this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
831 points (96.9% liked)
Comics
6165 readers
203 users here now
This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.
Rules:
1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules
2- Be civil.
3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.
4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine π΅πΈ . Zionists will be banned on sight.
5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.
Guidelines:
- If possible, give us your sources.
- If possible, credit creators of each comics in the title or body of your post. If you are the creator, please credit yourself. A simple β- Meβ would suffice.
- In general terms, write in body of your post as much information as possible (dates, creators, editors, links).
- If you found the image on the web, it is encouraged to put the direct link to the image in the βLinkβ field when creating a post, instead of uploading the image to Lemmy. Direct links usually end in .jpg, .png, etc.
- One post by topic.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But hate speech is never good, is it?
I think itβs easier to have to position that absolute free speech is the best solution if you are not part of a minority group who is the target of hate speech. (Not saying you arenβt)
The definition is tricky and if such law should exist it should have a good margin from being used for arbitrary βI was offendedβ type of offenses.
I donβt think prison, as you suggested, is a reasonable consequence either.
The repercussion to bad speech and ideas is inherent to the current paradigm of the internet: downvotes and ostracization.
Maybe they will wind up on their own forum saying despicable shit, but they were probably going to do that anyway. Bad ideas love a vacuum away from prying eyes and outsiders.
Yes, absolutely. We should all be concerned with the source of our ideas and even our memes, as dumb of a concept as that is.
What is hate speech?
Stuff like "gay people are unnatural and should be corrected" and "drag queens/trans people/[insert bogeyman here] are pedophiles coming for our children" and "n***ers oughta be whipped"
My point is that it's a moving target that will be abused. The government should not and thankfully cannot regulate speech based on the grounds of "hate". Hate is also not illegal. (At least in the US)
For example, Christians are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin. Homosexuality, drag queens, transgenderism are sins in Christianity. With your new law Christians are now censored because their worldview disagrees with yours.
Whoever has the right to define that term has immense power and that power will be abused just like the other labels in the meme.
They aren't censored for believing those things are sinful. They're being punished for trying to enforce their views on what a person should be on people who aren't them. The minute I start having to care about what the Christian sitting next to me thinks is sinful because he might hurt me if I don't, he loses the right to free speech, you get me?
Not if he's just arguing with you in a way that outwardly appears calm, even if a little shocked or disgusted.
As long as I get to tell him just as calmly to fuck off and leave me alone, and he does, we're good.
I believe in trying to enact compassion and peace. Most people are actually very similar and don't want to be bothered by angry people.
I beg to differ. Some people want to be trans. Some people think being trans is unnatural and should therefore be illegal. There can be no halfway compromise on these issues. There can be no reminding people "hey, we're all human, why can't we just get along" when one group wants another to stop existing.
I agree there, but the ultimate hope would be that we could just calmly remind them to get along. I think assuming you can is the best way to live in a civilised society.
I have just demonstrated why we cannot. Did you listen to a single word I said?
Are you sure you're not an LLM?
I don't see how you demonstrated why we can't.
As for whether I'm an LLM, I'm probably not able to convince anyone either way. That means we're close to the technological singularity. Many scholars and academics can speak similarly to me and make semi-decent arguments about technical topics.
That's only because you're high as a kite right now, dude. LLMs and humans are very easy to tell apart, because LLMs are orders of magnitude less intelligent. Ask an LLM to visualize something or solve a simple puzzle it hasn't read about before, it can't. Ask an LLM (heck, ask most Lemmings) to have an intellectual conversation like you and I had yesterday, they can't. The reason everyone is calling you an LLM now isn't because LLMs have gotten smarter, it's because drugs brought your intelligence down to their level.
Seriously, the stream of incoherent posts you've made in the last hour is the best argument I've yet heard against doing drugs. What kills me is you'll probably think you sounded smart when you come down, too.
I'm not smoking any weed right now.
You just assume I'm dumber than you based on your own internal logical rules, which are likely in turn based on Newton's Laws of Motion.
Did you get any dental surgery recently?
Looking at his comment history, it looks likely he is currently experiencing a schizophrenic episode. Like, not even joking or trying to be mean, just appears to be the case :(
While not pacifistic Christianity is non-violent. If someone claims to be a Christian and beats up a homosexual for "no reason" then they are sinning. This, also, is completely irrelevant to the argument I was making.
Everyone tries to enforce their views. You, I assume, want to enforce your world view of radical tolerance for [issue here] at the expense of someone elses ability to criticize it. Your neighbor might want to define hate speech as anything that violates Sharia law.
What we have now (which is no restriction on hate speech) is actually the best policy.
If that's how you want to define the opinion that people shouldn't be thrown in jail for providing abortions or gender affirming care, or that Tucker Carlson shouldn't be allowed to go on TV and tell his followers that all drag queens are pedophiles, then so be it.
Sin is whatever. You can believe that all gays are going to go to turbo-hell, you can tell all your facebook friends, you can say you feel pity for us, I don't care. As long as I'm allowed to live my life however I want, and you don't come into my face and tell me not to, we're good. But your right to swing your arms stops at my face. As soon as you start codifying your opinions into law, or advocating for violence against people who ~~hold different beliefs than you~~ live their lives in a way contrary to your religion (which strangely only seems to come from people who self-identify as being on the right), we're gonna have a problem.
This is (mostly) a different point and I'm not going to engage with it. Suffice it to say that hate speech isn't a slippery slope it's the bottom of the mountain. If such a policy is ever enacted it will be abused and used to persecute people.
I agree that censorship is evil. I disagree that people being banned from internet forums because of opinions they hold is censorship.
You're just redefining terms. It's the same thing. If Twitter or Lemmy wants to block those things that's fine. I would agree that social networks should try to maintain some sense of decency on their platforms. The government shouldn't be involved though.
Sounds like we agree then.
π
Yeah, fair, definition can be hard. But to give an example that I think is pretty clear cut: people standing outside of a mosque/synagogue/church arguing that those [certain people] deserve to be dead or put in labor camp.
You could argue that those are just words, and be correct, but for the individuals that are targeted itβs not just words. They know for a fact that those words and ideologies do turn in to actions.
I think itβs easier to have to position that absolute free speech is the best solution if you are not part of a minority group who is the target of hate speech.
That only really applies to specific threats like that though, rather than just saying you personally think certain ideologies are morally wrong.
Of course I have. Because it was declassified. And that means it's no longer a conspiracy theory.
Tell me with a straight face that you have never even thought about blocking a single other social media user. Tell me you think troll comments like "What's a major turn off when dating?" "If she's black" should not be removed by moderators.
Every ounce of energy a person spends watching their back, making sure their fellow man isn't out to get them, hardening their armor against the thousands of people trying to find a chink, find the one thing they can say that gets them to have a mental breakdown just because they think it's funny watching them have a mental breakdown, is an ounce of energy they don't spend creating, caring for each other, making the life of their fellow man just that little bit better, and unapologetically being themselves.
But if you're so insistent that words on a screen can't affect you unless you let them, Mr. Forumite, I guess you won't mind if I end this conversation by telling you to go to the hardware store and buy a rope and a bucket, providing exhaustive instructions for how to tie a noose, and telling you to end your worthless life before you ruin anyone else's, because your parents clearly never loved you and there's no way anyone else who's sane ever will.
So you believe that, since there are a large number of people who can be easily manipulated by words into believing or doing certain things, and there likely always will be, words may as well inherently have power and we should be careful with how we use them, but you simultaneously believe that the solution to this is just to make everyone grow thicker skin?
For the record, though, I don't believe anyone should kill themselves, or anything that I said about you personally in the second paragraph. Quite the opposite, in fact. I only said that to make the point that "just words on a screen" can do horrible things to the right people, which I'm glad you seem to understand.
The fact that this is not the case is why forums need moderation. Very rarely, I find, do people engage in good faith when a more emotionally satisfying alternative is available. People troll. People argue in bad faith. People deliberately try to get each other riled up and post misinformation (by which I mean statements that can be disproved by a single Google search) in the hopes that those who see it will be too lazy to check. People take one of those misinformation posts saying something they already agree with as irrefutable proof that it is true and refuse to listen to reason.
I agree that whether any given post constitutes some of the above is much more often than not a matter of personal opinion, and that therefore people who can be trusted to decide accurately every single time are rare indeed if they truly exist at all. That said, anyone who's ever browsed 4chan for a while can plainly see that removing nothing does much more harm than good, especially in forums that discuss topics commonly frequented by people who are vulnerable and therefore easy to manipulate (forums discussing trans issues immediately come to mind).
I personally would MUCH rather use a forum moderated by an imperfect human whose heart is in the right place than a forum with no moderators whatsoever. The beautiful thing about the Internet, though, is that we do not all have to agree on which is best. Some forums are moderated, some are not, and we can use one or the other or both as we choose.
I'm just going to throw in a bit at the end of this thread here, as I find the conversation fascinating.
This is how fascism starts. "We have to control speech for your own good" becomes "hateful speech come from [insert group]" becomes "we have to stop them."
We are all being weaponized by the internet. Free speech is important. You don't fight fascism with more fascism, you fight it with better ideas.