"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.

ernest, 1 year ago

I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author.

Noki, 1 year ago

thank you!

I appreciate all you do and your quick respond.

Multipile Things I noticed as a creater of this thread:
can I close comments ?
can I hide comments ?
can I pin a response?
can I quickly see from what server peope are interacting?

I am no coder but would love to support you with all the work that is done.

At least some of the costs can be taken of your shoulders:

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/kbin

Edit: Can you close this thread for me ?

ernest, 1 year ago

All the things you mentioned are in the roadmap. However, we can either do it quickly and potentially encounter issues in a few weeks or months, or take a bit more time for a more thorough approach. I've decided to move away from playful prototyping. From now on, every change will be tested before it's approved for kbin.social - it's no longer just my code (https://lab2.kbin.pub/). I'd like to close this thread for you... but can we just agree not to respond in it anymore? ;p

Hobovision, 1 year ago

I don't think closing threads is a great idea or in keeping with how this all works. I think it'd be nice to be able to mute a thread as an individual, but by its nature these discussions are open and shared with many instances. If we close it on kbin.social, other kbin instances, lemmy instances, and even places like mastodon and pixelfed could keep discussing, if I understand activity pub correctly.

ernest, 1 year ago

In such important tasks, I would like to engage in community-driven development. When I start planning these tasks, I will come to you with my whiteboard and sketch out the individual stages. Together, we will look for the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution, the weak and strong points. This is to jointly make a decision on whether the change makes sense on kbin.social but also in the perspective of the entire federation. It can be a great fun ;)

Snapz, 1 year ago

Let’s all agree that of its many issues, locking/deleting open threats to targeted minority groups and pro supremacist propaganda meant to hurt or influence vulnerable people was NOT a drawback of the Reddit experience.

Yes, it’s a difficult thing to enforce a subjective line of a basic standard of decency, but it’s also what a society is and one of the main reasons we gather as people. The quality of a group is shown in how they accommodate the weakest and most vulnerable among them.

If we aren’t prioritizing a way to send this CHUD and people liked them to the hypothetical edge of town, to be sure they can’t bombard the young person struggling with their gender identity with targeted hate at their weakest moment, then what are we doing here?

bane_killgrind, 1 year ago

Thank you for being thorough

Infiltrated_ad8271, 1 year ago

Could you clarify what you would do in cases like this? Censor based on misinterpretation of the clickbait headline, even if it does not contain hate content at all?

TheDudeAbiding, 1 year ago

That's the best bait you could come up with? Come on, you can do better.

LoafyLemon, 1 year ago

A friendly reminder; Please don't forget to take your time and step away from Kbin whenever you need a break. Your mental health is just as important, if not most important, for the project to succeed.

albinanigans, 1 year ago

You are correct.

I'm bookmarking this page to return to later. Time to pull up some weeds!

slicedcheesegremlin, 1 year ago

Everyone appreciates your effort here, ernest. Spez hasn't gotten 92 upvotes on a comment in years lmao despite Reddit having millions of users, it really shows how the difference.

KTVX94, 1 year ago

I joined kbin recently and I'm kind of concerned about the implications of this. I don't support those posts at all, but who gets to say what's worth banning and what not? Wouldn't that go against the decentralized nature of the site? Or is it the specific instance that magazine is on that has the authority to ban what's inside? How does all of this work?

Edit: my bad, I got kbin and kbin.social mixed up. Noob mistake.

Kierunkowy74, 1 year ago

kbin.social administration controls only what is published on kbin.social, and what content from elsewhere kbin.social users can see. An user banned from kbin.social can make another account, on another site and start recreate there his banned community. kbin.social will be able to ban this remote user and remote community, but this restricts only what kbin.social users can see.

Exactly the same for another /kbin or lemmy site - just replace the domain name accordingly.

updawg, 1 year ago

It actually is one of the strengths of the decentralized nature of the Fediverse. But there are still growing pains associated with it.

lazy, 1 year ago

@KTVX94

While I kind of agree with you in being concerned about who gets to control what we see and don't see and the censorship aspect, there is also "the paradox of tolerance" to be considered and maybe in that light it is correct to not tolerate that subs intolerance.

Regarding the Paradox of Tolerance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

MrMonkey, 1 year ago

The Paradox of Tolerance is hot garbage:

lemm.ee/comment/481170

harmonea, 1 year ago

Wouldn't that go against the decentralized nature of the site?

No, it's exactly the opposite. The entire point of a decentralized federation is that while yes, the admin is in complete control of what content is allowed on his or her own instance, users who don't like what the admin is doing can just spin up their own new instances.

Ernest can ban this type of content if he likes. Others can take the kbin software and make a new instance where it's welcome. Ernest can choose not to federate with that instance if they continue to push content that's against his rules, but Ernest doesn't have the power to dictate the direction for hundreds of millions of users' experience like a certain centralized site's mad CEO or admin board does.

What would be against the nature of ActivityPub is if Ernest built something into the software to prevent it being used for types of content he doesn't like, even on other instances.

livus, 1 year ago

Remember, kbin.social is just one instance of kbin. Ernest banning something on kbin.social does not mean banning it from the fediverse.

It could pop up on another fediverse site or even another kbin site.

cacheson, 1 year ago

The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly.

I have been wondering how instance-wide moderation will end up looking on kbin, once you've had a chance to get a team in place for that. While it is (I assume) a "generalist" instance, it's important to keep in mind that you can't please everyone. Trying to have too broad of an audience will just result in retaining those with a high tolerance for toxicity (usually highly toxic themselves), while everyone else leaves in favor of better-managed spaces.

Communities in general, and particularly on the internet, need to understand what their purpose is, and be proactive about filtering out those that are incompatible with that purpose. This doesn't mean judging those people as wrong, or "bad people", it just means recognizing that not everyone is going to get along, and that some level of group cohesion needs to be maintained.

atypicaloddity, 1 year ago

Agreed, that's part of my problem with generalist instances. They're so broad that they serve multiple communities with differing expectations, and it forces admins to take sides.

cacheson, 1 year ago

I think there is value in having both generalist and specialized instances, and the big landing spots for new users should probably strive to be more generalist. As you point out though, there are limits to how broad of an audience one can practically cater to.

spicy_biscuits, 1 year ago

Thank you Ernest, we appreciate you ☺️

HidingCat, 1 year ago

Wow, more new servers! Looks like the growth has been really explosive. It wasn't that long ago you migrated Kbin to Fastly right?

10A, 1 year ago

Welcome to the real world, where people disagree with you, and sometimes they're right and you're wrong. You can learn from everyone's perspective.

Is kbin meant to be a far-leftist echo chamber?

Noki, 1 year ago

its a far right talking point, do you want extremist on kbin.social?

Edit: Funny, your the guy agreeing with "ps".

"No normal person who obeys the laws of sexual morality calls himself a "cis". It's a slur used by those who hate being called something they don't call themselves (their God-given gender), but have too much cognitive dissonance and too much hatred for normal people to let that stop them. We need to reopen the asylums yesterday" - this you ?

more hatefull stuff from you "We may not all have been Christian back then, but almost all of us were, and everyone supported Judeo-Christian values without question. Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp, so it was extremely rare for anyone to think such behavior was acceptable."

deelightful, 1 year ago

Unfortunately I don't know how to report magazines/users so I can't help you there but I just want to add my support to what you're asking because this sort of thing is against the kbin terms of service:

We expect all users to treat each other with respect and kindness. Harassment, hate speech, or any other form of harmful behavior will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to remove any content or user that violates these guidelines.

10A, 1 year ago

The communist far-left calls all disagreement "hate speech". It is not hateful to speak the truth.

jalda, 1 year ago

You are longing for the times when "Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp". Isn't this hateful?

10A, 1 year ago

It would be if that's what I said, but I never said I was longing for anything, and I never threatened to harm anyone.

Bipta, 1 year ago

You keep to coded language. Congratulations. Don't think we can't read it.

10A, 1 year ago

No, actually I say what I mean. You might try taking the context of the entire comment into account. It was about the purpose of freedom.

ElleChaise, 1 year ago

The tolerance of intolerance leads to the loss of all freedom. You'd have to be either a fraud or a fool to try and sell the opposite as truth. So which are you?

10A, 1 year ago

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.

jalda, 1 year ago

Whatever, I copied your whole paragraph in another comment, and the context is pretty clear for anyone who cares to read it. I didn't claim that you personally were threatening to do the beating, only that you thought that the beating was desiderable for the "program of western civilization". If you really don't want homosexual people to be beaten to a pulp, then you should seriously reconsider how you express your ideas.

10A, 1 year ago

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

jalda, 1 year ago

You still haven't addressed my point. Do you think it is desiderable that homosexual people are beaten to a pulp? Is a YES/NO question, it shouldn't be difficult to answer.

10A, 1 year ago

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

ThunderingJerboa, 1 year ago

It made sense back when everyone was, more or less, on board with the program of western civilization. We may not all have been Christian back then, but almost all of us were, and everyone supported Judeo-Christian values without question. Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp, so it was extremely rare for anyone to think such behavior was acceptable.

At this point we need to ask ourselves what the purpose of freedom is. Are we a free people so we can exercise perverted pleasures of the flesh, the slaughter of innocent babies, and genital mutilation of children without their parents knowledge? If you answer "yes", you just might be repeating the whisper of a demon.

The purpose of our freedom is to worship God as we see fit, and to do His will. In the past we never needed to spell that out, because it went without saying. Different people have different views and belief systems, and they're all valid provided they all worship God.

As secular society grows, we lose the underlying reason for our freedom. Freedom is still a valid concept for anyone who knows how to use it correctly, and who understands that the ultimate freedom is the freedom from sin, which is achieved by accepting Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior.

But for those who think the purpose of freedom is to follow Satan, to abuse themselves and others, to commit endless sins, and then, most evil of all, to celebrate pride in their sin (as if they don't even understand that pride itself is a sin), no, I no longer agree that people are entitled to live their lives in the way that they want. They're entitled to repent, and once they do that we can discuss freedom.

Here is your exact quote, there is no "misrepresentation" here. You are firstly suggesting that the gays are worshiping (indirectly or directly) Satan and have no right to "freedom" because your fictionally sky daddy said so. Lets take a step backwards, so you are suggesting your all loving god, basically has doomed 3/5s (if not more until the white people came) of the world because he decided to only care about Europe and part of the middle east for hundreds to thousands of years because this all knowing being somehow couldn't have stable and growing amount of worshipers in Asia, the Americas, Australia, the pacific, etc dooming them all to hell (or purgatory depending on your denomination) because they as you say can't be able to accept "Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior."

You yearn for a day when everyone (in your neighborhood) had your stupid sky daddy's beliefs and if they didn't you wouldn't pull the trigger or what not but you aren't opposed because now we live in a world of sin and whatnot and you want them to repent because they decide to have their freedom that is instill upon them because they are born a fucking human not because a fucking fictional sky daddy said you have it.

It god damn hilarious you are also reiterating god damn fanfic, the cardinal 7 sins weren't a major concept until they were first enumerated by Pope Gregory I in the 6th century and further expanded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Then to top it all off, we as a modern society mostly know the configuration of hell by a god damn self insert fanfic by Dante Alighieri in "Divine Comedy" or to be more specific Dante's Inferno.

Also seems you aren't very godly if you aren't even following Jesus' own words

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:39),

Your love seems very conditional on the concept that they have to worship your god before they deserve any love. Its honestly disgusting and you are the posterchild of why people hate religious nuts. People can worship what they want if they aren't hurting people but holy shit the shit you are willfully allowing by decree people deserve no freedom if they don't have Judeo-Christians.

Bizarroland, 1 year ago

That's called masturpraying.

You're not hurting anyone (in the physical sense) but you're getting off on the idea that bad things should happen to other people, people you consider to not be in your "in group", and this is usually done in the name of and for the glory of God.

It's a fancy sin that preachers don't tell people about because they're usually guilty of it themselves.

Masturpraying is direct service to and worship of Satan, and he really enjoys it because the people who do it do it in God's name as they commit spiritual violence against the kingdom of God and its occupants while thinking that they are doing good.

10A, 1 year ago

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

GunnarRunnar, 1 year ago

Fuck off or grow up.

RadicalHomosapien, 1 year ago

There is no disagreement when it comes to gender identity. You don't get to disagree with how someone lives their life when it doesn't effect you. It is not a "communist" ideology to support trans folks and you're exposing how little you actually understand about politics with these types of assertions.

10A, 1 year ago

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?

GizmoLion, 1 year ago

Well that depends, you've been pretty thoroughly educated in this post, so now what will you do about it? I fully expect you'll return to your far right anti-woke hatemongering, in which case yes you should be blocked.

Or you can retract it, and maybe there's hope for you yet.

Naich, 1 year ago

If you genuinely can't see that it's hate speech, then you need to be blocked and not debated because you are immune to reasoning.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

Naich, 1 year ago

This is not a conversation. Nothing of value will be lost by shutting it down.

bane_killgrind, 1 year ago

"We need to reopen the asylums yesterday" isn't the truth, it's your opinion.

In my opinion, words like this are propaganda intended for radicalisation, and dehumanize people that don't fit into rigid definitions of acceptable lifestyle. Your opinion states that these people should be deprived of liberty and free movement, and deprived of autonomy over their own bodies.

In my opinion, I don't need to tolerate you in my social circles, and Ernest doesn't need to use his own computing resources to enable your shit take on what freedom is.

Kindly go and have your "free speech" using resources that come out of your own pocket, not an unwilling person's.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

and changed the DSM

Side note, that's more an indictment of the DSM and the rigor of psychology than anything else. Whether something is a disorder or not depends on how popular it is, the whole thing reeks of quackery

10A, 1 year ago

Woke is far-leftist neo-Marxism. What you call "far right" and "extremist" is actually normal, conservative, and Christian. What you call "hateful" is actually just truth telling.

Downvote me all you want, but you sound like naive child who hasn't learned how to engage with competing worldviews.

FfaerieOxide, 1 year ago

I think the people downvoting you know exactly how to engage hate.

10A, 1 year ago

Hatred is not speech you disagree with. It's not speech that hurts your delicate feelings. It's not speech that contradicts your values. It's none of that.

I'm fine with downvotes, although I miss old-school reddiquette back when we upvoted content that should be seen, regardless of whether or not we agreed with it. But this discussion is about banning people and magazines, not downvotes.

Bipta, 1 year ago

Hatred is not speech you disagree with. It's not speech that hurts your delicate feelings. It's not speech that contradicts your values. It's none of that.

Right. It's speech that tells people they're not worthy of or welcome to exist.

Thanks for playing.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

effingjoe, 1 year ago

Which god? Zeus?

Cyzaine, 1 year ago

Zeus!??! Blasphemy. All father or no father I say. Odin for best God.

GizmoLion, 1 year ago

Your sky daddy is fake, and I, for one, will not live under your people's delusions of truth.

Ski, 1 year ago

What if they don't believe in the Christian God because the Christian God is demonstrably not real?

HelixDab, 1 year ago

Mmmmm, it's more like no one can reasonably demonstrate the truth of any god, rather than any specific god being demonstrably false. It's an important distinction. You can't disprove a thing, but you can prove that alternate explanations are far more probable, or that the thing doesn't fit the evidence.

szczur, 1 year ago

So perhaps you should repent for actively hurting your fellow children of God. Because unless you're not a hardcore old-school christian, freedom of choice on how to live ones life if it doesn't hurt anybody is a God given right. And you actively want to take that away.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

kestrel7, 1 year ago

No one needs to see this, you are throwing out extremely basic arguments that all of us encounter every day in this regressive society. You aren't speaking truth to power, you're just being part of the power right now. You aren't making yourself look good and you aren't making the world a better, freer, more nuanced, or happier place.

People: Hey, stop being a jackass.

Conservatives: OMG, yoU WANT TO CREATE A FAR LeFTIST ECHO CHAMBER

Every fucking time.

Infiltrated_ad8271, 1 year ago

OMG, yoU WANT TO CREATE A FAR LeFTIST ECHO CHAMBER

You do realize that this post is specifically about ideological censorship, right?

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

Hatred invites and deserves censorship.

AnonTwo, 1 year ago

Can you explain how a post that was aimed towards "trans lobby harms our society" is not hatred?

I mean I somewhat blame the OP for not linking the posts for some context, but after a bit of looking around it sounds like the posts in question are in fact hate speech and not just things to disagree with.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

Froyn, 1 year ago

Jesus wore dresses, get over it.

Infiltrated_ad8271, 1 year ago

Since you read in context, could you tell me where the hate speech is?

I only see one article where they spend most of the time making a disclaimer in favor of trans rights, followed by a critique of non-diagnosis and surgery on children, or how nothing is allowed to be questioned. That last one we can see in this thread, people are foaming at the mouth over a title (which includes "extreme, btw...), it's crazy.

FfaerieOxide, 1 year ago

Do you remember when I called you an asshole?

I'd like to expand that you're a mi-sogynist , homophobe, and your support for fascists leaves me with no compunctions presuming you hold racist beliefs as well.

In short, I want to make clear this is not a case of what you may have read in Mathew 10:22. You are not being persecuted, and it is not "for righteousness' sake". You are a hate filled asshole who pursues policies which will harm society, and you seek to insert and establish the dominance of (what you believe to be) the word of your god while desiring safe space free from the calling out of your hate.

I also suspect you might be closeted.

That last line is not served as a "gotcha". I want you to know community and acceptance can exist outside what you seem to have found convening with some very dangerous ideology on the right. I suspect at some level you want to be lead away as as you say yourself there are places you could hang out that would not challenge your beliefs. You are here in a "den of sin".

I will commune with a few gods (not yhwh; different better gods) to see if they can bless you with the conviction to choose kindness over cantankerousness.
Change is possible.
You are not broken beyond repair.
I Love You.

I have faith in your ability to be a better person than you have thus-far demonstrated yourself to be.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

FfaerieOxide, 1 year ago

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption I am interested in debating you.

I am not. Nor do I care to hear you loudly proselytizing as a certain other group of people do.

I invite you to consider why you get the reaction you universally seem to to your posts, and proffer that it is not because everyone is jealous that Jesus loves you more than them.
I am not however here to convert you, nor do I intend to platform fascist talking points by treating them as worthy or needing of debate.

I will leave you with the words of one of the prophets of my faith,

"You ain't a vampire; you don't have to suck."

jclinares, 1 year ago

If you answer "yes", you just might be repeating the whisper of a demon."

So, wait... people who have a competing world view from yours are listening to demons? Now who's naive? xD

10A, 1 year ago

Demons absolutely do exist, and I'm happy to discuss that in a different context. It's pretty off-topic here, though.

pancakesyrupyum, 1 year ago

“Demons absolutely do exist” lol

10A, 1 year ago

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

—Verbal Kint

pancakesyrupyum, 1 year ago

Haha hell yeah, hail Satan, am I right?

Animoscity, 1 year ago

Trust me, this guy told some people a thing and they wrote it down, and while no one has seen or has proof, its real.

bushOfBerries, 1 year ago

I think you mistyped truth social in your URL bar. This place will not welcome you, I think.

ElleChaise, 1 year ago

Who are ya gonna believe, me; or your own eyes?

geoffervescent, 1 year ago

We are all happy to engage with competing worldviews

What you call "far right" and "extremist" is actually normal, conservative, and Christian. What you call "hateful" is actually just truth telling.

This isn't a competing worldview, or rather, it's a competing worldview in the same way that phrenology and alchemy are competing ways to view anatomy and chemistry. Like, it's possible to genuinely believe in these things if your conditions of childhood existence are so constrained, isolated, or manipulated that you are happier living life in your own personal 'Truman show.' But the rest of us don't have an obligation to play along with your fantasy.

Most of us here on the internet have at some point met someone we've had a reasonable political disagreement with but could walk away understanding each other better due to those disagreements. Most of us would even say thise diagreements have gone in both political directions. The same cannot honestly be said for folks with your version of a 'world view.' It's like a method actor but worse because it lacks any goal, it's like a person suffering mental but worse because the cause (Patriarchal models of religion) is external, intentional, and had been prosthlytizing delusion as a worldview for millenia.

AnonTwo, 1 year ago

You know, calling everyone not on your political compass "Not Normal" is kindof not coming off as mature as you think it is....

Basically rather than "disagree" with people, you're creating strawmen to debase anyone speaking to you, so you don't have to disagree with them.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

mrnotoriousman, 1 year ago

Woke is far-leftist neo-Marxism

Lmaoooo with the buzzwords. Define far-left neo marxism and give some examples of it being promoted by US politicians.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

jalda, 1 year ago

I don't usually go to through other people's comment history, but this one is a goldmine

"It made sense back when everyone was, more or less, on board with the program of western civilization. We may not all have been Christian back then, but almost all of us were, and everyone supported Judeo-Christian values without question. Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp, so it was extremely rare for anyone to think such behavior was acceptable. At this point we need to ask ourselves what the purpose of freedom is. Are we a free people so we can exercise perverted pleasures of the flesh, the slaughter of innocent babies, and genital mutilation of children without their parents knowledge? If you answer "yes", you just might be repeating the whisper of a demon."

"woke neo-marxism claims that any normal person is bad. That means its practitioners openly discriminate against conservative white Christian men, especially if they practice heterosexual behavior in a traditional marriage."

"Ironically, secession is about the most American thing we could do at this point"

Noki, 1 year ago

keep digging, your doing "gods work" ;)

strange to see someone as crazy as 10A on kbin.social, feels more like a Fox-Viewer who chose the wrong server.

10A, 1 year ago

So happens I'm the moderator of m/FoxNews so, in a way, you're right!

minnieo, 1 year ago

mod of the foxnews mag lmfao. oh man, it keeps getting better and better

Osa-Eris-Xero512, 1 year ago

Guess it was only a matter of time before the Nazis colonized here with the server being open sign-up

10A, 1 year ago

You have clearly never been to m/FoxNews.

10A, 1 year ago

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

minnieo, 1 year ago

i'm not in the mood for comedy so i'll pass, but thanks C:

10A, 1 year ago

I mean, it's literally news about foxes.

GizmoLion, 1 year ago

His name's 10A... he may well be as sovcit too. Par for the course.

mmmplak, 1 year ago

I mean who can argue with that. Things got weirder on the second page of this thread. I just can’t take this seriously.

VerifiablyMrWonka, 1 year ago

Thank you for doing the investigation so I don't have to. He'll be going on many peoples block lists at this point.

Bipta, 1 year ago

You present the false choice between hateful extremists and left wing extremists.

10A, 1 year ago

I agree that would be a false dichotomy. I disagree that I presented that choice. But I appreciate that you're actually engaging with ideas here.

IncognitoErgoSum, 1 year ago

I don't want kbin to be a far-leftist echo chamber. I also don't want kbin to be a far-right echo chamber. I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to protect a community from extreme and hateful views, regardless of which side they come from, because those views tend to attract the type of horrible, toxic people such as yourself who advocate beating the shit out of people for being different in a harmless way.

Welcome to the real world, where people who are different from you exist and mind their own business. If you can't put up with people who don't affect you in any way, I don't think the rest of us owe it to you to put up with you, either. Go find a cesspit to wallow in.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

IncognitoErgoSum, 1 year ago

Oh, and about sexual morality, here's how that works:

If it doesn't involve children, animals, the deceased, or non-consenting people, it's none of your business. Persecuting people who have done nothing to you is immoral.

10A, 1 year ago

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

IncognitoErgoSum, 1 year ago

Matthew 7:5 -You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.

Maybe worry about yourself first, guy who pines for the "good old days" when gay people used to get the shit beat out of them. Nobody corrupts the God's word like loud, intolerant far-right Christians.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

matthieu_xyz, 1 year ago

@kbinMeta
@10A
Considering the issue about tankies on some lemmy instances, I think we understand how much left is too far left. And what you describe as "woke" isn’t it.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

As a member of that group, we prefer to call ourselves "progressives".

10A, 1 year ago

Fair, but so does the center-left.

TheaoneAndOnly27, 1 year ago

Is there a way to block seeing any comments or posts from exploding heads?

rideranton, 1 year ago

You can block domains if you click on the domain next to the post, go to the sidebar and block it like a magazine

shatteredsteel, 1 year ago

That hasn't been functioning for me, I've had to go to each magazine individually to block them.

If I click the button on the instance it doesn't do anything, I still see the posts in my feed. I've tried on a few of the non-english instances (since I don't know other languages).

muftiboy, 1 year ago

cringe. grow up you fascist loser, go back to reddit

Harlan_Cloverseed, 1 year ago

Bigotry is not welcome here.

TooTallSol, 1 year ago

Thank you for exposing all the people who want kbin to be just like Reddit. If that is what kbin turns into then it can join spez right where he belongs.

Your calls for censorship should get YOU and your peers in this thread banned.

Harlan_Cloverseed, 1 year ago

Go hang out on Voat, bigot

szczur, 1 year ago

It's not censorship, it's keeping people acting in bad faith from easily act in derogatory ways actively harming people.

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

Nazi Punks Fuck Off

kestrel7, 1 year ago

Yeah I was worried this could become a problem, because I imagine a lot of chuds are turned off of lemmy because of the tankie devs. Which makes sense. But I don't think they should be welcome here, either. I'm trying to get away from that authoritarian shit, not get closer to the even worse kind of authoritarian shit.

10A, 1 year ago

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

AnonTwo, 1 year ago

Isn't it authoritarian to beat to death people expressing views with which you disagree with?

Something which you all but advocated in the thread in question? You just want a platform to advocate far more extreme methods than bans.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

AnonTwo, 1 year ago

You know, even if it was cherrypicked (which it was not, I stand by it, and you're welcome to try to actually argue how that's not what you said and not pretend I didn't read it)

I just asked

Isn't it authoritarian to beat to death people expressing views with which you disagree with?

You didn't answer with "I never said that"

You answered with

No, not whatsoever.

As far as I'm concerned you're just pretending to be a mature guy who wants people to debate, but in truth you just want to shame people away from the hate speech that's being spewed where people are either not responding or are making arguments in bad faith in response. Basically letting the text get onto the page and hoping everyone gives up.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

smokinjoe, 1 year ago

No. You can always fuck off to stormfront.

meat_popsicle, 1 year ago

Is TruthSocial just not up your alley?

aegisgfx877, 1 year ago

Trunff Censhall!

Harlan_Cloverseed, 1 year ago

We don’t want you here, bigot.

Zorque, 1 year ago

If it's just about disagreement, sure. But it's not, it's about whether you accept the paradox of the tolerance of intolerance.

hydro033, 1 year ago

I don't know what is going on with this new magazine, but are you suggesting that we can't be critical of "woke" culture and/or aspects of trans culture? I think both have some excesses deserving of some criticism, e.g. witch hunts on social media and transwomen in women's sports.

Edit: Unbelievable downvotes over a completely reasonable take. Perhaps there is no hope for the internet after all.

PenguinJuice, 1 year ago

It is really disgusting and probably the worst part of any movement, everyone is brain washed into believing only one narrative and dissent is silenced. It's pretty much just fascism.

fosho, 1 year ago

you think a movement of tolerance for trans folks is brainwashing? i’m pretty sure it’s society evolving to accept that people exist outside the box of binary genders and other folks deciding they have no problem with that.

you’re trying to tell people that what they know themselves to be is wrong. you’re out here lacking empathy - making no attempt to really try to understand what life is like for people like this. and ultimately you’re making a fuss about something that bears no tangible outcome on your daily life.

we don’t want to have this conversation anymore. it has been done to death. we understand your perspective and it’s based on fear of the unknown. end of discussion.

AnonTwo, 1 year ago

You're being downvoted for making a reasonable take, to a completely unreasonable set of posts.

The problem is basically people going "let them talk banning is free speech!" When the talk is either an article demonizing the trans lobby, or a post below it that takes a moment to talk about how back in the day it was acceptable to beat homosexual people to a pulp.

That is why you are being downvoted. Because you're trying to act like a reasonable response is to be expected to a set of unreasonable and destructive takes. There's a group here trying to normalize hate speech as something that can just be argued with when most of them are cherry picking their arguments or just arguing in bad faith in general.

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

I'm sorry for the downvotes. People are assuming you support what's being said on that magazine, when you explicitly said you didn't read it. It's pretty vile stuff, not just reasonable criticisms. The place needs to be banned, it's very clearly hate speech.

Borgzilla, 1 year ago

I see it as an opportunity to see how resilient the Fediverse is against censorship. Each instance has its own rules, and can federate (or not) with whoever they want. You want to build a stormfront clone or an extreme-left community? Go ahead, make your own rules. It does not mean that my instance has to federate with yours, though.

Sorry about the grammatical mistakes. English is not my native language.

Bobo_Palermo, 1 year ago

Simply don't go to that magazine? Fuck, people....censorship is bad, but it sounds like kbin is committed to it. Is there a community I can join that has full free speech? This is a serious question.

szczur, 1 year ago

They don't exist, because everytime someone mistakes hate speech for free speech it turns the community into a giant cesspool.

gonzo0815, 1 year ago

4chan

knatsch, 1 year ago

If you want to have a tolerant community you need to filter those out who are intolerant to others.

Zagorath, 1 year ago

It’s the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerate intolerant views in a space, quickly only the intolerant will feel welcome in a space. The series of now-removed Tweets screenshotted in this article do a great job of illustrating the point.

sombrero, 1 year ago

Complete freedom is called anarchy.

Haan, 1 year ago

Why do you care? Is kbin.social not a free speech platform? If not, I’ll find somewhere else to go.

I don’t even agree with these folks, but if people are going to start raising a big stink because people are saying things they don’t like, I’m out.

10A, 1 year ago

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

fosho, 1 year ago

until it’s hate speech. then you shouldn’t have the right to say it. because that makes you a dick-head who has broken the social contract.

szczur, 1 year ago

There's free speech in good faith, and the one in the bad. But that's not even about that. If someone's speech is basically "all trans people are a pedophiles and belong on the cross in defence of good christian values" (not a direct quote, just a representation) it's not free speech. It's hate speech and that kind of speech is not protected. Free speech is meant to protect voicing opinions. Thinking some people are not deserving of worthy living is not an opinion.

BobVersionFour, 1 year ago

I don’t even agree with these folks> if you sit at a table with 7 nazi that table contain 8 nazi

PenguinJuice, 1 year ago

People are allowed to have a difference of opinion. You don't get to silence people just because you disagree with them. Please do not go down that dark path.

Believe it or not there are people who do not subscribe to certain views, bur that does not make them "hate mongerers" anymore than the extreme opposition. It's only extremists and people who try to silence others for their views that are assholes. You live in a great big world full of a lot of differing opinions and that's what makes it beautiful. Silencing opinions because of your personal beliefs is not acceptable.

OKbinBuddyChicanery, 1 year ago

Transphobia, racism, etc aren't an opinion. They are hate speech. Full stop.

I am absolutely against silencing opinions. I am also absolutely in favor of silencing hate speech. Understand the difference.

hydro033, 1 year ago

What about when it's more nuanced like "I support trans people to do whatever they want, but I don't support transwomen in women's sports." Or "I am cautious about transitioning young children until we have a better medical understanding of gender dysphoria." Seems like many here would still consider my perspective to be "hate speech," which I, of course, find ridiculous.

effingjoe, 1 year ago

When you're discussing traits inherent to a person-- not things they do or believe, but things they are, it's almost certainly hate speech. A quick test would be to swap the inherent thing you're talking about with skin color, since that one seems obvious to most people. So, would you say that an opinion that you support people of color, you just don't support them playing sports with people that aren't POC, be nuanced opinion or hate speech?

As for your second hypothetical, that is a discussion for doctors and experts, and they've already had it, and that's why children can't get non-reversible procedures until they're 18. No one is transitioning children; they are blocking their development so they can have a choice on how to proceed when they're adults.

hydro033, 1 year ago

False equivalence. XY humans destroy XX humans in sports, it's why we have men's and women's divisions - women are a protected class. Allowing XY individuals in women's sports is not fair to women, and undermines the entire purpose of sport and a women's division. Look at it this way : men's division is really an open division, but we created a women's division for the purpose of fairness.

Second point, let's just say you don't know how much I know about this topic or these issues. The question of reversibility by using hormone blockers is still being debated. We simply do not have enough data to know if its safe. You cannot treat hormone manipulation as some simple process. There are many feedback loops involved in the HPG axes.

AmidFuror, 1 year ago

Your logic means men (not trans women) should be able to compete in women's sports.

fosho, 1 year ago

regarding the sports issue, i can understand the argument that this situation could be abused for an unfair advantage. and eventually it most likely would be by someone. however i don’t have any good solutions that aren’t shitty. even an absolutely sincere trans person could still have an unfair advantage but i would never advocate discrimination by banning them from competing. either option is unfair to someone. it’s a tough issue and one that has no easy answers.

hydro033, 1 year ago

Agreed - I think relabeling divisions as open and women (XX) divisions is the best solution. Other solutions I have heard include only regulating things at high levels of play, e.g., championships and other events that have prestigious awards. Joanna Harper has advocated the latter.

fosho, 1 year ago

hmm - i like the idea of removing gender from divisions and instead using another criteria that better defines an individual’s ability. that way when a trans woman goes to compete they aren’t specifically put into a category for men but rather a group of people who have relatively comparable abilities. sortof like weight classes. i mean - it’s still kinda shitty because now someone has to decide based on difficult criteria who belongs where, but i think that’s a step in the right direction. i’m would hope that for trans folks, the idea that they are put into a gendered category is what is the most discriminatory rather than a skill/ability category. however, the end result would likely be the same just with different labels. maybe that’s what matters most? i don’t know. no easy answers.

CynAq, 1 year ago

That's not nuance, that's just ignorance and a knee-jerk reaction to a very complicated issue which has to be left to experts, who, in addition to being normal people with compassion and love like most of us towards their fellow humans, know the most about their topic of expertise than any of us.

hydro033, 1 year ago

It is indeed nuance. Just because you're not well read or educated on the topic, doesn't mean I am not. I have been thinking about these things for years and years, and I do indeed have a formal education in biology. So, no, not a knee-jerk reaction, sorry. Again, I am all for letting trans individuals transition and exist how they want, and I am all for respecting pronoun usage, and whatever else - that is compassion towards fellow humans. I am just pointing out two aspects of this debate where I have my own thoughts that have some slight pushback on progressive perspectives.

CynAq, 1 year ago

If you were as "well read" as you think you are, you would know how much bullshit you're spewing right now. Especially about children getting the gender affirming care they need without any need interference from "well-mean" idiots like you.

Your "concern" is potentially killing young people, and you're here talking out of your ass, convinced you have compassion for people.

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

Nuanced opinions are worthy of discussion. That's not what I've seen on the community in question.

PenguinJuice, 1 year ago

Racism is disgusting but transpobia? I don't believe that's hate speech. People can not like something but not wish death on the person or outright hate who they are as a person. People are allowed to dislike certain behaviors. It's not comparable to racism and its definitely not hate speech.

AnonTwo, 1 year ago

but transpobia? I don't believe that's hate speech.

Uhhh...no, that is hate speech. It's in definition damnit.

I'm going down this thread and holy crap did you 180 from normal conversation into downright bigot.

szczur, 1 year ago

But you do not disagree with someone doing or believing something. By defending transphobia you disagree with someone being one thing or the other. Because transphobia isn't based on disagreeing with what trans people are doing or believe in. It disagrees with their fundamental right to exist and wants to take it away. It's no different from racism or antisemitism.

That's the difference you seem to miss.

10A, 1 year ago

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

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

No "straight" gene either

10A, 1 year ago

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

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

Which of course brings up the question why you care if others choose to live differently than you, or if others choose to try to resolve their gender dysphoria by aligning their biology to match their brain's perception of what they should be? Or if they choose to enter relationships with other people of the same gender? How does that harm anyone?

10A, 1 year ago

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.

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

"Ah shit, I might have fucked up"

• Jesus (Matthew 27:46)

But anyway, religion isn't rational, there's no way to reason or logic with someone basing their worldview on an elaborate schizophrenic delusion, so this is a dead end conversation.

fosho, 1 year ago

at the end of the day, you’re just an asshole for telling other people who they can and can’t be when it doesn’t affect you AT ALL.

minnieo, 1 year ago

transphobia literally = "outright hating who someone is as a person". are you okay???

HelixDab, 1 year ago

"Disagreements" are for things like tax milage, or whether or not a school needs a new football field. "Disagreements" are not for things like, "jews should be gassed", or "trans people are all pedophiles".

10A, 1 year ago

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.

fedosyndicate, 1 year ago

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] for it may easily turn out that [the intolerant] are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; [the intolerant] may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to [other crimes] as criminal.

spicy_biscuits, 1 year ago

Exactly this why is this so hard for these motherfuckers to understand

szczur, 1 year ago

Disagreeing with someone having the right to exist is not an opinion.

Cylusthevirus, 1 year ago

If your "certain view" is that trans people, other queer people, and/or anyone left of Tucker Carlson shouldn't exist, you've opted out of the social contract of tolerance and should expect to be shunned.

Tolerance is either a two way street or a suicide pact and I'm not here to watch people die so the worst dregs of humanity can spew their garbage.

PenguinJuice, 1 year ago

Whoa, I would never wish someone wouldn't exist anymore, wtf? Most moderate people I know just don't like the behavior, they don't hate the people... I know assholes exist who actually want to kill people who disagree with them but that exists on both sides of the aisle.

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

It's not "behavior", it's who they are.

minnieo, 1 year ago

Most moderate people I know just don't like the behavior

what does that even mean? what is 'the behavior'? i'd like to see you try and tell me without generalizing literally millions of people

fosho, 1 year ago

you could always … you know … not care. your life would be so much more fulfilling and meaningful if you stopped sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong.

z500, 1 year ago

Yes, because certainly this time around people are going to stop at side eye and clucking their tongues. Because it’s nothing but a difference of opinion, you see.

slicedcheesegremlin, 1 year ago

complexity does not inherently make your argument better. "Slavery is is horrible and evil but free black people shouldn't have the right to vote" is a "nuanced opinion," but that doesn't mean it isn't racist and terrible.

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

I agree in principle but that's not a great example

spicy_biscuits, 1 year ago

Look up the tolerance paradox and then suck my dick

reitoei, 1 year ago

I'm tired of all this Left/Right fucking bullshit. Fuck you all. I don't give a shit.

People on the Right: THIS is how you radicalise people against you.
People on the Left: You, too. This is how you radicalise people against you.

AND NO "YEAH BUT ACKSHULLY" Foot stamping keyboard warrior escapades.

Fuck off back to fucking Lemmy or Reddit or Gab or Poal or wherever you fucking mouthbreathers circlejerk.

szczur, 1 year ago

Oh boy, an enlightened centrist!

If you cannot differentiate between people actively stepping up to a literal anti-human propaganda from people posting it, perhaps you should fuck off, too.

hydro033, 1 year ago

Oh boy, here we go with the enlightened centrists label. Disagree with somethings on the left and right and now you're also a huge problem. Bravo

szczur, 1 year ago

You are, because the guy we are talking about literally chose the appeasement rhetoric. And that's pretty enlightement centrist-y.

Both sides are equally bad bullshit.

ondoyant, 1 year ago

get fucked. politics shapes our lives, if you hate it so much don’t use the fucking internet.

Borgzilla, 1 year ago

As a non-american, I find americans to be very intense when it comes to politics. I just hope that we don’t start importing their culture war bullshit into our country.

HubertManne, 1 year ago

I mean I don't know or even care to censur on that level but thanks for the heads up so I can block. Im thinking it would be nice to have a recommened block magazine

szczur, 1 year ago

It's not censorship, it's self-defence.

ArugulaZ, 1 year ago

The frothing hysteria over "wokeness" (ie treating your fellow humans with respect) is just a smokescreen by the oil industry, which hopes it will take some pressure off it for, you know, slowly killing us all with global warming. You do know this, don't you?

I went through a young Republican phase, too. Then I realized that the party had nothing to offer ordinary people but contempt and cynical manipulation. Like telling people that they can be good Christians by doing the exact opposite of what Christ did. Like pitting Americans against each other for their differences. Like convincing people that the former president, a monster by any objective standard, is this country's savior when it's clear that he's just shaking the nation for loose change.

It's called "wokeness" because we finally opened our eyes, saw what was happening all around us, and decided to do something about it. You can either recognize the evil in this world, or become another oblivious victim of it.

unsophisticated, 1 year ago

This is a literal conspiracy theory.

10A, 1 year ago

And quite a creative one at that.

bane_killgrind, 1 year ago

It's not really. There is millions visibly spent on lobbying efforts against climate change, and invisibly stockholders invested in energy are board members of media companies. For example Jack Cockwell has over a billion dollars in Brookfield hedge fund, and that fund has been increasing it's holdings in energy for the last decade. There's some BCE board member that has millions of dollars in Wajax stocks (industrial equipment manufacturer), about half his net worth.
If you talk about industries with influence on one another from the perspective of ownership, you'll find it's all very incestuous as the richest people will diversify.
Weirdly, the people involved in Fox News only seem to own stock in FOX, but cash contributions to those people aren't shown in the market data I'm looking at. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I'm not a finance person.

ArugulaZ, 1 year ago

Every downvote is a sweet, sweet tear trickling down from the chubby cheek of an incel sociopath who was pre-emptively blocked. Delicious! Your agony sustains me!

static, 1 year ago

A single shitposter, with only downvoted posts. without attention they would have stopped posting, but now it has attention.

While the content is stupid and vile, is he breaking any rules?

SpacemanSpiff, 1 year ago

Streisand effect for sure. There seems to be run of these types of posts in the fediverse lately. People don’t seem to realize that sometimes they’re better off letting these situations take their natural course (and die), and not intervene unless it grows beyond manageability.

10A, 1 year ago

Wisdom ^

mack123, 1 year ago

The rules of the internet remains unchanged, regardless of platform. Do not feed the trolls.

Dagnet, 1 year ago

You are replying to the troll yourself lol

mack123, 1 year ago

Sometimes the mobile U/I wins, but I decided to let it stand regardless of replying to the wrong comment. Maybe the troll learns something, though I doubt it.

kestrel7, 1 year ago

So you advocate your own posting taking its natural course and dying off? I can think of a way you can hurry up this process.

mcgravier, 1 year ago

Dude, he's mocking you all and you don't even get it. The more you scream the more attention you're bringning to his magazine.

You people are hopless.

00, 1 year ago

Dude, he's mocking you all and you don't even get it. The more you scream the more attention you're bringning to his magazine.

Other people are not as stupid as you think. But the question between not giving it attention to challenge it and possibly giving it food to fester or not giving it attention and also not challenging it is not easily answered. Looking at the repulsive backlash, drawing attention to it was the right choice. Sure, some more people might flock there, but the vast majority strongly disapproves and now knows that kbin.social (unsurprisingly) has awful people on it as well.

zedtronic, 1 year ago

#1 rule on the internet: don't feed the trolls. Downvote them, block them, move on. They're not here to engage in good faith.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

blightbow, 1 year ago

A troll is insincere yet playful.

I chuckled at least. A troll's motivation for the rise that they seek is largely inconsequential, as is the delivery mechanism. ;) Let's not go and disenfranchise the majority of the internet's trolling population with narrow typecasting!

While we're on the topic of trolling, are you familiar with Sealioning?

Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate", and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".

It's a rhetorical question, no need to respond. Someone else might learn something they didn't know before today. :)

smokinjoe, 1 year ago

and not intervene unless it grows beyond manageability.

I'd rather nip it in the bud. You're just letting things fester.

SpacemanSpiff, 1 year ago

I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but it will become impossible to accomplish, practically speaking, as the fediverse grows. There’s only so much that can be done with volunteers, and it’s not like armies of paid staffers work much better (as we’ve seen the major tech corps try to do).

There is a sociological aspect to this, numerous studies have confirmed the effects of highlighting bad actors. There’s a copycat effect (as studies on mass shootings show) as well as what we call the Streisand effect. Both inadvertently encourage others to perpetuate the behaviour rather than serving to limit it.

icydefiance, 1 year ago

Allowing bad actors to advertise themselves is highlighting them. Banning them and deleting their communities is the opposite of highlighting them.

SpacemanSpiff, 1 year ago

Exactly. We agree? Thats what I said/mean. This post doesn’t ban them, it’s inadvertently advertising their content. There have been several post like this recently. While they may mean well they likely have the opposite effect.

smokinjoe, 1 year ago

So your solution is to just give up and let hate fester? When has appeasement ever worked?

SpacemanSpiff, 1 year ago

Not at all. I think you're conflating what I said with someone else. I’m only suggested we don’t inadvertently promote this content by creating a front-page post denouncing it.

The point about it being impossible to accomplish is about perfection. It’s a wack-a-mole game. Since this content and people will always be there until found, it’s better to not give them more of an audience.

No site will ever perfectly remove objectionable content. It’s one reason why the upvote downvote system is so valuable for a site like this.

wahming, 1 year ago

I think the problem is that at the moment, the system is new enough that there's no way to get this sort of content removed. Hence this front page post. It's not about calling attention to the magazine, it's about calling attention to the entire issue..

smokinjoe, 1 year ago

You can't avoid hate and hope it recedes. You have to take it directly head on and stomp it out immediately.

If they decide to move elsewhere, then follow them there and continue rooting them out.

Just "letting people decide" is useless and will only enable them to continue.

SpacemanSpiff, 1 year ago

Agreed, I think you’re still conflating things I never said. Nothing was in the “let the people decide” vein.

Thats why I think it’s better to silently remove them rather then making posts saying “look at this bad guy right there”.

AnonTwo, 1 year ago

Where does this sentiment come from? Reddit for the most part already does this. Twitter before Elon showed up did this. Most modern sites already do this

The only place I can think of where this is commonplace is 4chan, because they don't moderate.

Yes, highlighting bad actors over a course of time can be problematic. But the point in this case is the point out that we don't have the tools to deal with said bad actor. The tools that other sites have. It's not being said in vain, the goal is to make aware that something needs to be done so that people don't even see the bad actor to bring attention to them.

There is a purpose to the current efforts. I think everyone understands that constantly bringing attention to them will do no good, but the goal here is to bring attention to tools that are needed, so that it doesn't happen again, or at the very least to this extent.

SpacemanSpiff, 1 year ago

You’d might be conflating my comment with someone else? I’m not against moderating. I just think it’s a bad idea to blast these communities or users onto the front page when they’re found.

No example has been able to squash out bad actors and unwanted content completely. That’s the impossible task I’m referring to. Neither volunteers, nor paid staff have accomplished this for any site. In all your example there are still areas flying under the radar.

As such, it’s better to not inadvertently fan the flames when you find the fire, don’t make their soapbox bigger. Instead put it out quietly so it doesn’t harm anyone else.

AnonTwo, 1 year ago

Examples are good when trying to point out a problem actually exists and not have certain people trying to tone it down and make it not seem like as big a problem as it is, despite even the devs acknowledging there's a problem.

The final point is more tools are being worked on, the thread did do something, so trying to argue a point that would basically have prevented it just seems...poor taste.

SpacemanSpiff, 1 year ago

Everything you’re talking is perception, friend. You chose to take my comment that way. The dev tools were being worked on long before this post.

As I said before, I’m not making this up, the phenomenon is studied and the effect is proven.

slicedcheesegremlin, 1 year ago

The biggest thing im afraid of happening to Kbin/the lemmyverse is that it will end up like Ruqqus, especially now that it seems to be swamped with trolls.

grahamsz, 1 year ago

I expect that instances will get more locked down, perhaps those of us on an instance can vouch for new users who might join, but I can't see how a volunteer admin could police a million user instance. I used to run a 10k user discussion site and while that wasn't a fulltime job it was still a giant pain in the ass at times. If we can get in a steady state where an instance has a core of active posters and lurkers then that seems better than infinite growth.

That then surely leads to federated instances that each represent the tolerances of their admin(s) and they presumably federate or not with other instances with similar sensibilities.

In the end the nazis will get their nazi instance and federate with likeminded types - they get defederated everywhere else and wont really be a problem (maybe for the FBI). (Though I'm not certain that all internet nazis truly are, i think there a group of trolls that get their kicks from being controversial and will get no joy by being surrounded by people who accept them)

The problems are going to be in the gray areas. For example, the argument that trans people don't deserve to exist... I find that abhorrent, but there are people who will happily say that on TV, and there are CEOs of $44B social networks that appear to agree. Some instances will tolerate that on the grounds of free speech and others will not, then the admins are left trying to decide what's grounds for defederation.

However in my limited experience, the thing that kills projects like this is too much navel gazing. There will always be some trolling and noise, but if the remaining users expend all their energy talking about it then the whole thing collapses in on itself. I feel like this is starting to happen on reddit where lots of subs are consumed by meta, but the best thing we can do here is get out and create active communities.

rastilin, 1 year ago

The problem is that by that point it will have grown beyond manageability. You know the "Nazi bar" saying.

There's a bunch of people (who are Nazis) and they seem cool, quiet, well spoken, just having a drink. And they bring their friends and those guys are cool too. Then those guys bring their friends and those guys are less cool and now normal people don't drink at the bar anymore and you look around and it's a Nazi bar and you can't make them leave or they'll start causing "problems". So. I'm all for just using the brutal hammer of censorship.

It's not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was.

genoxidedev1, 1 year ago

Hate speech is not part of free speech anyways. Fuck nazis. Everyone that gets offended by that can get fucked as well.

AshDene, 1 year ago

It depends on your definition of free speech, the US constitution does consider it part of free speech.

The US constitution also considers free speech a right that protect a websites right not to repeat hate speech, not a users "right" to force a website to host their speech. In the constitutions view of the world free speech is protection against the government, not a tool to force other people to host your speech.

genoxidedev1, 1 year ago

I really do not care about your constitution. I'm from Germany not the US.

'"Germany places strict limits on speech and expression when it comes to right-wing extremism" or anything reminiscent of Nazism. Hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity also is banned in Germany.'

And I think this is the way all countries should handle it. No need to defend people promoting hate speech by debating me or your definition of free speach, I do not adhere by it.

Edit: I will wear 10A(ssholes') downvote as a badge of honor, thank you!

AshDene, 1 year ago

I'm actually not from the US, I was just giving it as an example because it is the most famous one that unequivocally does include it.

What I'm really saying is "free speech" isn't really one thing. It means different things in different contexts. For instance the breadth of "free speech" you should allow in what you promise to repeat (that's what hosting something is) is much smaller than the breadth of "free speech" that you should not think less of someone for saying is in turn much smaller than the breadth of "free speech" that you should not wield the power of government to punish. And people legitimately disagree on where each of those boundaries lie.

I do think I missed the mark with the comment you replied to rereading it. I raised it because when someone says "It's not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was" they are using the american republican-troll's definition of free speech that means "anything but child porn", and I think your reply was misunderstanding their comment as a result. But I don't think I successfully conveyed my point.

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

Everything else aside, how you gonna say you don't care about the US Constitution and then bring up the German Constitution? No one cares about that one either.

backseat, 1 year ago

What is the relevance of the US constitution? This is not a US platform.

updawg, 1 year ago

It depends on your definition of free speech

It's one definition that is different than the definition that had been provided in the parent comment.

albinanigans, 1 year ago

Appending:

Free speech also doesn't mean "freedom from consequences." And sometimes those include getting your shit deleted from a website or dragged up and down social media.

rastilin, 1 year ago

Something else that occurred to me. If someone posted something that was pro-woke in /r/conservative or on Parler or any of those other apps, they'd get banned immediately. "Free Speech" only seems to be a concern when it's right-wingers posting on left-leaning forums, never the reverse.

I think that taking the free speech argument at face value in the present day just means you're gullible.

magnetosphere, 1 year ago

I think hardcore conservatives simply don’t have an inherent sense of empathy. That’s why they don’t really care about the victims of a crime, disaster, etc. until it happens to them personally. They do not have the perspective to put themselves in another person’s shoes.

It’s NOT an intelligence issue. It’s easy to write people off as stupid, but that’s not the case. For them, being unable to think with empathy is as natural as being unable to see infrared light.

They’ve figured out that making themselves appear to be victims can sometimes make people listen, but they can’t fully explain why. That lack of understanding is why they don’t see the hypocrisy in banning people from their platforms, but then whining loudly when they’re treated the same way.

This is all just guesswork, but it’s the best explanation I’ve been able to come up with that doesn’t make my head explode.

genoxidedev1, 1 year ago

Cross out the "hardcore", lack of empathy is very much a core part of conservatism no matter which side of conservatism, social | fiscal, you lean into and by how much. If you're socially conservative you want every social aspect to stay as it is which proves inherently a lack of empathy. If you're fiscally conservative you want monetary value to stay as is (in terms of inflation and cost-cutting etc.) no matter whom it hurts (as long as it doesn't hurt you, of course).

Which is why I personally think it actually is (also) an intelligence issue, because the people that are not socially conservative and only fiscally conservative usually vote for the party of big government and military spending (R) which goes against anything fiscally conservative and as a "cool" side effect also proves to be detrimental to social values of different people and groups.

You probably know the quote by George Carlin, as its a told tale as old as day. I think the quote nicely illustrates the voting game in the US.

AshDene, 1 year ago

With the very rare exception, absolutely.

h34d, 1 year ago

Reminds me of a quote by Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels from 1935, after the Nazis took power:

“Wenn unsere Gegner sagen: Ja, wir haben Euch doch früher die […] Freiheit der Meinung zugebilligt – –, ja, Ihr uns, das ist doch kein Beweis, daß wir das Euch auch tuen sollen! […] Daß Ihr das uns gegeben habt, – das ist ja ein Beweis dafür, wie dumm Ihr seid!”

– source

Rough translation:

“When our enemies say: But we’ve granted you […] freedom of opinion back in the day – –, well, yes, you granted it to us, but that is no proof that we should do likewise! […] The fact that you granted it to us, – that is only proof for how stupid you are!”

For fascists at least talking about freedom of speech and the like is just another tool they try to wield in their quest to gain power, nothing else.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

effingjoe, 1 year ago

You can't reason a person out of a stance they didn't reason themselves into.

For instance: How would you even begin to reason with someone that believes in demons? Where could any discussion even go if one side can waive away anything they don't agree with by claiming it is a trick from a demon?

aegisgfx877, 1 year ago

Just a general rule of thumb there little guy, when it comes to anything political if you find the nazis are on your side, you are on the wrong side.

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

Kumbaya

AnonTwo, 1 year ago

They want the bar for the traffic. They can start their own bar but the extreme nature of it deters people from even setting foot.

They want to sit in places that look neutral or even friendly.

SpacemanSpiff, 1 year ago

True, agreed. I’m only commenting on the idea that these people or groups shouldn’t get free advertising when people find them. These posts that are blasting their way to the top of “hot” just like a trending news article are counter-productive. On the Internet, which is fundamentally always at least partially an uncontrolled environment, it’s better take actions for these things that are as invisible as possible.

AnonTwo, 1 year ago

So here's my issue here.

This guy is clearly not a small issue. He's being as loud and obnoxious as possible.

If there's nothing in place to deal with one huge troublemaker, what's to stop a dozen who come to Kbin and start making hateful communities?

My concern at this point is that Kbin itself gets defederated because the other instances don't think it's taking moderation seriously.

SpacemanSpiff, 1 year ago

In what way is it a huge deal? In what way was it loud? (Until now)

This person had a handful of heavily downvoted posts and interactions so they never made it to the “hot” or “active” pages.

(Are we talking about the same person?)

If you take a poll of everyone in this thread I would bet almost everyone hadn’t seen these posts or heard of the username.

But now they have, with the help of this post.

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

You missed the whole point.

He said,

what's to stop a dozen who come to Kbin and start making hateful communities?

SpacemanSpiff, 1 year ago

That’s exactly my point. Even when there are better moderating tools and the site admins have time to delete magazines, they will still pop-up faster then you can stop them. No site on the internet has ever fully solved this issue.

Since that is the reality, by avoiding inadvertently promoting them before they’re removed, a site is much more efficient at managing the workload.

Posts like this can have the unintended consequence of spawning more trolls or objectionable actors, this can and does actually make the site management harder.

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

I think with better moderation tools, it's absolutely possible to silence hate speech. The modern sanitized internet has managed to do it with child porn, which was EVERYWHERE in the wild west days. It's possible with motivation.

Hate speech is profitable, so companies generally have a profit incentive to keep it around. The fediverse doesn't.

AshDene, 1 year ago

Speaking for myself I've seen both 10A and ps making these comments. 10A has managed to amass at least -2732 downvotes, ps -653, that's not a trivial amount of interaction. I came across an antiwoke post on the front page (I think just right after it was posted, so bad luck). And I'm holding off advocating people move to kbin until I see a moderating policy that results in banning them.

SpacemanSpiff, 1 year ago

It sounds like you were viewing the “new” tab?The hot/active tabs on Kbin wouldn’t receive that content so early. It will always be a wackamole game, no platform will ever succeed 100%. Once there are more advanced moderation tools, I would suggest silently removing objectionable content or users.

Also, I’ll have to disagree slightly, thats not a lot of interaction. This single post alone has over 300 upvotes since posted. The volume of either is simply an indication of how strongly people react.

AshDene, 1 year ago

It sounds like you were viewing the “new” tab?

I don't think so, but I couldn't swear to it.

thats not a lot of interaction

Probably we just have different thresholds for a lot. People seeing hate 3000 times on the platform seems like a lot to me.

TipRing, 1 year ago

Respectfully, I disagree. If you are running a bar and a nazi comes in with all their nazi periphranalia and orders a drink and behaves. You still kick them out. Because if you don't the next time they will bring all their nazi friends and it will be much harder to kick them out and then your other patrons stop showing up because of all the nazis around and now you are running a nazi bar.

Ban hate trolls. Ban them immediately. Because if that content festers on the site it will be much harder to ban later.

wahming, 1 year ago

Respectful Behavior

We expect all users to treat each other with respect and kindness. Harassment, hate speech, or any other form of harmful behavior will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to remove any content or user that violates these guidelines.

Isn't this standard for anywhere that doesn't want to end up as T_D or 4chan?

static, 1 year ago

The posts itself are not rulebreaking, but i could be wrong.
But the reply here is breaking the rules
https://kbin.social/m/antiwoke/t/101045/Time-to-reject-the-extreme-trans-lobby-harming-our-society

That's mostly the problem with those posts, while not rule breaking, they are hate magnets.

If the moderator refuses to properly moderate the comments this would be a proper reason for a ban.

AnonTwo, 1 year ago

Incidentally the person breaking the rules is making the biggest stir in this thread about not banning people.

Guy literally is advocating beating people to death as a good Christian moral while also trying to advocate he shouldn't be banned for it.

10A, 1 year ago

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.

jonion, 1 year ago

And these are the people who would lecture about prejudice... Nothing but prejudicial bad faith in this entire thread.

Being a filthy reactionary, I was really hoping that the fediverse could become something like the reddit of 10 years ago, but it seems like the dyed-in-the-wool redditors couldn't help but bring their intolerance with them.

Thank you for actually bothering to stand your ground. God bless.

AnonTwo, 1 year ago

The whole post was even more disgusting. Others are welcome to read it, Static linked it, but I stand by what I said.

If the devil did exist, he resides in your church, raising monsters.

wahming, 1 year ago

they are hate magnets.

And they were posted with the intent to be so. That suffices in my opinion. It's not the lone post itself, but the context of the magazine as a whole.

If the moderator refuses to properly moderate the comments

Yes, the mod of antiwoke is about to exercise proper judgement

smokinjoe, 1 year ago

What a fuckin psychopath.

AnonTwo, 1 year ago

I mean, one of those examples is

"Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society"

That is a global rule violation on most sites. Hate speech.

PenguinJuice, 1 year ago

Genuinely curious what is hateful about that? Rejecting something does not equal hate or I guess I need to file a claim against universities and friends who rejected me.

Ragnell, 1 year ago

"extreme trans lobby" is a conspiratorial misrepresentation of a group of people who would just like to live their lives.

PenguinJuice, 1 year ago

Source?

Aesthesiaphilia, 1 year ago

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Chcc_Ci36Vw&pp=ygUVZmVpc3Qgc2VhIGxpb24gd29tYW4g

AnonTwo, 1 year ago

Let me take one excerpt from that thread and I want you to ask that again

Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp, so it was extremely rare for anyone to think such behavior was acceptable.

And to summarize: He's basically advocating "good Christian morals" as being transphobic.

But also to the original post: It is wording the advocates for trans people as being extremists who are harming our society.

HopeOfTheGunblade, 1 year ago

Did they claim that you were harming society?

sadreality, 1 year ago

clowns always trying to censor somebody... hunting for some low level degenerate to turn him into "antihero"

these people can't seem to just enjoy a place with out starting a witch hunt

10A, 1 year ago

m/Clowns would like a word with you.

Balssh, 1 year ago

I disagree: better to kill the evil in its infancy, rather than let it spread and hope it goes away by its own.

albinanigans, 1 year ago

Nah, we're nipping this shit in the bud because the shitposting is only the Trojan horse.

This shit's already here. Now we gotta shine a light on it and deal with it.

VerifiablyMrWonka, 1 year ago

Ha, I blocked the worst offender in the comments here, refreshed the page and now there are like... 6.

10A, 1 year ago

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

rastilin, 1 year ago

Block them too. They're not going to engage in good faith anyway.

VerifiablyMrWonka, 1 year ago

Oh, no no. It was that I blocked one person and there were only 6 other comments left (all fine) :D

Blocking a person seems to remove any comment tree they're a branch in (i.e. their posts and all responses to those posts)

aegisgfx877, 1 year ago

Ive decided not to block him so I can follow him around annoying him and downvoting everything he says

10A, 1 year ago

<3

minnieo, 1 year ago

i disagree with him obviously, but this just makes us (the people opposing him) look bad, dont do that

FIST_FILLET, 1 year ago

plus, engaging with assholes usually just prompts them to continue being assholes. it's a lose-lose

HamSwagwich, 1 year ago

Ive decided not to block him so I can follow him around annoying him and downvoting everything he says

Perfect example of why voting should be public!

Blocking him is the right answer, it's the right thing to do and solves the problem of him presenting posts you don't want to see.