Asklemmy

43958 readers

1144 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Should I join "free speech" alternatives? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

96 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hello! I've been searching for a reddit alternative, and yes, I've picked Lemmy and Raddle, but here's the thing. My morbid curiosity is perked up, and a part of me wants to join the "free speech" alternatives, like Saidit, Poal, etc. What's wrong with me that I want to join toxic places? I mean, yes I'll find a whole new perspective (albeit wrong), on political topics, but a part of me wants to be the antagonist, and post lefty memes, and music with a left-leaning message (bands from r/rabm) I know that's like kicking the hornet's nest, so you don't need to start in with "that's a bad idea" I know it is. My main point/question is, is it wrong to join a site with potential hate speech? Does it make someone a bad person?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

People just don't understand. Because society prohibits exhibitions of hatred, those are most likely to seek out places that do allow it. The desired "freedom" aspect of society-free judgement is why you encounter them more often in these type of forums. And when you got there to "repress" them, it's seen as the claws of society invading one of the few avenues that allow venting their frustrations.

Think of it like this, everywhere you go there's rules, rules, rules! You're stuck doing a job you don't like to pay bills that keep growing, having to play nice with people you barely get along with 5 to 7 days a week and only an online forum to let you vent off your stress. But then some bozo shows up and yells "no, you can't do that!". Wouldn't that just make you angry?

This isn't about the correct thing to vent about, it's about being allowed to vent. When you tell someone they're not allowed to do something because it's bad, it usually comes off as taking away their sense of agency, and that just makes them more hateful.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Maybe it's just my way of thinking, but if someone says "you can't do that" I usually stop doing that and shut down, because it's not allowed. I have autism, so that my play a role in it, but my go to response is to just shut down usually and stop doing that thing or avoid it all together.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Most people do stop doing that as well. However, a tiny bit of resentment from being disallowed also takes root. More so when they believe it's unjust. And if they encounter more and more of "can't do this, can't do that", that resentment grows into something ugly. That ugliness doesn't care if it's right or wrong, it only sees oppression and develops into hatred. Which eventually turns into violence.

It ain't right, but it's how we're built. We usually see in 1st person and can't fathom what it's like to be on the other side.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Paradox of tolerance

r/TalesFromYourServer: Kicking a Nazi out as soon as they walk in

I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out."

And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed

Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them."

And i was like, ohok and he continues.

"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.

And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.

And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."

And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

I understand that, I really do. However, what if you change nazi memorabilia with LGBT+ stuff? Is the bartender still correct in doing so?

Or change the LGBT+ stuff to any kind of recognizable symbols of a certain group. Is it still the paradox of tolerance or is it now the paradox of intolerance? Note that this isn't something leading. I am asking as a question that I don't know the answer to.

I know that some groups shouldn't be tolerated in a society they want to destroy. But here's the thing, we can't not live with them. If we as a society, destroy or segregate groups of a defining nature, don't we become exactly that which we claim to prevent? And once this type of action starts, can we be sure it will stop there? Who will be the judge, how will they enforce it and for whom?

Anyway, I understand the tale and it's the bartender's right to do so.