News and Discussions about Reddit
Welcome to !reddit. This is a community for all news and discussions about Reddit.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules
Rule 1- No brigading.
**You may not encourage brigading any communities or subreddits in any way. **
YSKs are about self-improvement on how to do things.
Rule 2- No illegal or NSFW or gore content.
**No illegal or NSFW or gore content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-Reddit posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
:::spoiler Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
view the rest of the comments
Since "free speech" is a dogwhistle, what should a hypothetical place actually interested in free speech as more than just a bigotry shield call what they're trying to do? Some place interested in allowing discussion of objectionable topics without bigotry?
Yes, whatever, those don't exist anywhere, you don't need to respond with that tidbit. Humor the hypothetical here.
Call it "Open Discussion". Make it clear that the purpose of the site is to allow for discussion from all walks of life and perspectives, but that it has to be actual civil discussion. Outright hatred and bigotry, as well as arguing in bad faith, aren't helpful or productive in an open discussion, and as such would be shunned and banned. This way, you can still have opinions that aren't "mainstream", but you won't be removed as long as you're civil and respectful about it. Doing this will attract people who are really interested in hearing other perspectives and sharing their own, instead of alt-right shitheads looking for another place to infest.
I mean, you sort of identified the problem, but still missed it. It isn't "mainstream" because we're taking about marginalized minority groups. It can only be seen as leaning mainstream because LGBTQ+ have a lot of allies that don't fall under that identity, but it still falls short of actually being mainstream and short of a supporting majority.
Think about the numbers this way; you have LGBTQ+ (or some other minority group), allies, "don't cares," "don't want to knows," and bigots. We think we know the bigots, those are the haters. What is surprising to most is that the "don't want to knows" are the biggest faction of bigots, although it is an indirect association.
A common transition for the "don't want to knows" is saying, "I'm tired of hearing from those Zorb snowflakes only, the other side should be heard as well -- free speech. We should have an open discussion."
This suggestion, while it sounds positive, enables those who want to troll and slander, and they get to do so behind anonymity and with the support of others. For the bigot which openly expresses a hatred for Zorbs and Narfs, they just been given an umbrella of protection under "free speech" to say hurtful things. -- Oh, blatant hate speech itself is still considered a violation of TOS? -- Good luck trying to moderate an influx of alt accounts which just stoke up the problem by saying, "The Zorbs and Narfs are taking over." "It might be an unpopular opinion, but non-Zorbs and Narfs need a voice too." "What Zorbs and Narfs practice is against the teachings of The Great Plunis." "Plunis said that the Zorbs and Narfs are immoral." "Zorbs and Narfs are stripping away our Constitutional rights." "Even taking about Zorbs and Narfs in our schools might trick our kids into supporting or even becoming Narfs themselves. Think of the kids."
Now telling a bigot that they can't offend others isn't hurting them. Giving them a platform where they can be safe to constantly etch away at human decency of marginalized groups is a platform too high, especially when it provides an opportunity to express their vile dislike of a group of people that are somehow different than them with a different perspective of the world.
So how about those Zorbs? From their perspective, anyone might be threatening to them and might want to cause them harm. How can a Narf recognize that someone else is a Zorb, a Narf, an ally, a "don't care," a "don't want to know," or an outright bigot? As a group of people already in a minority, they need safe spaces to find others they can identify with or who support them, so that they can openly discuss the social challenges they face daily. It isn't a debate, these are challenges and problems they gave daily. If a social forum which seemed to offer that sort of protected space suddenly changes their TOS in support of "free speech," and the maintainer of the site declares that they want to encourage discussion and multi-sided debate, that safe space has just been ransacked. Whereas the community they had joined was reserved for peers and allies, that may no longer be the case and those bigots can still be threatening even if they don't come out and directly say "I hate you."
There aren't two sides to an "I am a Zorb," and "I can't stand Zorbs" debate. It isn't the same as one side saying "I like tomatoes," and another side saying "tomatoes are disgusting," it is more like the debate about being Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life... It isn't as though the Pro-Choice folks are Anti-Life, but the Pro-Life folks are very much Anti-Choice. The sides of the debate can't even agree about what they are against.
So, as an ally, and someone who really liked squabbles.io a month ago, because it felt like a positive community, I'm disgusted with the changes made this past week. As far as I'm concerned, squabbles.io should have replaced their logo as they did, but they should have replaced Bort with a giant red tomato, to really emphasize how vile and disgusting the site has become.
This is Dr. King's White Moderate all over again.
How about hate free (tm) free speech
Or "I can't believe its not bigotry"
Oh God I Wish it Were Bigotry!, now available in an App Store near you.
Frankly I'm just wondering how we let "free speech" become a dogwhistle. Is water in a bottle a dogwhistle because trump drank one one time on video (with two hands, remember that scandal?) Is coffee a dogwhistle because racist people also drink coffee? Not everything is a "dogwhistle" nor should it be considered as such simply because the words "free speech platform" are used instead of "non-censorious communication service." Tipper Gore and her Moral Majority have been fighting free speech since Jello Biafra used an H. R. Geiger painting on a record insert she bought her kid, I've been complaining about censorship since she got "Parental Advisory" slapped on CDs limiting my ability to sneak music past my overbearing mother as a child (mostly seditious music, anto-religious music, or music by POC, mind you, which is racism), I've been bitching about radio beeps and edits since I can remember, free speech has always been a highly regarded value of mine and I'm not going to let those people steal it or their enemies bully me out of supporting it.
It's because shit-heads love to hide behind objectively good ideals. They want to deflect criticism of what they're saying or doing into criticism of the ideal. "Oh, you hate free speech!?"
It's coded language in the right context -- "free speech platform" with a wink and a nod.
See also: "Patriot", "protecting children", "thugs", etc.
One can "not hate free speech" while also "hating what you are saying." These are two separate things, it's like saying "I like soda, but I don't like pepsi." There are other sodas, and there are other "things to say" besides racism. In this instance, tell the hypothetical person you're talking to who said "oh you hate free speech," "No, I'm all for free speech, and I'm also for freedom of association. I don't like what you speak about, so I choose not to associate with you."
Sure, in this context maybe it is a wink and a nod, but saying "free speech is a dogwhistle" and insinuating every free speech activist since Jello "Nazi Punks Fuck Off" Biafra is actually a secret right winger is patently ridiculous and it is a trend I've been noticing recently, and I will exercise my right to free speech to criticize the practice as you are free to ironically exercise your right to free speech by asserting that free speech is actually a dogwhistle.
To your see alsos:
"Patriot" and "Thug" I'll give you, but "Protecting children" isn't a "dogwhistle," it is a manipulation tactic and it is used by all sides everywhere. Every time I hear it for any reason I am immediately suspicious of one's motives. It is unsurprisingly effective on parents too, but since I'm not one and don't want kids I have a pretty good immunity to it.
It's not complicated. Today if someone uses the term "Free Speech" the vast vast majority of the time they are talking about being able to say shitty things without consequences. The remainder are mostly people who misconstrue Free Speech as something that applies to non-governmental entities and finally actual real cases that get settled in court.
It's hard to find a name because nowadays people often use terms like 'bigotry', 'hate speech' and 'bad faith' to refer to anything they don't like so they can shut down discussions.
A forum? (Online this means a specific type of website architecture though, so idk.)
You don't need to label it. The vast majority of the internet will allow anyone acting in good faith to discuss their ideas. Every single time someone complains about being muted/silences/shadow-banned etc you can bet they subscribe to right-wing ideology using dog whistles or other hateful rhetoric. I was never banned anywhere for being Pro-Hillary instead of Pro-Bernie. I was downvoted sure, but that's everyone elses prerogative. I wasn't silences because some of my posts were hidden due to it. It's asinine to claim that, and that's what these people are whining about.