between each other.
You already answered why m8.
Not worth engaging with the “centrist are evil” people. They just cant accept other pov’s that arent theirs, specially if it implies their side should make a compromise. Im pretty sure they hate even more non partisan people rather than the team party they are suposed to hate because that is thinking outside the box and they dont like that very much.
Imo thats just a result of the partisan american culture war bullshit doing its intended purpose: divide and conquer.
To bad most of the media comes from hollywood and a lot of us non american people get indirectly involved in their bullshit.
Ultra mega based
We need to make this guy big
Same about you m8.
I knew the race thing was gonna be pulled out from this. And i do understeand why they could be seen as the same thing. But they arent.
This is comical in twisting someone’s existence as negatively impacting someone else because of the other person’s bigoted views
Sexuality and gender are a very heavy isue for people, thats the reason they get all riled up when it comes to bathrooms, be it the gender conforming and nonconforming crowds. You cant and shouldnt force people that dont feel comfortable with sharing it with people with gender fluidity because it is being imposed into them and can cause them to lash out against them. Its not because of hate of bigotry, its just because they persieve the trans woman as not a woman, or a man, which isnt very progresive buy it is valid to feel uncomfortable by it, not everyone will be as progresive as they should, and their right to have their privacy respected should be… well… respected. Rape is a very heavy topic for women, and some consider it even worse than murder, and some women could feel like if they are raped in some way by having a non gender conforming person int the sanctuary of a bathroom where they feel they are the most vulnerable. But that doesnt mean that trans people should be excluded from using bathrooms. At the end they have fisiological needs like everybody else and if they dont whant to go to the mens bathroom because they feel the same discormfort as biowomen then thats fine and should be respected, but it doesnt mean that they should be imposed to biowomen.
That was my point all along, that answers arent as easy nor black and white, hell they arent even gray most of the time. Solving social isues are not as easy as just shutting people of and infringing into their right to talk (i mean some of them are like shuting up the fucking nazis) and most of the time require people that clash with them to go into a compromise by sorting outh their diferences.
And that whole discussion could leads us to the solution of having a third bathroom. It doesnt infringe of genderconforming women and lets trans women use a bathroom without making anybody uncomfortable, you can make a 4th bathroom for trans men too , hell you can make a 5th bathroom for absolutelly everyone that has no problem sharing a bathroom with non gender conforming people if its that big of an isue to people. Now it is not a perfect solution and you go into more problems if you include factors like costs or space.but my point is that a solution was proposed, and that doesnt happen if you censor people by casting them as intolerant.
Bathroom bans are intolerant.
I didnt whant to call this out but it is a bad take and you already whent ad hominem with the whole “take biology class you biggot” thing so im gonna do that ad hominem thing too. So under the intolerating the intolerant logic and by your take a man that percieves themselves as a man can go into the womans bathroom because women are being intollerant to men by not letting them into the womans bathroom, and that gives them the right of being intolerant to women and therefore using the same bathroom as them? So by that same logic anybody can get into your room without your permision because you are being intolerant to them going into your room so that gives them the right to not tolerate you and enter your room as they please? Thats just chaos at that point, and thats why there should be at least a neutral bathroom if we are to take that type of claims seriously which imo we shouldnt but it would be fair i guess to have one. Think better before you claim something as absolute.
I shouldnt make this next argument because im gonna put a target on my back but its the best example i can think of that puts that into question.
So women that go into their respective bathroom shouldnt feell uncomfortable because a clearly transgender woman goes into the same bathroom?
Should the transgender woman shouldnt go into the male bathroom if she feels uncomfortable going in it but should impose herself onto women that feel uncumfortable with her prescensce in the womens bathroom?
Who is the intolerant one there?
Are women that feel uncumfortable intolerant because a trans women that was formerly a man whants to share the same intimate space as the normal women?
Is the trans woman the intolerant one because they whant to go to the bathroom they feel more comfortable with?
That is a case in my opinion where tolerance gets challenged by both sides involved because the other one is getting into the privacy of the other.
You could say that woman shouldnt interfere with the bussines of the trans woman but you could say the same thing about the trans woman. So who is the intolerant here? Both?
In cases like that some people should be excused to at the very least for being uncomfortable and against the precense of the other person because at least in this case it is in and of itself interefering with the other parties privacy.
Honestly no.
It is easy to diferentiate those things.
For example;
“I dont like that x people do z thing because it affects y people in a negative way.”
This one its not calling for violence against x people. its calling out x people for affecting y people in a negative way. Now if people get violent about it its because there is no denying that there is a number of people that already hate x people and are looking for anu excuse to lash out against x people, and they are gonna end up doing just that whatever they find it or not.
“I dont like x people because they could be a negative influence in our community.”
Its a hard one but it is a call to segregation because it is saying that x people dont belong on the comunity that whoever is talking belongs in, now wathever this is true or not, by saying that it is implied that taking them out of the comunity would be a positive thing. So it is a call to do bad things but very subtelly.
So should the 2nd one be banned? No imho because it is very subtle about it and could be said as a genuine mistake. But it should and will be called out by people that dont agree with it and smart people would see it as a poor argument because it calls for segregation, and while a very bad opinnion it shouldnt be outhright banned, just called out and laughed at.
Now what should be punished or banned should br saying in a very public forum in front of lots of people something like the following:
“I dont like X people, they harm the good people of our community and they should be exilled from it and punished for their crimes such as z”
This one is an obvius one, it calls for violence and segregation for x people, punishment and comes of more as rallying than a genuine argument. So yeah, bann that.
I made that frase and used it as an example because people that use the “tolerance is intolerance to the intollerant” argument usually use it because they dont tolerate someone else having diferent opinions than them and say they are being intolerant when that is not true. And censoring genuine diferent points of view that do not call for violence or segregation is in my opinion a form of discrimination/segregation. So they themselves are doing what they preach is bad.
I just think it’s really naive to say corporations should allow hate speech and governments should be allowed to remove rights because you want to play centrist.
I wrote the complete oposite of that m8… wtf? Corporations shouldnt have a say on what is hate speech because critisisms to them or against their agendas will be gaslighted by them into being hate speech, specially in their platforms, and governments should punish calls to violence/segretation/discrimination in public forums, nothing more, nothing else. I never talked about removing anybodies rights.
Bingo!
Thats the problem with this whole “intolerate the intolerant” debacle. What are calls to violence and segregation against groups of people and what is just “shit i dont agree with”? Theres a subset of people that group both of this thogeter and use this argument to try and censor people that they dont agree with, and its specially bad when governments or companies do this.
This really shouldnt be thrown around so lightly like if it was an absolute thruth, specially since those that do just whant to push their agenda presenting both it and themselves as fundamentally correct, and taking into account that this was originally a thought experiment and not like an absolutetist declaration.
One example would be youtube taking away the downvote counter claiming they where protecting small chanels from harasment.
Edit: Youtube just used that as an excuse to protect its interests and the ones of other companies, not to protect people from harasment by censoring anyone that disagrees with any video. Its doing bad things in the name of intolerating the intolerant and silencing digresion.
Hi m8, do you know what would be a good option for like an android box or roku or whatever for tv? I have a semi smart lg tv that sucks ass and i whant to connect it to something like that, but i whant a tv box that can get open source stuff or at least is conpatible with something like youtube revance.
Thanks