10A

@10A@kbin.social

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

10A,

I have had no interaction with anyone from Hexbear. Personally do not support Russia or the CCP, But I also stand against defederation, regardless of their stances on any topic. It doesn't make someone a "inflammatory troll" just because they hold different opinions than you. Even if there really are inflammatory trolls coming from that server, it should be enough to block them if you personally dislike them. In general, it's healthy to expose ourselves to a wide diversity of opinions, and to respectfully discuss topics with people who disagree with us.

10A,

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.

10A,

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.

10A,

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.

10A,

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.

10A,

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.

10A,

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.

10A,

Yes, well the MAGA crowd isn't very conservative if you ask me, and personally I support DeSantis. I think Democrats are strongly pushing for a Trump nomination because they know he's unelectable, and it's an easy play.

But to your point, I concede that most people do consider MAGA to be right wing, and that Trump has on several occasions said things suggesting he'd like an autocracy. I think we can agree that'd be undesirable. I just don't think it's very conservative.

Like Jan 6th.

All that was, was a group of jaded voters who believed (rightly or wrongly) that there was election fraud. Personally I see no evidence of fraud substantial enough to change the election. But at the same time, I recognize that for someone who truly did believe there was election fraud, they were upset and they wanted to protest about it. That's all it was — a protest that was legitimate based on what they believed.

You are constrained by reality. Nobody is here to delete my posts and ban me for you.

And I'm glad about that, 100%. I wouldn't want you banned.

But back to the definition, you can't just pluck a couple of words out of there and say it's a match. The whole definition fits the left way better than the right, and yet in truth doesn't fit either completely.

"Antiwoke" magazin on kbin.social posting bullshit like "how to end Wokeness" and "Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society" How to report ? he is the moderator of that magazin. (calckey.social)

@ernest how do I report a Magazin on kbin.social ? There is a usere called "ps" who is posting to his own "antiwoke" Magazin on kbin.social. Please remove this and dont give them a chance to etablish them self on kbin.social. When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin? Seems like a...

10A,

Even taking that paragraph out of context is misleading. The whole comment was about the purpose of freedom.

10A,

That's not exactly what hate speech is, but it's also not what I said. Standing up for conservative Christian behavior is wholly different from telling anyone they're not worthy or welcome to exist. We are all made in God's image, all of us able to repent, be forgiven, and live according to God's will.

10A,

Wisdom ^

10A,

Hello, you who cannot see me. I'm all for blocks over bans.

10A,

It's off-topic to debate that here, so I'll refrain. But suppose you're right, and I understand nothing. And suppose the antiwoke mod knows nothing either. Would that be suitable grounds to ban a magazine and/or ban us as users?

10A,

What if an article was titled "Christian lobby harms our society"? Would you consider that hateful? Personally, as a Christian, I certainly wouldn't upvote such an article, but I wouldn't try to get it banned either. People have viewpoints based on personal experiences, and some people find harm in some political lobbies. It's not hatred to speak what one believes to be true.

10A,

Click on the link to the magazine. I promise you you'll be happy you did.

10A,

I upvoted you because your response was based on a misunderstanding of me. I never advocating for harming anyone, and I would never do that.

10A,

Tolerance of evil kind of is far left.

10A,

Hold on, I dislike authoritarianism too. Isn't it authoritarian to ban users and magazines for expressing views with which you disagree?

10A,

If you are intolerant of intolerance, then you are intolerant. Full stop. If those are my only two available options, I must be a fool.

10A,

No, I do not advocate for violence (except in self-defense situations where there's no other option).

10A,

Amusing. If I can't accept your obviously incorrect position, then you must shut down conversation because I'm immune to reasoning? Take a look in the mirror.

10A,

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.

—Verbal Kint

10A,

I'm sorry. That sounds reasonable. I'm really trying to avoid political debate here, and just stand up for kbin allowing a diversity of perspectives. I understand how that might come across as you describe.

10A,

You have clearly never been to m/FoxNews.

10A,

Amendment, if you must know.

10A,

As someone who genuinely does enjoy trolling on rare occasion, I think you misunderstand what a troll is. Speaking sincerely held ideas from across the political spectrum does not make someone a troll. A troll is insincere yet playful. That's not to say I shouldn't be blocked by anyone who wants to block me, but it's not for being a troll in this context.

10A,

I'm no Nazi, but I get your point. What you don't realize is once the bar kicks the Nazis out, they start their own bar, and there their numbers grow. A more intelligent approach is to rationally talk with them, as Daryl Davis has with KKK members.

10A,

No, I did not advocate for beating people to death, and I would never advocate for that. Try reading the whole post and not taking a few words out of context.

10A,

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

10A,

No, not whatsoever. Try reading my entire comment on the purpose of freedom, and not cherrypicking a few words that look damning out of context.

Also, I wrote "with which" so you didn't need to add another "with" at the end.

Edit: This was a bad answer. See below.

10A,

I concede that's a very good point. The term "far-left" (just like "far-right") is problematic because there's such a wide spectrum. In the center-left, you have old-school leftists like Bill Maher. On the far left you have tankies. In between them you have the woke. So what do we call that? I can't pretend to answer the question, but I recognize that you have a very good point. Personally I'll continue calling woke far-left until I learn a more appropriate term.

10A,

I respect most of what you wrote. Yes, that one sentence you quoted at the top is nothing more than my opinion. Yes, you could consider it propaganda. But I didn't intend it to be for radicalization, and I wouldn't hope that to be its effect.

I don't mean to dehumanize anyone, no matter what. But I do agree that I have advocated for a somewhat rigid definition of acceptable lifestyle.

With regard to depriving anyone of liberty, free movement, and autonomy, that's specifically for those who need mental help. For many years we used asylums to contain such people. Many of our current social ills began when we closed the asylums down, and changed the DSM to redefine conditions formerly considered types of insanity to now be considered perfectly healthy. This too is just my opinion, but I'm trying to clarify that it only addresses people who need mental help.

You most certainly don't need to tolerate me in your social circles, and I won't be offended if you choose to block me.

Ernest doesn't need to do anything at all, and I think we can all agree we're grateful for what he's done. Personally I hope he establishes a free speech policy, but in any case we'll see what happens.

With regard to money, I've bought Ernest coffee and I hope you have too! That doesn't entitle me to anything, of course. But it's just to say that yes, I have contributed.

10A,

Wow, this is such a well composed comment that I almost want to upvote it. Nice work with all of the links and research. You deserve a better reply than I have the energy to write, as I'm tired of this conversation. Sorry.

To address a few of your accusations:

  1. I am not racist. I'd like to remind you that the southern slaveholders were all Democrats, and the Republican party has always opposed slavery. To this day, Democrats are obsessed with skin color, in their CRT and BLM, while Republicans advocate for color-blind meritocracy. Let's not argue about politics here, please, but no, I am not a racist.
  2. I am not closeted. I do confess that I endure other sorts of evil temptations on occasion, though, just like any human being does, so I can certainly relate to those who suffer from SSA. But as a Christian, I pray that I may be shielded from such temptation when I encounter it, and prayer works.

And lastly, quickly, to address two other high-level points you made:

  1. I'm here because there are a large majority of non-Christians here, many of whom have no exposure to the word of God or anyone who praises it. I believe the Great Commission tells me to be here, if the community will accept me. I may get plenty of downvotes (seriously, look at my reputation score!), but if I can plant a seed in the fertile heart of even just one other person, the Holy Spirit will do His work.
  2. Despite your rejection of the one true living God, I truly appreciate your expression of love, however sarcastic it may have been (I can't tell). I am certainly not broken, though I was a broken, drugged out nihilist in my youth before I found Jesus. I love you too, @FfaerieOxide.
10A,

I'd be happy to do that, but not in the context of this thread. If m/antiwoke survives, maybe we can have a mutually respectful disagreement about it there in a few days.

10A,

I mean, it's literally news about foxes.

10A,

Just as there is no "gay gene", there is no "transgender gene".

10A,

I'm sorry. I was replying to a lot of comments, and I totally misunderstood yours. I thought you copied and pasted what I wrote, and added the word "with", because it ends with "with which you disagree with". I only saw the grammatical error, not the complete change of question. Please forgive me.

Yes, of course it's authoritarian to beat someone to death for expressing a different view! Goodness, how is that even a question.

I answered "No, not whatsoever" to your assertion that "You just want a platform to advocate far more extreme methods than bans."

I do like to debate, but I also like to keep things on topic, so I've been kinda trying to avoid debates in this thread, while also standing up for the relevant aspects of my rather unpopular opinions.

I certainly don't want to shame anyone for anything, and if I've inadvertently done that, I'm sorry.

10A,

Okay except no, I wasn't doing that whatsoever.

10A,

Your notion of how that works is not rooted in the Bible.

10A,

<3

10A,

m/Clowns would like a word with you.

10A,

And quite a creative one at that.

10A,

That's true, and it's a good point. All of our behavior is rooted in our free will.

10A,
  1. To be very clear, in my opinion, Jews should not be gassed (or otherwise murdered), and not all trans people are pedophiles (I don't know the stats, but I'd guess they're about the same as the rest of the population).
  2. Anyone who disagrees on the preceding two points has every right to openly speak their mind in a free society. And whereas their free speech rights are our own free speech rights, we must defend their right to freely state their opinions in all public forums. Free speech is not for ideas we like, but precisely for the ideas we dislike.
10A,

Fair, but so does the center-left.

10A,

Do you know how many times in this thread I've explained that I never expressed a desire for harm to come to anyone? And each time I'm just downvoted and mocked with a "we know what you really mean" attitude. No, really, I don't pine for that. Some people just really love to hate on Christians.

10A,

I absolutely do not want anyone's freedom of choice taken away. That's one of my core principles. God gives us free will so that we may choose. Without the ability to choose, we cannot be saved. So you are grossly misinterpreting me.

10A,

God does not make mistakes. That principle was widely accepted as indisputable until recent times. Say it with me now, God does not make mistakes. It's not something we're allowed to doubt or question.

I care because this is spiritual warfare. Everyone who rejects God is choosing to follow Satan, whether or not they understand that. It is our moral duty to love one another as Jesus has loved us, which means to make our best effort to lead each other to God.

Please read your Bible. I want to point you to a single verse or two, but so much of the whole book deals with these topics that I find it overwhelming to think I could choose just one or two verses. We're discussing what God has repeatedly warned us against. If you care about humanity at all, you have a moral duty to make your best effort to stop this madness.

That's why.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • meta
  • Macbeth
  • All magazines