this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
11 points (82.4% liked)

Atheism

4089 readers
127 users here now

Community Guide

Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.

Statement of Purpose

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Inadvisable

Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!

Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Rhynoplaz
11
Is the Bible Hate Speech? (www.youtube.com)
submitted 1 year ago by ja2 to c/atheism
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

let's be clear that racism, misogyny and homophobia is not free speech and everybody knows that

I relate to her goal but the argument is a mess: "this is not free speech" is an arbitrary restriction, and she's pushing that restriction as a dogma ("everybody knows that", in that context, conveys "this is not up to debate because I say so").

A better way to handle this is to treat freedom of speech as a quantity, and seek the maximisation of the freedom of speech for all parties involved. Then it's easier to address the issue with hate discourses: even if someone's ability to utter a hate discourse increases that person's freedom of speech, they decrease the freedom of speech of the group whom the hate discourse is directed to, by a lot. As such, if you seek maximisation of freedom of speech, you need to restrict the ability to convey hate discourses.

Bonus points:

  • it forces you to take the impact of an utterance into account, before deciding "nope, you can't say this here";
  • it forces you to take context into account, as the same piece of discourse may cause different effects depending on where it is uttered;
  • it shows that it's more important to protect descriptive statements over prescriptive ones.

Now, on the Bible. Blue jacket guy asked "if I were to quote the Bible on Twitter should my account be banned?" - it depends on what you're quoting from the Bible, the impact of that into the audience, and what it conveys through that context.

If you're quoting it to show explicit support to homophobia, I think that you should be banned. If however you're quoting it as a historical curiosity, even the same excerpt should get a pass.

[โ€“] ja2 2 points 1 year ago

I agree that intent is more important than words. It's incredibly easy to be disingenuous, and impossible to prove. Influential people take that to the bank.