If you have anything on the site, the admins who were just kicked for not agreeing with his right-wing views say to delete your account to delete all content. It's been a point of contention that...
If you have anything on the site, the admins who were just kicked for not agreeing with his right-wing views say to delete your account to delete all content.
It's been a point of contention that he won't support gay rights and looking back, the fire was always burning, but he just unmasked completely. He also let a known Alt-Right guy who might currently be investigated for J6 ties stay on the site.
I think it's one thing to not actively support gay rights, which is his choice (that I disagree with, but still), and a completely different thing to post a giant dog whistle with flashing lights...
I think it's one thing to not actively support gay rights, which is his choice (that I disagree with, but still), and a completely different thing to post a giant dog whistle with flashing lights all over it (so that hearing impaired horrible people can also join the party) in the form of proclaiming that your site is now a "free speech platform"...
Horribly disappointed by this - I was starting to feel at home there, and now I don't anymore. I'm not in the US and I'm a white heterosexual male, so this does not affect me in any way directly, but I don't want to support or associate with that site anymore - it feels icky now :(
Edit: as pointed out, my wording was not clear: added actively to the first sentence to avoid misunderstandings.
That is not a "choice" , you cant just go around telling some other humans that they dont matter. Allowing that to be a "choice" just helps fascism fester. It will never be a choice. Every human...
Exemplary
i think it's one thing to not support gay rights, which is his choice
That is not a "choice" , you cant just go around telling some other humans that they dont matter. Allowing that to be a "choice" just helps fascism fester.
It will never be a choice. Every human has equal rights to exist: "gay rights" goes beyond just marriage. For many of us in lgbt umbrella its just about existing.
Perhaps an unfortunate word choice on my part, but what I was trying to say is he is indeed free to hold any awful idea he wants to, on a personal level. I strongly disagree with anyone holding...
Perhaps an unfortunate word choice on my part, but what I was trying to say is he is indeed free to hold any awful idea he wants to, on a personal level. I strongly disagree with anyone holding particular ideas I consider awful and avoid associating with such people, but unless we criminalize thoughts there's very little that can be done.
What I consider much more problematic, is what he DID - using a commonly known dog whistle like that is hard to excuse. Seems he is already reaping the fruits of it, with multiple users leaving, so hopefully he learns his lesson, but I don't think I'll be there to witness it...
No problem at all! We all have those - I imagine I'd be pretty distressed if I had to, say, try to explain my atheism to a religious zealot who wants to send me to hell by cutting my head off, and...
No problem at all! We all have those - I imagine I'd be pretty distressed if I had to, say, try to explain my atheism to a religious zealot who wants to send me to hell by cutting my head off, and if someone assumed that we can have any sort of reasonable discussion about it, so I definitely see your point.
Maybe this is a language thing, but I understood as what /u/doctortofu said as "not actively support XYZ", as in, go out into the streets to protest and stuff. That's fine. Plenty people do not....
Maybe this is a language thing, but I understood as what /u/doctortofu said as "not actively support XYZ", as in, go out into the streets to protest and stuff.
That's fine. Plenty people do not. For any number of reasons about any number of topics. For example I don't currently protest climate issues, but frankly I would not know how to mentally add that to my life, too. Just no headspace to even consider something that important.
That's how I understood it at last.
You are of course correct that outside of an individual's decision to actively work towards (or against, if we're talking say BP or Bayer) something there is really no choice there. And I might have misunderstood it anyways, English is not my native language.
I think one user in that thread summed it up well by saying "Free speech is free speech. Proclamations around free speech, though, are, in our present time, dog whistles." Seems like nowadays,...
I think one user in that thread summed it up well by saying "Free speech is free speech. Proclamations around free speech, though, are, in our present time, dog whistles."
Seems like nowadays, whenever someone goes on and on about free speech, you know exactly the kind of speech they want to speak.
Being one of the former sitemods/admin: I'm highly doubtful that the dev realises how much of a dog whistle "free speech" was and, like many things brought to his attention, if the definition or...
Exemplary
Being one of the former sitemods/admin: I'm highly doubtful that the dev realises how much of a dog whistle "free speech" was and, like many things brought to his attention, if the definition or explanation did not mesh with his original understanding, then he would disregard it. It was evident in many discussions with us, and with those who supported the site, eg, through running news bots with his permission, that he [edit]was not that[/edit] familiar with contemporary political and social issues. He doesn't read much news outside tech sites, and he wasn't paying much attention to conversations about what makes a "good" social media platform.
This is the second most valuable comment I have read in this thread. I have a top level comment posted way below. I wrote that the situation could be seen as a coder wanting to be left alone to...
This is the second most valuable comment I have read in this thread.
I have a top level comment posted way below. I wrote that the situation could be seen as a coder wanting to be left alone to code. Being bothered with requests to moderate users he did the logical thing by changing his rules so people wouldn't have a reason to contact him, being obtuse as to what that looked like to people and that "free speech site" is a dog whistle.
Your comment seems to support the idea that a large part of this situation is simple ignorance his part.
Given things other people have told me about his views I would disinterest in learning.
I do wonder why he hasn't made a post along the lines "I didn't realize I was using a dog whistle".
In any event, you helped me a lot of squabblr. I'm sorry you got treated so poorly. Nice to have you hear.
Complete speculation, but you kinda gave the answer yourself: He couldn't be assed. When people told him how it looked, he decided that it didn't have merit, because then he wouldn't have to...
I do wonder why he hasn't made a post along the lines "I didn't realize I was using a dog whistle".
Complete speculation, but you kinda gave the answer yourself:
I wrote that the situation could be seen as a coder wanting to be left alone to code.
He couldn't be assed. When people told him how it looked, he decided that it didn't have merit, because then he wouldn't have to intervene further. The trash is taking itself out; all those meddlesome folks who demand he moderate things he didn't think need moderating will just bug out and he can code for people who appreciate his work.
He originally called it "Squabbles." Once he said that he wished things were more "spicy." Another way of looking at this is that we made a safe, positive, friendly place & that wasn't...
He originally called it "Squabbles." Once he said that he wished things were more "spicy."
Another way of looking at this is that we made a safe, positive, friendly place & that wasn't entertaining enough for him, so he made a point of stirring things up.
I think this is a self fulfilling prophecy. I think it's an extremely important part of society and being handled atrociously from all angles right now, but I got tired of being called a racist...
I think this is a self fulfilling prophecy. I think it's an extremely important part of society and being handled atrociously from all angles right now, but I got tired of being called a racist and a bigot for trying to discuss it. I'm hardly the only one. The whole problem with these 3rd rail approaches to subjects is it forces anyone trying to have a normal discussion out.
It's such a shame. I'm not really a content contributor but I loved all the memes and community. I like Tildes for what it is, but I also really enjoy images and memes. I don't suppose you're...
It's such a shame. I'm not really a content contributor but I loved all the memes and community.
I like Tildes for what it is, but I also really enjoy images and memes. I don't suppose you're headed somewhere else in particular for those after this disaster?
A very short while ago that was the story with reddit and squabbler. Same shit, different day. Reincarnation. Maybe the thing to do is to try to leave the cycle of samsara altogether.
A significant number have migrated to discuit.net, the front page there has been almost entirely taken over by talk of it.
A very short while ago that was the story with reddit and squabbler.
Same shit, different day. Reincarnation.
Maybe the thing to do is to try to leave the cycle of samsara altogether.
For me personally, I just want to find a place where I feel comfortable sharing my art and advertising it (I don't want to do that here because it doesn't make sense and wouldn't be the right...
For me personally, I just want to find a place where I feel comfortable sharing my art and advertising it (I don't want to do that here because it doesn't make sense and wouldn't be the right place for it anyway).
I love the discussion and education I get here, but I wanted a place to be silly, and possibly sell my coloring book or my stickers, too. Squabbles offered that at first, but now it seems like much wasted time.
I do have a mastodon account. I just rarely post to it, or ever even really go to the app. It's the same with threads. I have one for my Disney account that goes with my Disney art instagram, but...
I do have a mastodon account. I just rarely post to it, or ever even really go to the app. It's the same with threads. I have one for my Disney account that goes with my Disney art instagram, but I don't really use it much at all.
And leaving one social platform and joining another isn't literal reincarnation. There's a certain irony that you're making this point on the site that many people joined because they were sick of...
And leaving one social platform and joining another isn't literal reincarnation. There's a certain irony that you're making this point on the site that many people joined because they were sick of Reddit.
Hopefully not. All hail our benevolent overlord, @Deimos! I think that the invite feature + users being tied to their inviter helps to keep things civil. It's not easy for outsiders to spin up...
Tildes.net could just be another life cycle, just in a different stage.
Hopefully not. All hail our benevolent overlord, @Deimos!
I think that the invite feature + users being tied to their inviter helps to keep things civil. It's not easy for outsiders to spin up troll accounts since the root troll account and all its branch and leaf troll accounts can be easily quashed.
This is going to be an extremely unpopular opinion here, but I think the existence of a singular benevolent overload all but guarantees an eventual downward spiral. With a few exceptions, I like...
This is going to be an extremely unpopular opinion here, but I think the existence of a singular benevolent overload all but guarantees an eventual downward spiral. With a few exceptions, I like the site as it is now, though I wish it were much bigger. But with one person making all the major decisions, that could change literally overnight. That person could change and decide to change the site or something could happen to that one person and control over the site could pass to someone else with less "benevolence". But even without those, one person is still going to be as fallible as the rest of us. Perhaps a series of mistakes unravel the whole thing. Who knows.
Lots of things are possible. The existence of a defined mission statement and philosophy as defined here https://tildes.net/~tildes.official/wiki/philosophy/index, and here...
I've read both of those documents a couple of different times, and I think they are great in a lot of ways. But that actually highlights exactly what I am saying. With one benevolent overlord...
I've read both of those documents a couple of different times, and I think they are great in a lot of ways. But that actually highlights exactly what I am saying. With one benevolent overlord controlling everything, there is nothing preventing those documents from being edited, changed, or entirely deleted at any moment. Centralized power is always going to be the subject of one persons whims by definition, and that's the problem.
First of all, not having a formal succession plan for the site and its community is a choice I disagree with although the site claims to still be in alpha and is run on volunteer part time labor...
First of all, not having a formal succession plan for the site and its community is a choice I disagree with although the site claims to still be in alpha and is run on volunteer part time labor including Deimos. Also you raise a good point that it might be good to have some barrier to simply rewriting the docs. There was this discussion. https://tildes.net/~tildes/17ez/tildes_constitution
Centralized power also has efficiencies and allows for clear specific direction and policy choices. (a dynamic that people smarter and more specialized than me have studied).
Everything has cost and benefits, but leadership is frequently centralized in society because some things about that just work when they work well and managing by committee can be cumbersome. Also, comparable to the founder of a pub or coffee shop, he built it and we benefit and we are also free to stop using whenever.
Something that I have seen mentioned by experts is that leadership can be differentiated by whether leaders stay aware of the opinions and experience of group members and whether they incorporate feedback into policy choices in a responsive way. So the difference between a tribal leader and an emperor.
It's all about costs and benefits for leadership and group members. Like Camelot, not everything good or inspiring lasts forever. But I am comfy here and I kind of hope Tildes survives, thrives and grows.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that. Centralized leadership can have its advantages in certain situations. But I don't think it's the best leadership structure for an internet forum. Especially...
I'm not disagreeing with any of that. Centralized leadership can have its advantages in certain situations. But I don't think it's the best leadership structure for an internet forum. Especially not one that has any hope for growth and evolution. I also like tildes, as evidenced by the fact that I'm here, and I hope it survives and thrives. I'm not even trying to suggest that it won't. I'm merely saying that if it does, it will be in spite of its command structure, not because of it.
No obligation, but would you mind saying more about why you don't think it's a good choice? Aside from the obvious fact that we are all balancing costs and benefits of existing organizations as we...
No obligation, but would you mind saying more about why you don't think it's a good choice? Aside from the obvious fact that we are all balancing costs and benefits of existing organizations as we choose where to engage, I find the coffeeshop or pub metaphor pretty persuasive. But I'm open to learning more if you are willing to share.
I mean, I think I've pretty well covered why I don't think it's a good choice. If you like a thing the way it is now, then ideally you would want the most barriers in place to changing it. A power...
I mean, I think I've pretty well covered why I don't think it's a good choice. If you like a thing the way it is now, then ideally you would want the most barriers in place to changing it. A power structure that hinges on a single person is the opposite of that. As long as your views align with theirs, everything is great. But if the one person in charge changes their mind, there is nothing to stop them from making drastic changes.
I actually think the coffee shop metaphor is apt, but I don't think it illustrates what you're intending. If someone owns a local coffee shop you like, there is nothing to stop the owner from turning it into a pub overnight. You, presumably, didn't want a pub, you wanted a coffee shop. And there is nothing to stop you from finding a new coffee shop. And that's all well and good. But from the point of view of the continuity of the coffee shop, that's bad. Because it's gone now, turned into something different that appeals to different people based on the whim of one person.
Don't give imgur money. Their take down of nsfw content is aligned with and part of reddit's attack on nsfw content and by extension LGBTQ+ and Sex Workers.
Don't give imgur money. Their take down of nsfw content is aligned with and part of reddit's attack on nsfw content and by extension LGBTQ+ and Sex Workers.
Others already disputed this, but didn't mention a key point that I think matters to this specific content. NSFW content is extremely difficult to manage in a way that isn't like any other...
Exemplary
Their take down of nsfw content is aligned with and part of reddit's attack on nsfw content and by extension LGBTQ+ and Sex Workers.
Others already disputed this, but didn't mention a key point that I think matters to this specific content.
NSFW content is extremely difficult to manage in a way that isn't like any other content. From both a human perspective and a legal perspective.
Think about the difference in just an ordinary picture of a regular clothed person and an unclothed person and the possible legal and moral issues that people might find with those pictures. In the case of a picture of an unidentified clothed person, the issues might be copyright, which is not necessarily unique to this picture but practically all pictures can have potential copyright issues. A picture of the beach could have a copyright issue. The next issue is privacy like potentially personal information within the picture or being able to identify the person and their location etc. which is somewhat unique but also not because a picture of a piece of paper could have privacy issues depending on what information on the paper might be visible.
Then there's also the element of legality of what is happening in the picture. To what extent do you have to exercise judgement about legality of a picture of any content that doesn't contain nudity? For example, if it's a picture of someone working in a factory, from a site administration perspective, you probably don't need to really concern yourself whether or not the person looks like they're being coerced to work in the factory or if they were forced to work in the factory or if they consented to having their picture taken or having the picture shared etc. because humans and the law don't treat these kinds of situations the same as anything that revolves around sexuality. There's not really such a thing as revenge posting a picture of someone sewing for example, because sewing is innocuous, there's no social consequence to sewing. To some extent, there's also not really the same concern around the age of who is depicted in such a scenario either, because there's culturally, socially, and legally there's not necessarily anything wrong with a 5 year old sewing, even though there is the possibility that its a 5 year old being forced into slave labor it again isn't necessarily the same penalty to hosting such an image as it is when there is nudity. Basically all of this applies to videos as well obviously.
Outside of nudity, other content that brings such scrutiny is maybe violence, up to and including people dying or being killed, but the line drawn for those in some ways is clearer. There's few if any places where you can legally, morally or socially acceptably consent to being killed. Something can be fake, like in movies someone shooting someone else isn't a snuff film because it's not real, so that introduces some difficulty in drawing lines with depictions of violence but it usually isn't that difficult, whereas with nudity or sexual content the differences between something being bad or illegal can in some cases be a lot less clear from something that was consensual. From a site administration perspective, being able to draw a clear line of no NSFW/nudity content can probably make a world of difference in ease of administration. In that way, I don't see how you can view it as an attack if someone or some organization decides such a highly burdensome content isn't something they want to continue administrating.
Thank you for doing such a detailed write up on this. There is a disturbing amount of illegal adult content right now. It has always been a shady industry, but with the internet and modern social...
Thank you for doing such a detailed write up on this.
There is a disturbing amount of illegal adult content right now. It has always been a shady industry, but with the internet and modern social media, there's next to 0 real verification going on and all sorts of insanely awful shit is happening because of it.
And ignoring the outright malice angle, there's lots of dangerous incentives. It doesn't take a ton of imagination for someone who's too young to be selling such content of themselves to figure out a way to do so, and to do it for simply selfish or possibly even altruistic reasons. It's still extremely illegal and a major problem.
So while yes, we have backwards views on sex workers that need to be changed, this all or nothing approach totally ignores the hurdles and very dangerous edge cases that need to be overcome.
I don't like them taking down NSFW content, but come on, get real. It's not an attack on LGBTQ+ people or sex workers, it's an attempt to make the sites more hospitable for younger users, which...
I don't like them taking down NSFW content, but come on, get real. It's not an attack on LGBTQ+ people or sex workers, it's an attempt to make the sites more hospitable for younger users, which means advertisers will be far more willing to buy ads.
It's all about selling ads and making money, period. The only exception is if being child safe is part of a site's credo (which means it appeals to parents) which was not and still is not the case for either reddit or imgur.
I was gifted emerald at some point and it doesn't seem to expire but before that an AdGuard DNS/Pihole also worked if giving money is not an option. I typically browse Usersub Rising so the feed...
I was gifted emerald at some point and it doesn't seem to expire but before that an AdGuard DNS/Pihole also worked if giving money is not an option.
I typically browse Usersub Rising so the feed stopping it a regular occurance it seems that it literally doesn't have enough new content, refreshing brings in a few borderline Usersub New posts and I know it's time to take a break from scrolling.
Yeesh, that really is egregious. Just deleted my account. You know it's bad when the owner is cool with discrimination against one minority, but draws an arbitrary line at another because that's...
Yeesh, that really is egregious. Just deleted my account. You know it's bad when the owner is cool with discrimination against one minority, but draws an arbitrary line at another because that's just going too far. I hate how effective the rhetoric of saying "free speech" is when the people who claim to protect it have no clue what it actually means.
I actually see some truth in this comment personally. Right now with all these new spaces popping up there is a concerted effort by people on both sides of the political fence to seize control...
I actually see some truth in this comment personally. Right now with all these new spaces popping up there is a concerted effort by people on both sides of the political fence to seize control through moderation and pressure on moderators/admins to create/modify rules and ban certain persons along ideological lines.
For people on the right wing, they're pretty open about what they want. They push for unabashed free speech spaces to let them say anything, including slurs, allow harassment of others, etc.
For people on the left wing, it's a lot more subtle and usually done in the name of promoting safe spaces that will protect certain groups of users from aggressive rhetoric they've experienced elsewhere, at the expense of coddling the larger user base and removing any contrary opinions from circulation.
I don't want to point out specific people, but for example one squabblr user commenting in these posts was a reddit mod who was removed in a sub I frequent. They were an active and largely effective moderator in terms of keeping the sub running, but were also extremely overbearing and muted users who disagreed with them/banned users for extremely minor issues (like saying it is legal to own a certain kind of car in a certain place when that was not true).
Now personally, politically, I identify with the latter group faaaaar more than the former. And I would imagine most people on Tildes do, and I do think Tildes sees pressure to sanitize as well which may contribute to the population you see here.
I guess my point is "free speech site" sounds great in theory, but we all recognize it as a dogwhistle because it is. But a lot of people don't view "safe space site" the same way, even though I think its just as much of a dogwhistle. I think because at the end of the day, while both are hostile in their own ways, the former is (fairly) viewed with more concern because it can be threatening and dangerous... while the latter is moreso just "echo-chamber"-y and exclusionary.
Having said all that I'm coming from the perspective here of someone who doesn't use Squabblr, never has and after this I have no intention to, so I can't really speak to the bent of this site. But it seems like jayclees was being repeatedly pressured by people to ban certain people/groups/opinions and he was not comfortable with that (becaude frankly i'm sure a lot of it was going overboard) and decided to make a rule change as a result... but it's a rule change that will poison the site by sending up a flag to a very bad crowd who will now attempt to bend it to their liking.
I disagree with this. If you think they’re being open about their desires, they have you fooled. Look what happens when these free speech absolutists actually get a platform. They ban political...
For people on the right wing, they're pretty open about what they want. They push for unabashed free speech spaces to let them say anything, including slurs, allow harassment of others, etc.
I disagree with this. If you think they’re being open about their desires, they have you fooled.
Look what happens when these free speech absolutists actually get a platform. They ban political speech they disagree with. Look at /r/conservative, or Twitter banning the pro-choice Ohio ad, or Parler banning users it didn’t like on the platform.
They don’t actually want free speech absolutism. That’s generally a lie they’re telling you, in order to allow them to have more control of platforms. In general, they want platforms where their speech is favored, and leftists are banned. This doesn’t apply to everyone at an individual level, but more the expressed preferences of the crowd.
yeah that's always the deal with these "free speech absolutists". They absolutely don't actually want free speech platforms. They absolutely want to oppress and remove the speech of those that...
yeah that's always the deal with these "free speech absolutists". They absolutely don't actually want free speech platforms. They absolutely want to oppress and remove the speech of those that disagree with them on platforms they have control over. On platforms where they aren't in control, they have simply found that "free speech" is one of the arguments that gets their rhetoric tolerated the most in centrist/liberal spaces.
This. There was literally a story last week about Elon suing the "Center for Countering Digital Hate" for saying things he didn't like. The same people who campaign for "parents rights" are also...
This. There was literally a story last week about Elon suing the "Center for Countering Digital Hate" for saying things he didn't like. The same people who campaign for "parents rights" are also campaigning to make it illegal for parents to get gender affirming care for their children. The super worried about a kid getting a surgery they can't reverse, but don't give a shit about forcing them to have their voice change.
They just want everyone to cowtow to their beliefs and rules. That's all their is to it. I guess we want similar things, but in general leftish beliefs lean more towards "be nice to everyone" while rightish ones lean more towards "traditionally we don't do this".
In my eyes what you're describing represents a specific subsection of the right wing, not the entirety. There are many who legitimately want a space where you can say anything and that's the long...
In my eyes what you're describing represents a specific subsection of the right wing, not the entirety. There are many who legitimately want a space where you can say anything and that's the long and short of it, and selling their spaces that way are how SOME of them build a censored space like you describe.
But you also have places like 4chan, which are dominated by right-wingers, and really are an "anything that isn't illegal goes and sometimes even that" kind of place.
I guess the $64 million dollar question is how do you create a truly free speech place which doesn't devolve into the nastiness that is say /pol/? And with that said, big chunks of 4chan are...
There are many who legitimately want a space where you can say anything and that's the long and short of it
But you also have places like 4chan, which are dominated by right-wingers, and really are an "anything that isn't illegal goes and sometimes even that" kind of place.
I guess the $64 million dollar question is how do you create a truly free speech place which doesn't devolve into the nastiness that is say /pol/? And with that said, big chunks of 4chan are indeed moderated which is why say some of the niche boards aren't as hellish.
You don't. Bluntly it's why every functioning large democracy in history is representative. You will always have sort of moderation and you will always have some sort of undesirable element. How...
You don't. Bluntly it's why every functioning large democracy in history is representative.
You will always have sort of moderation and you will always have some sort of undesirable element. How you handle that is the most important part.
I'm a big believer in letting people agree to disagree and discuss issues. I think it's by far the best way to see real effective change, and that the "agree with me or fuck off" attitude that we've fostered is extremely destructive. That said, i've mostly given up even admitting that because it can get me labeled as all sorts of nasty things.
I love that tildes is the first place in forever that seems to be "properly" free speech. You want to discuss difficult topics, fine. It needs to be civil, and it needs to be productive (not just two people rattling off their points).
The people who can't be civil are dealt with, the people who are just rattling off points and ignoring each other get topics closed, or can go do that in their corner of a discussion while the rest have a more serious one.
It's a very good model of how this could work. That doesn't mean there won't be awkward or difficult moments where the line gets fuzzy between disagreement and civility.
I think the thing is that that kind of nastiness used to be spread around the Internet and isn't anymore. You can only find it in very specific places like that or in private channels. So people...
I think the thing is that that kind of nastiness used to be spread around the Internet and isn't anymore. You can only find it in very specific places like that or in private channels. So people end up going to those and staying, and the people who don't like said nastiness leave.
Sure, and I acknowledge it’s not universal. I specifically stated that it doesn’t apply to individuals. There are plenty of right wing individuals who have stated and honest preferences for free...
Sure, and I acknowledge it’s not universal. I specifically stated that it doesn’t apply to individuals. There are plenty of right wing individuals who have stated and honest preferences for free speech absolutism (then again, there are those on the left that will honestly say the same thing)
There are some specific places where it’s truly anything goes. But I’d argue that’s a minority compared to the expressed preferences of a majority of those that espouse “free speech absolutism” preferences. The majority of that crowd are on Twitter cheering Elon Musk, compared to the numbers on something like 4chan.
I just think taking “the right wing” as a whole on this issue at face value is… naive.
You forgot misinformation and disinformation ( intentional misinformation, lying ). Additionally not everyone looking for "slurs" being allowed is a MAGA. Many adults want to use the language they...
They push for unabashed free speech spaces to let them say anything, including slurs, allow harassment of others, etc.
You forgot misinformation and disinformation ( intentional misinformation, lying ). Additionally not everyone looking for "slurs" being allowed is a MAGA. Many adults want to use the language they enjoy using and not live in fear of being harassed,banned,etc.
For people on the left wing, it's a lot more subtle and usually done in the name of promoting safe spaces that will protect certain groups of users from aggressive rhetoric they've experienced elsewhere, at the expense of coddling the larger user base and removing any contrary opinions from circulation.
I'm an American liberal. I don't want safe spaces, nor unity of opinions. I want misinformation and disinformation actively kept out. I don't want conversations with people stating that Trump won in 2020, that ivermectin is a Covid 19 cure, etc.
This was the only thing I care about as well. I'm a socialist in the US and I care more about the distinct lack of removing mis- and disinformation as a huge issue. You're free to say what you...
This was the only thing I care about as well. I'm a socialist in the US and I care more about the distinct lack of removing mis- and disinformation as a huge issue. You're free to say what you want, but I am free to ignore you or call you out on your bullshit.
It also seems to be a common talking point about leftists that we want to be exclusionary, but the problem was that the exclusions people were asking for were reasonable: No J6ers, no Nazis, no bigoted trolls (there is a user who was on the site who was actively being harassed by several trolls who popped up frequently and would harass anyone else in their way as well).
I can't speak for everyone, but as a queer, disabled, Jewish woman, I don't hate conservatives. I just hate their ideology that wants people like me dead (even if they don't say it in so many words, or they don't outright admit that). Not every conservative is a MAGA person, and not every leftist is a radical anarchist hellbent on excluding everyone who doesn't fit into their worldview of equality.
That isn't enough for me after 2020 when misinformation and disinformation got people killed from Covid19 and likely lead to people getting killed on January 06. I was social media sites to be...
You're free to say what you want, but I am free to ignore you or call you out on your bullshit.
That isn't enough for me after 2020 when misinformation and disinformation got people killed from Covid19 and likely lead to people getting killed on January 06. I was social media sites to be responsible for removing misinformation and disinformation. They can do it. Look how fast and thorough they are with copyright violations.
It also seems to be a common talking point about leftists that we want to be exclusionary, but the problem was that the exclusions people were asking for were reasonable: No J6ers, no Nazis, no bigoted trolls
Exactly
I just hate their ideology that wants people like me dead (even if they don't say it in so many words, or they don't outright admit that)
People like jayclees never stop to ask themselves what the end goal of the right wing is. What they would do if they would get their way. They would murder other people first, but when they get to it they will be just as happy to put people who like him into ovens and he is giving them a podium.
Which he should be scared to think because he's Asian. Many people haven't stopped to think about whether they actually fit into the mold of the ideal view of the people on right-wing people's minds.
Which he should be scared to think because he's Asian. Many people haven't stopped to think about whether they actually fit into the mold of the ideal view of the people on right-wing people's minds.
This is always the biggest thing to me in these arguments. People treating the for right and the far left as if they are somewhat equivalent. They aren't, and haven't been since ww2 (in the US)....
This is always the biggest thing to me in these arguments. People treating the for right and the far left as if they are somewhat equivalent. They aren't, and haven't been since ww2 (in the US).
Far left: we should use them when talking about people to make them more comfortable and allow children to have gender affirming surgery
Far right: we should kill and oppress anyone who doesn't fit into our ever narrowing definition of correct way to live.
Caveat, we haven't seen the actual extreme far left active in decades in the US. Extremists come in both sides of the spectrum but at this moment in history I don't see truly radical leftists...
Caveat, we haven't seen the actual extreme far left active in decades in the US. Extremists come in both sides of the spectrum but at this moment in history I don't see truly radical leftists active or popular the way the right wing is.
I agree, that's why this is a false equivalence. The political spectrum is do skewed to the right you can't even identify as a leftist without being called commie, traitor or a lot of different...
I agree, that's why this is a false equivalence.
The political spectrum is do skewed to the right you can't even identify as a leftist without being called commie, traitor or a lot of different slurs.
The day a real radical left will have any hold, I'll shun it just as I do the far right.
It doesn't matter when they elect and give platform to people who want it. How many Germans wanted all Jews murdered? Probably a small minority. But the majority still elected a leader who,...
It doesn't matter when they elect and give platform to people who want it.
How many Germans wanted all Jews murdered? Probably a small minority. But the majority still elected a leader who, openly, wanted it.
More importantly they empowered their media arm to publish more lies that ended up radicalizing a shit ton more after they came into powers and those lies became the de-facto “truth”. If all the...
More importantly they empowered their media arm to publish more lies that ended up radicalizing a shit ton more after they came into powers and those lies became the de-facto “truth”.
If all the newspapers start saying Jews are ruining everything, your neighbors will start believing them. And when your neighbors start saying the same things, you start believing them.
No. Republican politicians run campaigns that advocate for reducing or removing access to abortion and limiting the rights of LGBTQ people (among many other policies. I am focusing my point here...
Are there any prominent politicians that are running on a pro-murder campaign?
No.
Republican politicians run campaigns that advocate for reducing or removing access to abortion and limiting the rights of LGBTQ people (among many other policies. I am focusing my point here despite there being other examples.)
I think you know as well as anyone (and I mean that genuinely, you seem reasonable,) that politicians do not step behind podiums and announce their deepest darkest plans, nor do politicians always care about the implications or outcomes of their policies in the first place. But policies have impact regardless.
Not directly, but encouraging white supremacists ideologies leads directly to murder. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-bitter-fruits-of-trumps-white-power-presidency
Not directly, but encouraging white supremacists ideologies leads directly to murder.
Nazis didn't start off building ovens on day 1 after forming their group. Like everyone else, amalgamation of the American right with supremacists will not be satisfied achieving their current set...
Nazis didn't start off building ovens on day 1 after forming their group.
Like everyone else, amalgamation of the American right with supremacists will not be satisfied achieving their current set of goals. They will move on to make new goals. They are already taking away the rights of women. If they get more power they will take away the rights of other types people, then move on to persecuting people, and then murdering them.
If you are talking about right wing voters, it is a subset, and undercurrent, but it is there and has always been there in the US. Look at the history of lynchings. Some people still want to get...
If you are talking about right wing voters, it is a subset, and undercurrent, but it is there and has always been there in the US. Look at the history of lynchings. Some people still want to get away with that when they think it is called for, that is when minorities get out of line and are 'disrespectful'.
Sure, they exist, but they are a very small minority. Framing the entire right wing as being out to lynch minorities is kind of absurd hyperbole. Especially claiming that the right wing wants to...
Sure, they exist, but they are a very small minority. Framing the entire right wing as being out to lynch minorities is kind of absurd hyperbole. Especially claiming that the right wing wants to finish with murdering asians once they finish murdering … black people? Gay people? Trans people? They were kind of non-specific about that.
I don't have time to adequately respond right now, but might come back to this. Re gay people, The Heart's Invisible Furies is a novel by gay Irish author John Boyne that is hugely entertaining...
I don't have time to adequately respond right now, but might come back to this.
Re gay people, The Heart's Invisible Furies is a novel by gay Irish author John Boyne that is hugely entertaining but is also representational. He shows what it was like to be a gay man, starting in the 1940s and following a long life.
Re black people, I was recently in Atlanta and saw a museum exhibit about Emmett Til.
Re Women I would recommend reading Why Does He Do that by Lundy Bancroft.
The subset of people who believe they should be free to enforce their sense of superiority with violence when they choose is larger than you think.
But is it that absurd? Standing by and letting something terrible happen, knowing it is going to happen and the results that will come of it, does that not make the non lynching right wing...
But is it that absurd? Standing by and letting something terrible happen, knowing it is going to happen and the results that will come of it, does that not make the non lynching right wing individual an accomplice at that point? We don't look back at Nazi Germany and say "yeah, the majority that voted for the genocidal maniac was not responsible for the genocidal maniac."
The age old quote from Martin Niemoller, First they came for, stands out in what you describe. The problem doesn't seem apparent until you look at it in that light. They've made clear their dislike for all of the groups you've mentioned, but they're targeting them in a sequence they feel can get the most acceptance. First they'll aim for Trans people, then LGBT entirely, eventually they'll target minorities, and within all of those you'll find them targeting non Christian beliefs over time in an ever expanding fashion. The last one they'll perform under the guise of religious freedom and use that to target more of the original groups mentioned while also slowly pushing out and putting down other religions.
Yeah, it is pretty absurd. Specifically which politician is on the ballot who is going to start murdering minorities? Claiming that any actual even remotely viable candidate today is a genocidal...
Yeah, it is pretty absurd. Specifically which politician is on the ballot who is going to start murdering minorities?
Claiming that any actual even remotely viable candidate today is a genocidal maniac on par with Hitler is absolutely ridiculous.
Seriously now. Is Trump or DeSantis actually Hitler?
I think what you're missing is that there were others in Germany who also could have become what hitler became, and that they were only allowed to come to power because of the people who came...
I think what you're missing is that there were others in Germany who also could have become what hitler became, and that they were only allowed to come to power because of the people who came before them to shift popular view. Trump and Desantis may not be Hitler, but they are precursors to a Hitler-like figure. Another big portion of how Nazi Germany was formed was the propagandists who were on the scene before they came to power, and we see them already in the form of people like Christopher Rufo, James O'Keefe, Matt Walsh, and many many more. These people are not saying "Let's kill some people" out loud, but they are using the kind of language of people who are advocating for exactly that.
Abbott is a great example of someone pushing closer to the sun than the other 2. Placing a saw bladed floating wall is just dumbfounding in a country that used to welcome immigrants. But the other...
Abbott is a great example of someone pushing closer to the sun than the other 2. Placing a saw bladed floating wall is just dumbfounding in a country that used to welcome immigrants. But the other 2 are actively encouraging the behavior of their right wing base and by that, what they stand for. The same right wing base that aims to bring harm to minorities and wishes for the same things as, you guessed it, Nazi Germany.
No one should ignore that the issue at hand isn't Republicans as they once were, but Republicans as to what they've become and allowed to happen, and even encouraged. History shows this to be an issue in the past, not speaking up and standing up when others are placed at risk just because you're not one of that group. Just because they don't come out and say "kill that person because of these specific reasons" doesn't mean they're not trying to get there. Showing up to a BLM rally or a trans book reading with masks and guns is not trying to avoid a conflict, it's attempting to force a conflict. Driving around in a convoy shooting pepper balls at people from the back of trucks, that's trying to force a conflict. They're hoping for that retaliation. We saw it in Kenosha, when armed people showed up on both sides, and we saw the results of that.
I'm just saying that ignoring the obvious enablement of these people is not the right choice. Their hands aren't clean in this, not by any means. Not speaking out or standing up, letting them continue this rise to power, this push to maintain power at any cost is not a good thing for anyone that doesn't fit their mold of a perfect person. We may not get to Nazi Germany levels of genocide, but it'd be ignorant to not see how they're trying to diminish the value of people that don't fit that mold.
The part that always got me though, "keep the government out of my stuff" is what they say, right up until someone's stuff isn't just like they want it to be.
Did Hitler start out his first campaign with explicit calls for genocide? Or did he stir up sentiments against minorities to garner political power and blame minorities for the problems the common...
Did Hitler start out his first campaign with explicit calls for genocide? Or did he stir up sentiments against minorities to garner political power and blame minorities for the problems the common citizens were having? And when he was elected, was his first act to announce his genocidal plans? Or did he set about rolling back protections for the minorities he had vilified and work to pass bills direct targeting them? Was the first violence against the jews state sanctioned action, or was it extremist violence that was downplayed?
Anyone who doesn't see the parallels between the nazis rise to power and the current republican party simply isn't looking.
There were some pretty strong clues. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/first-moments-hitlers-final-solution-180961387/ I’m asking again: do you or anyone else believe that Trump or DeSantis...
Adolf Hitler had provided clues to his ambition to commit mass genocide as early as 1922, telling journalist Josef Hell, “Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews.”
I’m asking again: do you or anyone else believe that Trump or DeSantis in particular are actually planning a mass genocide campaign? Specifically, to murder minorities, and particularly asians as was alluded to by OP somewhere above?
You can ask as many times as you like, the answer is still an obvious yes. That's where their rhetoric inevitably leads, and if they thought they could get away with it they'd have already...
You can ask as many times as you like, the answer is still an obvious yes. That's where their rhetoric inevitably leads, and if they thought they could get away with it they'd have already started.
And if it does come to that, it will be enitely the fault of people who were so adamant in their belief that "It can't happen here."
This is actually the first time anyone has really answered the question directly with a yes. I have to say, I think this is a pretty extreme belief and I can’t say I find it very plausible.
This is actually the first time anyone has really answered the question directly with a yes.
I have to say, I think this is a pretty extreme belief and I can’t say I find it very plausible.
How fucking nice it must be to live in a world where you don't have to hear trump supporters "joke" about the mass murder of LGBT people or immigrants or democrats on a literally weekly basis.
How fucking nice it must be to live in a world where you don't have to hear trump supporters "joke" about the mass murder of LGBT people or immigrants or democrats on a literally weekly basis.
There is a big difference between banning users for posting misinformation about specific topics and banning users for lying in general. A problem I have with "safe spaces" is that some of them...
I want misinformation and disinformation actively kept out. I don't want conversations with people stating that Trump won in 2020, that ivermectin is a Covid 19 cure, etc
There is a big difference between banning users for posting misinformation about specific topics and banning users for lying in general. A problem I have with "safe spaces" is that some of them take this principle too far. As I mentioned in my comment I've specifically seen an incident where a user was banned for misinformation for a totally trivial subject because they didn't align with a mod's personal views, or perhaps frustrated them - when in reality those rules are meant only to apply to very specific topics (in most cases, solely about COVID19 misinformation).
My wife and I actually both used this subreddit, and I mentioned to her one day how irritating this moderator was in part because they were constantly butting heads with users over trivial things and were incredibly overbearing... and she knew exactly what I was talking about and was in agreement. But the reason I mention the whole "safe space" thing is that they used that as cover for their own mod abuse... and when it comes to new sites/spaces that are NOT reddit, there are aggressive personalities who get in on the ground floor to try and create/mold those spaces to their liking. I see it happening here too and I think Tildes is somewhat more resilient to it in part because it's been around for years already at a small scale, whereas others (like Lemmy instances or Squabblr) either have these people as creators or the creators want to appease those people in order to get them to stay.
The whole upset of the reddit "norm" just seems to be an attempt on the part of many people to "power grab". I'm a former reddit mod who quit as a result of the whole recent fiasco and I never considered moderation a power thing (I think largely because the sub I moderated was not totally discussion-focused and a lot of removals were more about reposts and formatting), but it is very very clear that there are a lot of people who view that power as valuable, because they see it as their responsibility to censor/control conversations. For extreme conservatives that means opening up the doors to anything and everything and letting the worst fester. For extreme leftists it seems to be about removing anything that could be construed as the least bit offensive to their ideologies.
I see people in that Squabblr post recommending Beehaw (a Lemmy instance) as a place to flee to, and frankly I view them both as good examples of what I'm talking about here. I can't speak to discuit as this thread is the first I've heard of it.
Just gotta say "wow" when you read the comments in that thread where people are questioning whether the comments in the screenshot were taken out of context... in a post authored by the person who said them.
In the comment chain on your link I found this link talking about a reddit clone called discuit that sounds interesting and I'd never heard of before:...
In the comment chain on your link I found this link talking about a reddit clone called discuit that sounds interesting and I'd never heard of before:
I've used Discuit for about a month now. having joined on 2023/7/15. It's been my main Reddit replacement, and I've been trying to help out with the site where possible. I do mod the "SpaceImages"...
I've used Discuit for about a month now. having joined on 2023/7/15. It's been my main Reddit replacement, and I've been trying to help out with the site where possible. I do mod the "SpaceImages" community over there, but that's a more recent development, and I'm not a site admin.
It's developed by a single guy called Previnder, it's rather bare bones with a lot of functionality being relegated to a roadmap, however the core functionality is extremely solid. It recently got a Progressive Web App, so the lack of a current mobile app isn't nearly as much of a problem. It's also soon to go open source, for those interested in that kind of thing.
The rules specify "No racism or hate. Don't post anything that promotes violence or discrimination against a group of people based on race, ethnicity, sex, gender, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation.", which ended up being the primary draw to the site for Squabblr users from what I've heard. As from what I understand, even before Squabblr became "free speech", it didn't have the best outline of what did and didn't constitute hate, and Discuit's rule was commonly cited as an example of how the rules should be written over there.
Currently Discuit is rather flooded with ex-Squabblr users, which is leaving the original core of active users a bit, for lack of a better term, "weirded out" due to the culture clash. Ex-Squabblr users like to self-post a lot as that site had a Twitter like functionality, and have their own cliques and famous users. Whereas Discuit has no such functionality, the original userbase primarily posted links and discussion, and there wasn't really that kind of clique culture. Ex-Squabblr users have also created a self post community in an effort to somewhat retain that culture. It also doesn't help that the Squabblr migration has effectively at least tripled the active users, potentially more, so ex-Squabblr users are certainly rather noticable and distinct from those who came before. It's my hope that the ex-Squabblr users integrate more thoroughly with the Discuit and its culture over the coming weeks.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them!
Hello from the world of tomorrow (or 20 hours)! I created an account (also godzilla_lives) and have lurked a little bit here and there. Seems very similar to Reddit from about ten or so years ago;...
Hello from the world of tomorrow (or 20 hours)! I created an account (also godzilla_lives) and have lurked a little bit here and there. Seems very similar to Reddit from about ten or so years ago; a lot of memes and pictures of cats with some discussion about random topics sprinkled throughout. Currently my subscription feed is filled with former Squabbler users lamenting the loss their website and some complaints about those posts, but I imagine that will quiet down in a few days.
One thing I'll point out is that it took me no less than five minutes of scrolling to find people bickering back and forth about Internet drama, which made me grateful that comments like those are removed on Tildes. There's also no email requirement to create a website and account creation is wide open, so I'm sure there will be no shortage of trolls.
I'll keep an eye on the website myself just because I like having sites to bounce around on, but my (albeit brief) experience felt like what I was trying to avoid. BUT, I do think this could be curated easily by adding/removing communities, and reading the web master's substack post was encouraging. My wife seemed very happy to scroll on the 'peppers' community, and she's a good judge of everything, so that checks for me.
I also noticed that there are a ton of communities, but they are created by the site admin on a case-by-case request basis. Also no NFSW content, so there's not a large worry of random porn or combat footage on my feed. There is an onlyfans community, but those looking for NSFW content may be disappointed, heh.
Like Reddit back in the day, I think it could be a good compliment to Tildes. Hang out around here for friendly discussion and conversation, hang out there when I'm still trying to wake up in the mornings.
It seems pretty nice from what I've used so far. I started a DisneyParks community over there and it seems to be pretty positive. The modtools are fairly limited right now, but the dev is active...
It seems pretty nice from what I've used so far. I started a DisneyParks community over there and it seems to be pretty positive. The modtools are fairly limited right now, but the dev is active and is trying hard to make the site work better, much like Deimos.
Thanks for the heads up! Just deleted my account there. I compared the new Squabbles TOS to an archive from June 17. The "Spam and Misleading Content" section was removed. I could understand if...
Thanks for the heads up! Just deleted my account there. I compared the new Squabbles TOS to an archive from June 17. The "Spam and Misleading Content" section was removed. I could understand if mods don't have time to fact check all reported posts, but there was no need to also remove protections on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, disability, and any other protected characteristic. That just shows their true intent. Free speech is literally limited by the law and the federal protections written in their previous TOS!
Wow! Thanks for the interesting comment. I never knew those things were there and were recently removed. My account there has several hundred comments. I am going to take it slow over a week and...
Wow! Thanks for the interesting comment. I never knew those things were there and were recently removed. My account there has several hundred comments. I am going to take it slow over a week and delete them all. I don't want that platform getting any value from my content.
I'm sad to say I supported him on Patreon before I realized what a creep he is. I deleted my account and have reported his private discord and his patreon accounts as spreading misinformation/hate...
I'm sad to say I supported him on Patreon before I realized what a creep he is. I deleted my account and have reported his private discord and his patreon accounts as spreading misinformation/hate speech (since he refused to take action on many instances of hate speech on his site and other mods were handicapped to take them down in a reasonable time frame).
I had also supported on Patreon. I don't feel regret over it, because I was happy with what the community was and the direction it was going. I wasn't donating to support jayclees; I was...
I had also supported on Patreon. I don't feel regret over it, because I was happy with what the community was and the direction it was going. I wasn't donating to support jayclees; I was supporting Squabbles.
2 (maybe 3) of the third party app devs for squabblr immediately killed their apps as a result of this (other two have made no public comments since last I checked) Kind of ironic the only reason...
2 (maybe 3) of the third party app devs for squabblr immediately killed their apps as a result of this (other two have made no public comments since last I checked)
Kind of ironic the only reason squabblr had users in the first place is bc of the migration from reddit for killing 3rd party apps, and he just caused the death of half of his third party apps with his decision.
Every time I had a thought that I might be overreacting by deleting all of the content in my account I remind myself that one of the mobile squabblr app developers scuttled his entire project.
Every time I had a thought that I might be overreacting by deleting all of the content in my account I remind myself that one of the mobile squabblr app developers scuttled his entire project.
Apparently the admin said this on discord: (Imgur link) Yip, seems like this platform is going to do super well going forward... Just gonna paste some great comments from the thread by the way...
racism will be the only thing I disallow as far as hate speech goes. lgbt issues were used as a wedge to keep conservatives off.
Yip, seems like this platform is going to do super well going forward...
Just gonna paste some great comments from the thread by the way lol:
Hello! You seem like the right type. I hope you’ll show me around!
Fuck off stupid
It's business as usual! If you see something that shouldn't be here, please report it to the admin team!
What admin team?
And look, a Tildes shout-out whether or not this user knew about it or not 😎
Reddit was 'free speech' and it became a huge liability. Twitter, under Elon turned into free speech, and it's now a dumpster fire. I don't want some right wing conspiracy nutjob spreading bullshit and "opinions"
I've never been on that website before so I was a little confused. But I looked around and I believe they use a different @ system. I think that multiple people can use the same @, but the person...
I've never been on that website before so I was a little confused. But I looked around and I believe they use a different @ system. I think that multiple people can use the same @, but the person who posted this is called "who's jayclees?" on their profile while the real jayclees (the admin/dev/owner) is just called "jayclees". So the screenshot was posted to a /trans community and yeah it seems like it wasn't posted by himself
When they had the conflict over the conservative community it was a red flag. That user was really bad news and not doing something about them was a telling sign. I really liked the site, but I...
When they had the conflict over the conservative community it was a red flag. That user was really bad news and not doing something about them was a telling sign. I really liked the site, but I deleted my account.
Yeah, I stopped using squabbles about two weeks ago. I got the impression that the owner's wishy-washy statements about community standards on the platform would eventually lead to this kind of...
Yeah, I stopped using squabbles about two weeks ago. I got the impression that the owner's wishy-washy statements about community standards on the platform would eventually lead to this kind of announcement.
It wasn't just about what the owner was saying, it was also about questionable decisions to not take immediate action on accounts whose submissions and comments couldn't be interpreted as anything but hate speech unless you were operating from the narrowest definition possible. I've had my fill of that approach from the reddit admins/AEO so I jumped ship before sinking any more time into it.
It's a shame because hybridizing reddit and twitter was an interesting concept that I took to quickly but it appears that squabbles is interested in courting the worst of both platforms.
Agreed. I hadn’t deleted my account yet there after that, but I did pretty much stop using it entirely. I enjoyed the conversations I had on there and it’s also where I got my tildes invite so it...
Agreed. I hadn’t deleted my account yet there after that, but I did pretty much stop using it entirely. I enjoyed the conversations I had on there and it’s also where I got my tildes invite so it was a little sentimental to me to at least keep the account. But if it’s just going to turn into a right wing echo chamber, I’m not really interested in keeping an account. I may go back and check on it to see how it’s changed but I’ll do so without an account.
tThere was a sub called redditalternatives (or something similar) where I found out about squabbles and tildes too. The sub got a lot of activity during the API exodus
tThere was a sub called redditalternatives (or something similar) where I found out about squabbles and tildes too. The sub got a lot of activity during the API exodus
Yep. To add, it was the most complete non-altright Redditlike that wasn't fediverse. It was also open access unlike Bluesky or Tildes. The admin was very active developing the site, so it was an...
Yep. To add, it was the most complete non-altright Redditlike that wasn't fediverse. It was also open access unlike Bluesky or Tildes. The admin was very active developing the site, so it was an easy fit for many Redditors looking to bounce. The admin was praised immensely for his work and the positivity of the community. But it seems he was not ready for the pressures of moderating and crumpled.
He was praised and it was a super positive place until he decided that those of us who were "super users" were too nice and there was too much "toxic positivity" and too many cliques. Several of...
He was praised and it was a super positive place until he decided that those of us who were "super users" were too nice and there was too much "toxic positivity" and too many cliques. Several of us basically stopped being kind and posting all the time to populate the site.
Several of us formed a discord server where we could be friends and kind to one another there instead.
It really was off-putting when he started complaining about the user engagement. I thought maybe it was something I wasn't seeing as I didn't watch the self posts. Now I can see he was just...
It really was off-putting when he started complaining about the user engagement. I thought maybe it was something I wasn't seeing as I didn't watch the self posts. Now I can see he was just unhappy with what type of user the site was attracting, and was trying to change the community. Those subtle changes didn't work so he got more aggressive. Unfortunately for him, the people he was trying to chase off were the people supporting his site the most.
I'll miss the quick and silly aspect of the site, but I think slow social is the way to go. I'm here and on Discuit and the devs in both places are wonderful and seem to have good heads on their...
I'll miss the quick and silly aspect of the site, but I think slow social is the way to go. I'm here and on Discuit and the devs in both places are wonderful and seem to have good heads on their shoulders.
Oh, it's certainly going to lead to a certain kind of growth in the short term. I've already seen one person who claimed to have signed up in response to this announcement. You can imagine the...
Oh, it's certainly going to lead to a certain kind of growth in the short term. I've already seen one person who claimed to have signed up in response to this announcement. You can imagine the kind of person. Once those people take root, it's going to be "very interesting" to see whether the admin holds on to the pretense of "nothing is going to change, if you see things that shouldn't be here, report them", or whether nazis will be given the reins. After that, every sane individual will eventually leave. Then the platform will continue to exist for a while as a living memorial to humans' hubris. It finally shuttering will be far off.
There are somewhat frequent posts on /r/redditalternatives by people who are looking for this kind of platform. The most absurd one I remember was someone who specifically needed a platform where...
There are somewhat frequent posts on /r/redditalternatives by people who are looking for this kind of platform. The most absurd one I remember was someone who specifically needed a platform where they could use the r-slur.
Free speech debates aside, it's genuinely hilarious to me that someone would consider the r-slur to be such an important part of their vocabulary that it informs where they spend their time. Seems like a shame when there are countless words like asshat, nitwit, birdbrain, and buffoon. Bigotry is uncreative and lazy.
I think it's a bit disingenuous to say people used the r-word with no intent of hurting the feelings of handicapped people. It's technically a true statement, but only because the feelings of the...
I think it's a bit disingenuous to say people used the r-word with no intent of hurting the feelings of handicapped people. It's technically a true statement, but only because the feelings of the people being insulted were never a consideration, either through sheer thoughtlessness (which is and should be discouraged these days) or precisely because of the contempt that the r-word carries.
I agree with you that there's no emotional alternative with the same meaning, but that doesn't prevent people from stacking emotional equivalents alongside words of equivalent meaning, e.g. "fucking stupid".
Well it's because the same meaning is inherently ableist. Any way to rephrase it brings you right back to mocking intellectual disabilities by default. Much like how many people don't think about...
Well it's because the same meaning is inherently ableist. Any way to rephrase it brings you right back to mocking intellectual disabilities by default. Much like how many people don't think about "gay" the insult as associated with their queer friends. But it is.
That's why I used "stupid" as my example, because its etymological roots have nothing to do with mental illness or developmental delay, and nor does its casual usage. An equivalent meaning also...
That's why I used "stupid" as my example, because its etymological roots have nothing to do with mental illness or developmental delay, and nor does its casual usage.
An equivalent meaning also doesn't have to mean a synonym for the entire word, just the nuance you're getting at. E.g. the r-word strictly meant intellectual disability, but it has nuances of being literally slow, archaic, and backwards, etc. which would also work with a "fucking" prefix.
It's amusing that you're familiar with "gay" as the insult but not "queer", given gay originally meant happy before being adopted by the community, while queer means "strange in a negative way" and was the insult when I was at school.
Almost definitely a generational and/or regional thing. "Queer" wasn't used at all when I was in school and feels like something my grandfather would say, but using "gay" as an insult was...
It's amusing that you're familiar with "gay" as the insult but not "queer", given gay originally meant happy before being adopted by the community, while queer means "strange in a negative way" and was the insult when I was at school.
Almost definitely a generational and/or regional thing. "Queer" wasn't used at all when I was in school and feels like something my grandfather would say, but using "gay" as an insult was extremely common among kids my age growing up (much like the r-slur was, tbh -- I think both those peaked when I was an elementary schooler, at least if popular culture is anything to go by). Their presence as popular slurs in the same era is possibly why it came up alongside the r-slur in the first place.
Not sure what was the dominant insult for my mother's generation (she was too much of a square to be a good source on slurs), but the reclamation of "queer" really took off in the 1980s which were her late teens and early 20s. This also goes along with my experience of talking about the word with others in the community. Those who dislike "queer" tend to come from two camps -- either they're quite old gay men who had a lot of active experience with it as a slur prior to the 80s (unfortunately a group with a pretty small population due to everything else happening in the 80s) or they're straight-up TERFs who oppose it on ideological grounds because they're exclusionists (though that group includes plenty of straight cis folks too, possibly outnumbering the number of actual LGBT+ people in that category).
I find it interesting that you think queer's non-slur meaning is "strange in a negative way" -- I wasn't aware of any connotations of negativity in its normal meaning. I've always perceived its basic meaning to be basically identical to "strange" or "odd" or "peculiar" in terms of how negative it is. Even that usage wasn't something I saw super often as a kid though -- I have an old notebook of a story I wrote in middle school, and I use the word "queer" to mean "strange" in a line but followed it with a parenthetical "great, now I sound British" because I thought that's how using "queer" made the sentence sound. I think its use for just "strange" sounded either a little too pretentious or like a hillbilly depending on one's accent, since in my dialect growing up you'd say "weird" or maybe "strange". Anyway this is a tangent but I find it interesting how much a word's usage and feeling can vary even outside of the more controversial uses.
Two things of note, First, you said "same meaning" not "equivalent". I was agreeing that that there's a fundamental contempt and expanded it to ableism, which it is. Second, I am rather annoyed at...
Two things of note, First, you said "same meaning" not "equivalent". I was agreeing that that there's a fundamental contempt and expanded it to ableism, which it is.
Second, I am rather annoyed at you assuming that I am unfamiliar with "queer" as an insult. It is irksome to have someone assume a lack of knowledge, be amused by that assumption and go a step further to announce that. I'm queer. I'm very familiar with a plethora of slurs, insults and insinuations on the topic.
But in recent times the term used by teens and such has been "gay". And it's thrown around like the r-word. I might be called "a fucking queer" once in a great while but thirty things will be described as "so gay" in a day. (I do see this much less in my college students in the past couple of years though it does still happen, so I'm optimistic.)
Anyway, I had been agreeing with you. Though personally I don't really love calling folks stupid either. If only because smart people do careless, harmful, hurtful things all the time.
jayclees is a coder who wanted to be left alone to code, so he did a logical thing by changing his rules so users wouldn't have a reason contact him. jayclees may not have realized what his...
jayclees is a coder who wanted to be left alone to code, so he did a logical thing by changing his rules so users wouldn't have a reason contact him. jayclees may not have realized what his logical solution looked like to other people.
That alternative view breaks down since he has now had ample responses to educate him to the fact that "free speech site" means "right wing site" too many people and that removing LGBTQIA+ protections is seen as hostility.
He hasn't made an effort to tell people that he did not mean to convey those things.
He could be one of the many people, right or wrong, who will not respond when criticized as sort of an ego thing.
I've personally seen more receipts from conversations with him that show he thinks LGBTQIA+ are "just a political wedge issue" and "a political movement" and should be ignored when talking about...
I've personally seen more receipts from conversations with him that show he thinks LGBTQIA+ are "just a political wedge issue" and "a political movement" and should be ignored when talking about discrimination.
Whelp, good thing the "Delete Account" button still works. It's a shame, it was a good spot for the sort of light-hearted memeing I missed from old reddit, but not making the mistake of hanging...
Whelp, good thing the "Delete Account" button still works. It's a shame, it was a good spot for the sort of light-hearted memeing I missed from old reddit, but not making the mistake of hanging around with terminally online, rage-baiting, racist shitposters again.
After the "freeze peach" announcement its Patreon collapsed from hundreds of members raising more than $1000 a month to 15 raising $60. (I'd gawk at what kind of content was still posted by the...
After the "freeze peach" announcement its Patreon collapsed from hundreds of members raising more than $1000 a month to 15 raising $60. (I'd gawk at what kind of content was still posted by the dead-enders, but it's got a hard registration wall.)
Squabblr looked like a good thing until the developer & owner exercised his poor judgement. You don't invite other people over for dinner and have them arrive before you cleaned your home and gone...
Squabblr looked like a good thing until the developer & owner exercised his poor judgement.
You don't invite other people over for dinner and have them arrive before you cleaned your home and gone shopping.
You don't open a social media platform before it is finished.
You don't have developers manage people. Sort of like letting the maintenance man for your home into your dinner party.
More to the point, you don't build up a userbase of people who were so disgusted by a previous platform's disregard for moderation that they left it.... only to tell those people that your new...
More to the point, you don't build up a userbase of people who were so disgusted by a previous platform's disregard for moderation that they left it.... only to tell those people that your new platform will have minimal moderation and that protecting LGBT rights is an unwanted "wedge issue."
The site's owner was entirely focused on trying to get successful by starting a platform and getting a large user base to monetize. The user base was entirely secondary to his plans. This was...
The site's owner was entirely focused on trying to get successful by starting a platform and getting a large user base to monetize. The user base was entirely secondary to his plans. This was obvious with every one of his posts where he asked people to do free work for him to promote and build the website.
I'd say a bit of both. There was ire at the API changes, and also a lot of anger at the administration's handling of it. They just didn't seem willing to compromise even a little despite the...
I'd say a bit of both. There was ire at the API changes, and also a lot of anger at the administration's handling of it. They just didn't seem willing to compromise even a little despite the massive outrage. A lot of subreddits had their moderator teams replaced by Reddit because they were protesting by keeping their subs dark, showing a lack of respect for the moderators volunteering their time. I vaguely recall a lot of drama around some subs getting new mods who understood nothing about its culture or even the topic, like a diving sub getting a guy with zero diving knowledge put in charge of it.
I left because of the API changes. I left because I could no longer use RIF. I left because reddit was forcing me on their app regardless of my wishes and I don't like that.
I left because of the API changes. I left because I could no longer use RIF. I left because reddit was forcing me on their app regardless of my wishes and I don't like that.
They're kind of bound up together -- the API changes also impacted mod tooling and third-party services, and Reddit Inc. retaliated against protesting mods in an unprecedentedly disrespectful way....
They're kind of bound up together -- the API changes also impacted mod tooling and third-party services, and Reddit Inc. retaliated against protesting mods in an unprecedentedly disrespectful way.
Not everybody left for these reasons, but on the whole the type of person offended by the API fiasco would likely not be the type to appreciate a service abandoning moderation and giving free reign to Nazis and transphobes.
The why is because there is supposedly already a squabbles company (but they are entirely unrelated) and he thought it would be a copyright/trademark issue. Clearly he doesn't understand laws at...
The why is because there is supposedly already a squabbles company (but they are entirely unrelated) and he thought it would be a copyright/trademark issue. Clearly he doesn't understand laws at all, and when I pressed him several times to talk to an attorney about this stuff, I was ignored. Because his new TOS is pretty not legal from a GDPR or California's GDPR-lite, and he still doesn't understand trademarks and copyright since it wouldn't have been an issue since social media and bullying aren't the same category.
Then again, he "hired" (read: exploited) a 16-year-old from the Netherlands to do his off-site social media "street team"
When? That was like, last week's drama. Why? Insanity I guess? Apparently when you stare into the abyss, the abyss also gazes back. And a "free speech platform" is definitely the abyss.
When? That was like, last week's drama. Why? Insanity I guess? Apparently when you stare into the abyss, the abyss also gazes back. And a "free speech platform" is definitely the abyss.
While I too share your concerns about what this direction could perhaps mean for that service, I must ask if a title like this is really appropriate for Tildes? By all means express your thoughts,...
While I too share your concerns about what this direction could perhaps mean for that service, I must ask if a title like this is really appropriate for Tildes? By all means express your thoughts, of course, but to make the entire title an immediately hostile political stance that not only presumes familiarity with what appears to be an interpretation/definition from online American leftwing circles, but also to presume that we all are on board with that interpretation reminds me of exactly the type of uncomfortable behaviour across Reddit that prompted me to leave that website some years ago.
The inflammatory ragebait is a bit over the top, yes. There is actually a discussion here that deals with the exact issue you framed here, notably that someone from somewhere else doesn't know...
The inflammatory ragebait is a bit over the top, yes.
There is actually a discussion here that deals with the exact issue you framed here, notably that someone from somewhere else doesn't know what this means and assumes it's anti-free speech in general.
While I'm hardcore rolling my eyes at the squabbles dev, I can't help but think that this fingerpointing is just a little unbecoming.
I'm glad this was brought up. The title doesn't accomplish much other than vent. As someone who knows nothing about squabbles, the discussion was lacking as well, and I was worried that if I asked...
I'm glad this was brought up.
The title doesn't accomplish much other than vent. As someone who knows nothing about squabbles, the discussion was lacking as well, and I was worried that if I asked "why do we know this person is a nut job" i'd just be bombarded (as i've seen many times before).
I get that this is almost certainly an asshole being an asshole, but it'd be nice if we offered more evidence so people who aren't in the loop can discuss. Otherwise it boils down to DAE hate X or Y?, which leaves the rest of us out of the loop. In this particular case I found some concerning examples (and some were provided by other commenters in this thread), but it wasn't exactly simple.
I do have other concerns with these kinds of discussions, but I do think that going down those roads is more "people have made up their mind and there's nothing to be gained here" style things that just recently got two topics closed.
The learning curve for redditors is steep as some just want to transfer the service elsewhere. The habits formed from years of karma farming is hard to break. I filtered out reddit posts and it's...
The learning curve for redditors is steep as some just want to transfer the service elsewhere. The habits formed from years of karma farming is hard to break. I filtered out reddit posts and it's been nice. I don't want to filter out any more though but I may have to.
I was really upset by what had happened on the site since I was so active on it. it was a poor choice of words on my part, but not at all meant to be a reddit-type post.
I was really upset by what had happened on the site since I was so active on it. it was a poor choice of words on my part, but not at all meant to be a reddit-type post.
Really pains me that free speech is seen as a bad thing. :( Personally, I love to see a bunch of different viewpoints. I don't mind talking to someone with an unsavory point of view in my eyes. As...
Really pains me that free speech is seen as a bad thing. :( Personally, I love to see a bunch of different viewpoints. I don't mind talking to someone with an unsavory point of view in my eyes. As long as everyone is civil, and actually has their minds open, and isn't just talking to hear themselves talk. Isn't that how we learn as people (by talking to people who think differently than us)? Grow our perspectives? I know this is a utopia I will likely never find, but still.
To clarify, this is not a comment on squabbles, I have no thoughts on that site. Also not a political comment, as I think I despise politics just about more than anything. Just... seeing free speech nutjob seems like such a bizarre phrase.
EDIT: Seems maybe this is a language thing? It appears free speech as a phrase has become aligned with political leanings. That is unfortunate in itself.
Going into your comment realizing that you have no strong opinion on Squabbles or their policies, I do want to add a few things in support of why people, including myself, run in the other...
Exemplary
Going into your comment realizing that you have no strong opinion on Squabbles or their policies, I do want to add a few things in support of why people, including myself, run in the other direction when someone defaults to free speech as an argument online.
"free speech nutjob" isn't (probably, I can't speak for OP) really saying that this dude is a nutjob for believing in free speech, but because he's using the banner of free speech to allow hate speech. There's a popular saying that goes something like "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins," and I like to apply this logic to why I believe in disallowing hate speech in online spaces especially.
Say you have a chatroom of ten trans people, and ten people who are transphobic. The trans people talk topics that relate to them, maybe transitioning tips, maybe politics relevant to them. The transphobes talk about why they think trans people should be barred from being taught about in schools, or why they think they should be denied healthcare, maybe someone is on an even more extreme end and they say they think it should be illegal to be transgender. On one side you have a group fighting for their rights, or otherwise living their lives, and the other is dedicated to taking their already existing rights away. Replace trans people and transphobes with any two groups you wish, Roma and anti-roma racists, Black people and KKK members, Jewish people and nazi's. In each of these situations the voices of the later groups create an environment that is extremely uncomfortable and unsafe for the conversation of the former groups to even take place, and that group will likely leave the chatroom. Their free speech has been censored by the allowed existence of that hatespeech.
If you want a more real-life example, we can look at the current state of Twitter. Since Elon Musk's takeover, the use of racial slurs on the platform has risen by 500%. We don't have the data to really see if this has caused a meaningful drop in activity among people of color, but when accounts exist and thrive on a platform while being named "Blacks taking Ls" with their @ username being "@ NsPostingFs" (absolutely not providing a link to that one) you can imagine how the public square of the internet could begin lacking in the opinions of some voices.
I don't mind talking to someone with an unsavory point of view in my eyes. As long as everyone is civil, and actually has their minds open, and isn't just talking to hear themselves talk. I know this is a utopia I will likely never find, but still.
That would be the perfect world, but like you said, this is not a perfect world. Inevtiably when speech like what I've described is allowed on a platform, even for the purpose of just letting everyone air their opinion for the marketplace of ideas to decide on it's worth, the worst actors will take advantage of that freedom and use it to air their opinions which by way of being voiced creates a worse environment for free speech.
If you allow one nazi to scream "Heil Hitler" on the corner with no social or societal consequence, then other nazi's will show up because they can, and all of a sudden there are a lot less Jewish people living on that corner.
Whew, that was a longer post than I was planning on! I hope I wasn't too redundant or long-winded, but I had to write a looooong paper on this subject last semester so I was a little excited to be able to put it to use lol!
I do want to reiterate this this is not meant to be calling you a nazi, KKK member, any type of racist, or anything else. I just wanted to give you my viewpoint of why "free speech" such as what is outlined in the new guidelines on Squabbles actually harms free speech, and hopefully you find it valuable or at least interesting. If anything I said sounds like it made a little bit of sense I suggest you check out Talia Lavin's Culture Warlords: My Journey into the Dark Web of White Supremacy. As much as the book drags a little near the end, she still is a much better writer than I am and expresses these views much more clearly. Of course I'm also open to counterpoints!
Edit: to fix some poor choice of words. Thank you @vektor for pointing this out!
I appreciate the well thought out post here, and no it was not redundant or long-winded. I understand you much better now. I think you make a lot of good points too that I should probably take...
I appreciate the well thought out post here, and no it was not redundant or long-winded. I understand you much better now. I think you make a lot of good points too that I should probably take time to mull over. I think I probably should not have commented. My views here are probably not in the majority, and a lot of that is probably due to being raised in a quite oppressive environment and have maybe seen a strange side of things. I don't want to cause anyone discomfort.
If I can offer one counterpoint it's this - I think the flipside of pushing people with unsavory views into a corner, is that those views are never challenged. Now they are in a little echo chamber and their views only become more extreme. These people will not go away. They don't stop being hateful just because they are kicked out of other corners. I don't think it makes them stop and think "well why did this person ban me?" Rather they think "well this person is crazy for banning me!", and it validates them. That worries me. I started to see this a lot in american politics around the whole trump thing (caution: not trying to shame any side of the american political state - it's just an example). There were the folks supporting trump, and the ones not supporting him. I felt you just saw people hating each other. When it came to people who found trump hateful (which I tend to think he was also), they sort of just pushed the trump people away "they are idiots, morons, douchebags!" (fill in the blank here). So what was the response? Did those supporters think "well yeah, they have a point there, let me re-evaluate things! Ah, I no longer feel this way!" No, it just enhanced their views. Pushed them to only talk with each other. Validated them. To me, that's sad. What if people had said "well why do you feel that way? Let's talk about it together." Maybe things would be different. That's just one example but it could apply to so many things. This culture of inviting these civil discussion is what I wish we had more of in the world. I think I am going around in circles, and I don't mean to.
That said - here's the other thing. Every site is its own thing and I respect that. And not every place needs to be this ideal place where people can discuss uncomfortable views in the hopes of making a better society or something. Sometimes it's nice to just kick back and have a nice time. I actually hate political discussion, and actively avoid it. Even on tildes, if I see any sort of political article, I hide it (not because I disagree or don't like OP, I just find it tiresome. And I don't mean to say "stop sharing anything political here" - share away, if people like that, I will not judge.) Anyway, I realize I am a hypocrite in this regard, as I completely disengaged from any and all politics or controversial discussions in society several years ago because of the divisiveness. It's just every once in a while I stick my head out when I hear things and just wish it wasn't that way, when I should just keep being quiet.
No no! Please don't ever be discouraged from commenting, you're a super civil and chill dude and I'm enjoying the back and forth! I don't really disagree with your counterpoint, to be honest. I...
No no! Please don't ever be discouraged from commenting, you're a super civil and chill dude and I'm enjoying the back and forth!
I don't really disagree with your counterpoint, to be honest. I suppose I find it hard to empathize with people on the other side of the isle. Being born in a very blue place to leftie parents, and now going to university in a large city and taking a women's and gender minor, I am usually pretty insulated from people who might have more outwardly conservative opinions in my everyday life. Remembering the people behind the opinions is very important and I wouldn't want to lose track of the fact the everyone is a human with life that got them where they are that day.
The only real way I can rebuke that is that I believe if we inact more social consequences to the worst people in our society, then peoples tendency to listen to those people opinions goes down. Essentially we'd be making the worst opinions into a taboo, pushing them further into that corner until there's only so many that can fit inside that space. Giving those nazi's that street corner to shout from increases passerby's exposure and perhaps belief in the normalcy of those opinions. That's something I could be better read on, though.
Empathy is an interesting thing. I find it incredibly useful to empathize with those I find most undesirable, who I disagree with the most. I started doing this as an exercise several years ago...
Exemplary
I don't really disagree with your counterpoint, to be honest. I suppose I find it hard to empathize with people on the other side of the isle. Being born in a very blue place to leftie parents, and now going to university in a large city and taking a women's and gender minor, I am usually pretty insulated from people who might have more outwardly conservative opinions in my everyday life. Remembering the people behind the opinions is very important and I wouldn't want to lose track of the fact the everyone is a human with life that got them where they are that day.
Empathy is an interesting thing. I find it incredibly useful to empathize with those I find most undesirable, who I disagree with the most. I started doing this as an exercise several years ago and it was life changing for me. I started to realize how much less difference there was between me and others than I thought. I realized I am not better than anyone else; it humbled me. When I empathize with folks I disagree with intensely, it forces me strip away my own biases. It reminds me that is just a person too, with their own complexities. They have reasons for coming to those conclusions, no matter how much I disagree. It makes me want to understand them, rather than hate them. This breaks me out of "damn what an asshole" to "that is just another person not very different from myself." It helps me have calm, rational dialogs with them.
It is a fascinating experience to have a conversation with someone who is calling you an asshole, a piece of shit, whatever terrible things, because you believe the opposite from them; then, to keep responding calmly, empathizing with them, trying to understand them, staying civil. Then to slowly see that person start treating you well, to come onto the same level with you. I think very few people want to be an asshole; I think it's difficult for most people to continue being hateful to someone who is showing them genuine kindness for this reason. Yes, there are many exceptions. I'm just speaking to my experiences. The way I've seen people realize their hatred, is by showing them kindness and understanding when they are being hateful to me. I've also been on the flipside of this: I think the conversations that have been most impactful for me, are when I was being an ass, and someone showed me grace that I didn't deserve. That said, my sample size is small, so take it with a grain of salt. Also - I am not saying everyone should do this. It's not for everyone. People have different comfort levels. I have been called a piece of shit enough in my life that it doesn't bother me, I guess, but for others it might cause a lot of distress and I respect that.
The only real way I can rebuke that is that I believe if we inact more social consequences to the worst people in our society, then peoples tendency to listen to those people opinions goes down. Essentially we'd be making the worst opinions into a taboo, pushing them further into that corner until there's only so many that can fit inside that space. Giving those nazi's that corner to shout from increases passerby's exposure and perhaps belief in the normalcy of those opinions. That's something I could be better read on, though.
I agree a lot here. The more taboo something becomes, it seems the less popular it becomes over time. People generally don't want to be pariahs, as we are social creatures. But I don't think these strategies are mutually exclusive; we as a society can determine things are taboo, and still be willing to talk civilly with people who hold those views.
Well said. I believe that these conversations are a blessing when they 'happen' between two ready human beings. It's a difficult topic that requires careful timing and involves a lot of factors...
Well said.
I believe that these conversations are a blessing when they 'happen' between two ready human beings. It's a difficult topic that requires careful timing and involves a lot of factors good faith, love and humility and hope alone can't account for.
It is important and valuable to create spaces where the possibility of something so precious can happen, I believe.
“Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. (15:7)
In my own life I've found the episodes when the "scales fell from my eyes" and I come to truly see I was in the wrong, that, looking back, these episodes were precious to me and will contribute to my eternal good. And I owe all of them to a large number of people who allowed me the grace to be an idiot for a much longer time, to converse with me and even sometimes rebuke. And my reactions weren't always gracious when I held firmly to the old ideas like my core identity hinges on it.
But precisely because of how precious they are, also in the words of Christ:
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. (Matthew 7:6)
I've come to believe that these precious conversations where we might be able to pull someone from the fire need to happen, but they don't need to happen everywhere and indeed cannot. That, they seem to happen more in isolation and in a quiet place, between who they truly are and one person who is polite or kind to them who is willing to engage. Christ Himself changed many lives conversing with folks along quiet shores, alone by a well, on a long road to Emmaus, when a totally socially rejected person is dying naked beside Him....but He did not change anyone's mind among a mob screaming for blood and national identity.
Thanks for the encouraging thoughts, and for understanding. I can not say that I am religious myself, but I think there is a lot of really useful things that can be learned from different...
Thanks for the encouraging thoughts, and for understanding. I can not say that I am religious myself, but I think there is a lot of really useful things that can be learned from different religious leaders, such as what you've pointed out. The idea of changes like this happening in more private settings vs in public ones is interesting, and not something I've thought about before at all. It could be that that is where those things are most likely to take place. The pressure is off of everyone, and maybe here thoughts can be more easily and freely exchanged, without fear of ridicule, etc.
I guess my thought in all of this, is that if we are a society were more willing to civil to each other, maybe these things would be possible in public, too. Maybe they wouldn't be rare, and could happen more frequently. That said, I can understand why some people in these comments don't like this approach, or might even think it's harmful, I guess. I wish I knew what was the right way to do things, but I'm just limited to my own experiences. It's seems like a difficult problem to solve, and people have wildly different opinions on how to go about it.
but they don't need to happen everywhere and indeed cannot.
I'm glad you pointed this out, and I agree. I want to make clear, I'm not trying to say that every platform, etc. should be open to such discussions. Every place can be what it wants to be. For example, tildes is what it is. Reddit is what it is. That squabbles is what it is. That's ok. They can all be what they are, and they serve difference purposes. Not every place is there to try and change society or whatever, again, sometimes people just want to have a good time, enjoy low key, stress free things, that's fine of course :) I was more talking about my ideal little utopia, but it's ok that not every place is that.
I quite agree with you in that I wish things were optimised for kindness and genuine exchange :) well, you and I each have our little sphere of social interactions that maybe we can be positive...
I quite agree with you in that I wish things were optimised for kindness and genuine exchange :) well, you and I each have our little sphere of social interactions that maybe we can be positive catalysts of.
Yeah and even if it's just a few people over time, I still think that's significant. You never know what impact those people will have or who they could help. And even if it just stays with that...
Yeah and even if it's just a few people over time, I still think that's significant. You never know what impact those people will have or who they could help. And even if it just stays with that one person, I think everyone's life is equally important. It could make their life happier. I am so grateful to the people who helped me see different ways of thinking. Thank you for the dialogue :)
Edit: It's been fixed, everyone else please ignore. Thanks! I'm sure you didn't mean this this way, but to see trans people, Roma and black people in a line, and transphobes, western Europeans and...
Edit: It's been fixed, everyone else please ignore. Thanks!
Roma and western Europeans
I'm sure you didn't mean this this way, but to see trans people, Roma and black people in a line, and transphobes, western Europeans and KKK members on the other side is.... oh boy.
Yeah, you're right. I did add a little part at the end saying "not to equivocate" but I definitely could have used much better wording there. Absolutely did not mean to imply that they are in the...
Yeah, you're right. I did add a little part at the end saying "not to equivocate" but I definitely could have used much better wording there. Absolutely did not mean to imply that they are in the same class. I'll fix the wording so I don't take away from what I'm trying to say
Cheers. TBF, I've seen anti-roma racists on the internet equivocate themselves with western Europeans in.... unfortunate ways, basically claiming that their stance is "the western European one"...
Cheers.
TBF, I've seen anti-roma racists on the internet equivocate themselves with western Europeans in.... unfortunate ways, basically claiming that their stance is "the western European one" and that there's no one who would disagree with them. I think it saw that in a western european themed shitposting sub. No surprise there.
Just chiming in to add one more bit. You seem like a thoughtful and empathetic person, and the personal growth you describe in your comments is laudable. To speak to your "hate" of politics: I'd...
Exemplary
Just chiming in to add one more bit. You seem like a thoughtful and empathetic person, and the personal growth you describe in your comments is laudable. To speak to your "hate" of politics: I'd encourage you to consider that politics is ultimately the moving of forces that massively influence people's lives, and that many people do not have the luxury of disengaging from politics when it makes them uncomfortable. For some people, politics, or what you might refer to as political topics, is their entire life. Not because they chose such a life, but because others chose it for them. Slavery was/is a political issue. Nazism was/is a political issue. "Politics" is what happens when people disagree, and when the disagreement involves acts of oppression and violence, "politics" becomes life and death. There's a reason people get emotional when it comes to politics - it's difficult to have a calm "debate" when the other person's view is "you are less than me and deserve no rights".
Politics is fundamentally about people's lives. You seem like you have a good head on your shoulders, and the idealized "can't we all discuss this civilly" desire you articulate is what politics ought to be and can be when the stakes are lower. I think that this desire might make you a better fit for political engagement than you expect, if you're willing to get in the trenches and work through the question "how do we deal with people who resist being reasoned with?"
Kind_of_Ben, thanks for sharing these thoughts. I made a response to you then deleted it, because I realized I hadn't understand you fully. I hope I understand you better now. I believe you're...
Kind_of_Ben, thanks for sharing these thoughts. I made a response to you then deleted it, because I realized I hadn't understand you fully. I hope I understand you better now. I believe you're correct that saying "hate politics" is a strong phrase, and I spoke boldly without thinking. Reflecting, I realize this is from years old frustration, and I haven't revisited that frustration in a long time. I need to do so.
You're right, speaking so strongly like that discounts people who are suffering under extreme political oppression, and for that I deeply apologize. I really didn't think about it until now. but I will going forward, 100%. I appreciate this part of your post the most.
I realize now that I also might be using the word politics incorrectly.
I'm still not certain I'm a good one to have politically motivated discussions, at least at this time in my life. It's not really that it makes me uncomfortable. Rather, there are just some other problems in this world that I want to devote my energy to solving. They might not be as far reaching as some other issues, but people are still suffering with these problems, and I don't want them to be forgotten. However, I am open to revisiting the idea.
Eh, I'm not sure I'd say that. There's many closely-related uses of the word, and yours is certainly a common one. I simply wanted to offer a different framing of the concept. For example, it's...
I realize now that I also might be using the word politics incorrectly
Eh, I'm not sure I'd say that. There's many closely-related uses of the word, and yours is certainly a common one. I simply wanted to offer a different framing of the concept.
what do you mean by "lower stakes"?
For example, it's easier to have a civil debate about the use of public funds to build a library than it is to have a civil "debate" about whether trans people deserve to exist. The former is a practical and philosophical question with the potential to moderately impact the general public's quality of life; the latter is literally life and death for a vulnerable group of people, and the threatening side of the "debate" arguably doesn't deserve to be listened to.
there are just some other problems in this world that I want to devote my energy to solving. They might not be as far reaching as some other issues, but people are still suffering with these problems, and I don't want them to be forgotten.
That is totally okay - awesome, even! Not everyone needs to be an activist or public servant (I myself am probably a pretty poor fit for either of those, particularly right now). I'm not religious, but many traditions talk about how the best way you can help others is by using your unique skills/"gifts", and I think they're right on the money in that case. However, I think it's still important to remember that (to some extent), everything involving other people is political. I don't mean to say that "everything is political and you should aggressively have an opinion on everything and always be angry about something" because that's just massively unhelpful and part of what gets us into messes like the US is in right now. But I do mean that it's simply a fact of life that people disagree, often in ways that greatly impact each other, and in order to have a functioning society we have to work through those disagreements instead of just ignoring them. A classic response to people who say "ugh I don't do politics" is "well, too bad, politics is gonna do you," because politics affects everyone whether it seems like it or not. Maybe I personally don't feel it, but what about the people I care about? What about the people THEY care about? We're all connected, even if we can't always see it.
You don't have to be an activist or write a manifesto, but you should know what you will and won't stand for. Know what your neighbors need from you, and what you need from them. That's how you make space for there to be civil discussions that allow society to progress forward, instead of constantly being stuck in frustrated loops where various groups of people are endlessly fighting for their right to simply exist.
Ah ok. Yeah, that makes sense. I would be more inclined to have such discussions. Seems like there might be less emotions, and it would be a comfortable discussion, and not one that drains energy....
For example, it's easier to have a civil debate about the use of public funds to build a library than it is to have a civil "debate" about whether trans people deserve to exist. The former is a practical and philosophical question with the potential to moderately impact the general public's quality of life; the latter is literally life and death for a vulnerable group of people, and the threatening side of the "debate" arguably doesn't deserve to be listened to.
Ah ok. Yeah, that makes sense. I would be more inclined to have such discussions. Seems like there might be less emotions, and it would be a comfortable discussion, and not one that drains energy.
. However, I think it's still important to remember that (to some extent), everything involving other people is political.
It's an interesting way to think of things, and one I have never considered. It does change the way I see things. I think the problems I'm trying to solve however are not ones where there's any sort of disagreement, so I'm not sure they would be political by this definition?
You don't have to be an activist or write a manifesto, but you should know what you will and won't stand for. Know what your neighbors need from you, and what you need from them. That's how you make space for there to be civil discussions that allow society to progress forward, instead of constantly being stuck in frustrated loops where various groups of people are endlessly fighting for their right to simply exist.
I think one of my problems here, and with politics in general, that I neglected to mention, is that I find it difficult to determine such things. The reason: I've held strongly to views in the past, believed them 100%, and then they were changed over time when I discovered new information, or saw different perspectives. Because of this, it is difficult for me to hold on to views about society because I have limited knowledge, and I believe I could be wrong. Just like this thread itself - there were some people who have a completely different approach than me. That is fine. More than that - who am I to say I am right and they are wrong? I have come to my conclusions based on my limited knowledge and experiences. Perhaps if I had more experiences and knowledge I would change these views.
It's not that I don't hold any opinions at all, but it is difficult for me to hold strongly enough to them that I'd want to see legislation around those opinions, because again, I could be wrong. It seems like only if I were to become some sort of expert on a topic, that I could feel comfortable being strong enough in that opinion. Even then, there would still always be the chance I'm lacking some knowledge, but that chance would be less, I guess. That said, maybe this approach in itself is not a good one, so I'm not trying to discount people who do believe strongly in their views. Maybe they are the ones with the right approach, and mine is flawed.
I think at that point I was driving more towards the "politics affects everyone" than "these problems you're trying to solve are highly political" so perhaps I could have worded that better,...
I'm not sure they would be political by this definition?
I think at that point I was driving more towards the "politics affects everyone" than "these problems you're trying to solve are highly political" so perhaps I could have worded that better, sorry.
That said, maybe this approach in itself is not a good one
On the contrary, if your mind is as open as you describe, I'd say it's an incredibly socially healthy approach. I too hold VERY different beliefs than I used to so I can empathize with the journey you must have gone through. For me, it was a process of distilling things down to the most fundamental beliefs I had and then building back up from there. That's glossing over a really difficult 5ish years (and in reality the process is still ongoing because it will probably never end), but that's how I found some sort of foundation on which to construct my new philosophy of life. Like I said, I really do think it boils down to figuring out on an incredibly simple level what you will and will not stand for. Everything else follows from there. You just have to do your best to make decisions and educate yourself based on those conclusions and that's enough, because your best is all anyone (including you) can ask of you. There's a lot of things we can't ever know for certain (some would say we can't know anything for certain at all), and that's okay. We just have to do the best we can with what we've got.
(Or maybe you don't have to, these are just my views of how to be a member of society haha.)
Thanks. Really I'm glad we explored the semantics here, because to be honest I have never put much thought into politics, what it is, what it means, all that kind of stuff. I know it's a little...
Exemplary
I think at that point I was driving more towards the "politics affects everyone" than "these problems you're trying to solve are highly political" so perhaps I could have worded that better, sorry.
Thanks. Really I'm glad we explored the semantics here, because to be honest I have never put much thought into politics, what it is, what it means, all that kind of stuff. I know it's a little off topic, but I really do want to circle back around to the whole idea of not everyone having the luxury to disengage. I have thought about that a lot since you wrote it, and just saying something like "i hate politics", is kind of embarrassing now. I mean, even if I still chose to disengage, which truthfully, I probably will - it deserves more thought as to how I chose to talk about it or express it, or even think about myself. I will pass the sentiment to others are well.
On the contrary, if your mind is as open as you describe, I'd say it's an incredibly socially healthy approach. I too hold VERY different beliefs than I used to so I can empathize with the journey you must have gone through. For me, it was a process of distilling things down to the most fundamental beliefs I had and then building back up from there. That's glossing over a really difficult 5ish years (and in reality the process is still ongoing because it will probably never end), but that's how I found some sort of foundation on which to construct my new philosophy of life. Like I said, I really do think it boils down to figuring out on an incredibly simple level what you will and will not stand for. Everything else follows from there. You just have to do your best to make decisions and educate yourself based on those conclusions and that's enough, because your best is all anyone (including you) can ask of you. There's a lot of things we can't ever know for certain (some would say we can't know anything for certain at all), and that's okay. We just have to do the best we can with what we've got.
I'm glad you understand. Sometimes I find it difficult to express this. Losing your beliefs is a difficult thing to go through, but also very liberating. I am trying to get better about trusting anything, any sort of belief at all (within reason of course, because like you said, there's some things we can't know for certain, and to be honest, I am definitely one of those people who believes we can't know anything for certain.) Previously, my thoughts was only "well this could be wrong", but these days I try to balance that with "yes, but who knows, maybe it's right as well." If you're only focused on it being wrong, it's just as biased I guess as assuming it must be correct. Anyway, I think I need to sit with those changing thoughts for some time.
Thanks for understanding the reasons behind not committing to certain things, and not seeing me in a negative light.
I'm glad what I said was valuable to you! And of course I don't see you in a negative light; I strive to be as open-minded and mindful of others as you have been in this thread. I'll leave you...
I'm glad what I said was valuable to you! And of course I don't see you in a negative light; I strive to be as open-minded and mindful of others as you have been in this thread.
I'll leave you with this which I hope can help: you and I are far from the first people to walk the whole "we can't know anything...uhhhh...shit" path. I wish I could recommend authors/philosophers off the top of my head but unfortunately my memory's failing me at the moment. I can at least tell you that people have definitely worked through this problem before. I believe one proposed solution is the idea that even if all knowledge is guesses and morality is a useful lie, knowledge and morality are still exactly that: useful. If we can use those things to build more fulfilling and satisfying lives for ourselves and those around us, then... Does it matter if they're philosophical/sociological/psychological fabrications?
That's heavily paraphrased, but I think that's the gist. It's possible to face meaninglessness and find meaning anyway. "Positive nihilism" might be a good search term to get you started.
"I don't think you have a right to exist, and statistically people like you are rapists and murderers. I am being perfectly civil, so you have no right to complain, we're just having a friendly...
Exemplary
As long as everyone is civil
"I don't think you have a right to exist, and statistically people like you are rapists and murderers. I am being perfectly civil, so you have no right to complain, we're just having a friendly discussion about why people like you are harmful and taking my rights away."
No, fuck that, don't tolerate intolerance is very basic beginner level anti-fascist work and we see how terrible online forums become for a wide range of people as soon as we allow people have polite discussions about why they hate others.
I think a subtle point that's often overlooked with this line of reasoning, at least by the right wing and sometimes by "enlightened centrists" is that it matters a lot what "people like you" in...
I think a subtle point that's often overlooked with this line of reasoning, at least by the right wing and sometimes by "enlightened centrists" is that it matters a lot what "people like you" in your quote are. There's two broad categories: Inherent characteristics and personality/ideology traits. If "people like you" are a sexual, ethnic, disability identifier, the above line of arguing is extremely cynical and harmful.
On the contrary, if "people like you" refers to assholes, racists, transphobes and the like, the argument makes a lot more sense. If I dilute your quoted statement a bit and adapt it:
I don't think you have a right to exist in this space, and statistically people like you are making this space worse for most others. I am being perfectly civil, so you have no right to complain, we're just having a friendly discussion about why people like you are harmful.
The basic structure is the same, but it's basically the philosophy tildes applies to trolls and bigots. That's not a difference in degree, that's a difference in kind, and people who don't see the difference should maybe consider that one group can leave those parts of their identity that cause strife at the door, while others can not. One can stop being a homophobe when one enters a space, one can not stop being gay.
I understand your hesitance to this idea, and I respect that. I elaborated a little bit more on this idea in one of the other comment chains, but it's ok if it's not for you.
I understand your hesitance to this idea, and I respect that. I elaborated a little bit more on this idea in one of the other comment chains, but it's ok if it's not for you.
Sounds to me more like you two have different assumptions about what civility means. I assume you mean genuine civility, where an argument such as the one quoted by DanBC won't be tolerated...
Sounds to me more like you two have different assumptions about what civility means. I assume you mean genuine civility, where an argument such as the one quoted by DanBC won't be tolerated because, well, it's not very civil, is it? When DanBC knows that bad actors will hide behind a very thin veneer of civility to advance a fundamentally uncivil agenda. It's very OK to want genuine civil exchange, even about controversial subjects.
If you feel like you're being dogpiled here by people disagreeing with you, let me reassure you that I think people don't disagree with you; they misunderstand you because we're all bringing our biases and assumptions into the conversation. If that's too much for you, maybe you can edit your top-level comment either to clarify your stance or to encourage others to read the rest of the conversation first before commenting. Oh, and you don't have to "defend" your statement against everyone who replies, because I genuinely think there's nothing that needs defending.
To clarify to everyone else: I'm not accusing anyone here of dogpiling, but I think kuzbr's top comment is a bit of a lightning rod for all the wrong reasons.
I appreciate the remark, but don't worry I don't feel dogpiled on :) I think though I might have unintentionally veered this topic into a place that's a little hostile for tildes. I didn't want to...
I appreciate the remark, but don't worry I don't feel dogpiled on :) I think though I might have unintentionally veered this topic into a place that's a little hostile for tildes. I didn't want to do that. For that I'm sorry I commented, and won't comment beyond this post, to avoid furthering anything negative.
Naahh, I think you're fine. Maaaaaybe I'm giving you too much credit, but I genuinely think you're in the right place. The discussion is going a bit pear-shaped, but that's hardly solely your...
Naahh, I think you're fine. Maaaaaybe I'm giving you too much credit, but I genuinely think you're in the right place. The discussion is going a bit pear-shaped, but that's hardly solely your fault. Feel free to disengage, but don't feel pressured to.
You're correct, "free speech" has become code for "consequence-free speech." Its use is a beacon for people who are so toxic that they immediately get banned from any platform that has any...
You're correct, "free speech" has become code for "consequence-free speech." Its use is a beacon for people who are so toxic that they immediately get banned from any platform that has any moderation standards.
It's also quite unfortunate that many people don't understand what free speech really means, at least in the US' case. So seeing people talk about their free speech rights really grinds my gears....
It's also quite unfortunate that many people don't understand what free speech really means, at least in the US' case. So seeing people talk about their free speech rights really grinds my gears. People really don't seem to understand that they are free to say what they want without consequences from the government, about the government, and while they are "free" to say what they want about other things, the rest are free to not tolerate their bullshit and tell them so, or exclude them from using certain spaces for that fact.
That's sad, that people want to be uncivil with each other. I don't enjoy such discussions, personally. I wonder if there is a good alternative phrase that I can use, because I don't want that to...
That's sad, that people want to be uncivil with each other. I don't enjoy such discussions, personally. I wonder if there is a good alternative phrase that I can use, because I don't want that to be what people think of when I say free speech. Language evolves, and I can understand how it has different connotations than what I'm thinking.
Yeah, I don't think it's anything new. I think it's human nature. Maybe one day when we are robots are something, we will get past this, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. :)
Yeah, I don't think it's anything new. I think it's human nature. Maybe one day when we are robots are something, we will get past this, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. :)
This change is pretty explicit about civility not being required. You can be a massive raging asshole, as long as you stay clear of outright illegal speech (by US law I assume), you can harass,...
I don't mind talking to someone with an unsavory point of view in my eyes. As long as everyone is civil, and actually has their minds open, and isn't just talking to hear themselves talk.
This change is pretty explicit about civility not being required. You can be a massive raging asshole, as long as you stay clear of outright illegal speech (by US law I assume), you can harass, insult and incite all you like.
Basically, by allowing as much speech as possible, you're creating a very pleasant space for assholes, and a very unpleasant one for kind people. Those kind people will be perspectives and opinions that will be sorely missed in your free exchange of ideas. This has happened to a lot of online spaces previously. If you look at any of the asshole-infested spaces like 4chan, coat, etc, they're often not explicitly pro asshole, just pro free speech. But the assholes and often Nazis follow.
Fwiw, I don't think it's a Utopia. Currently, many topics are a bit too spicy to be discussed here, as they result in too much moderation effort for deimos. Once we have tools for trusted users to take over much of that, and maybe a bit more cultural growth towards mutual respect during controversy, I feel we might start to revisit that.
Well that is sad :( I feel like the moment a conversation is no longer civil, the conversation is sort of dead. Human defenses will go up, everyone is on guard, and listening is kind of over....
This change is pretty explicit about civility not being required. You can be a massive raging asshole, as long as you stay clear of outright illegal speech (by us law I assume), you can harass, insult and incite all you like.
Well that is sad :( I feel like the moment a conversation is no longer civil, the conversation is sort of dead. Human defenses will go up, everyone is on guard, and listening is kind of over.
Fwiw, I don't think it's a Utopia. Currently, many topics are a bit too spicy to be discussed here, as they result in too much moderation effort for deimos. Once we have tools for trusted users to take over much of that, and maybe a bit more cultural growth towards mutual respect during controversy, I feel we might start to revisit that.
That's fair, and to be clear, I wasn't referring to squabbles with that comment. I generally don't know what that site is like. I just meant, somewhere out there where I can exchange ideas with people who think radically different from me, and all of us have open minds, and treat each other well, and want to learn (and do our best to leave our biases behind). I don't think I'll ever find this! To be honest, Tildes is probably the closest to that ideal place that i have found online - people are civil and seem open to different viewpoints. I cherish that about this site, and why I like to lurk around here.
With regards to politics, generally I just dislike political discussion of any kind (specifically because they always seem to be quite biased and emotional). Maybe that's why I'm a little naive in this regards, as I just don't participate in such discussions. In no way was I trying to encourage more politics or hot button topics here or anywhere else. My bad if it came across that way.
While I mostly agree with your sentiment, people acting in bad faith have been (wrongly) using "free speech" as an excuse to both allow and spread hatespeech and misinformation online for a while...
While I mostly agree with your sentiment, people acting in bad faith have been (wrongly) using "free speech" as an excuse to both allow and spread hatespeech and misinformation online for a while now, to the point where it's become a kind of dogwhistle for these folks.
That's fair. It seems like it might be a language thing. Either way, sometimes I get a little nervous around what people label as hateful. Sometimes it seems to get confused with "someone that...
That's fair. It seems like it might be a language thing. Either way, sometimes I get a little nervous around what people label as hateful. Sometimes it seems to get confused with "someone that doesn't agree with me" or "someone that doesn't agree with my morality." That said, I think that's a different discussion with its own complexities. My original comment was probably out of place.
Side note: what would be a good standin phrase for "free speech" in the form I am thinking - i.e., I just picture a group of people who are just talking to each other. Civil, just wanting to learn, even if people have wildly different views and ethics. No shouting and arguing, just people that want to exchange ideas. I don't know a better term to use, and definetely don't want to say free speech if it is politically-charged, as that is not at all what I want (i hate politics actually).
As you've already used the term more-or-less, I would nominate "civil discussion". Where one is: free to share an opinion, as long as it is without malice; free to be wrong, but not free from...
As you've already used the term more-or-less, I would nominate "civil discussion".
Where one is:
free to share an opinion, as long as it is without malice;
free to be wrong, but not free from being challenged/debated;
free to abstain from further discussion, without being forced to "win" or "lose" in the process.
The problem is that it's perfectly possible for a bunch of guys to have a "civil discussion" under this definition about really harmful things, like the inherent inferiority of certain races or...
The problem is that it's perfectly possible for a bunch of guys to have a "civil discussion" under this definition about really harmful things, like the inherent inferiority of certain races or sexualities. Even if the conversation around that happens extremely civily, I'm not going to want to be having my civil discussions about literally anything else when the next thread over is a bunch of people civilly discussing why I should be force detransitioned, and when those same people can come and debate in my own discussions about, say, how to recover from top surgery. A goal of civility doesn't remotely eliminate the Nazi bar problem.
I think that hinges heavily on how you choose to interpret "as long as it is without malice". You can apply a standard that precludes discussions about inferiority of certain races or sexualities...
I think that hinges heavily on how you choose to interpret "as long as it is without malice". You can apply a standard that precludes discussions about inferiority of certain races or sexualities there, no problem. Or at least, make the standard for how such topics can be discussed (wrt. standard of evidence, expressing oneself such as to be sensitive of others' emotions) so high as to be practically unviable. Trolls won't jump through those hoops because they derive no satisfaction from it then.
(In an ideal world, that kind of standard can, I think, be used to build a space where any topic can be discussed genuinely civilly, i.e. so as to not be harmful towards those affects. There's a half-cooked idea floating around my brain of a space where the more potential for harm a topic has, the higher the standard of evidence, conduct, rationality, etc, gets. My underpinning assumption here is that it eliminates all bigoted opinions, because those are founded on bad evidence or bad reasoning; however, such a space would still always accept truth even where it conflicts with our morality.)
I'm not particularly convinced that it's possible to enumerate such a standard in a way that actually keeps out the bad speech and doesn't punish the good speech. Bad actors are experts at toeing...
You can apply a standard that precludes discussions about inferiority of certain races or sexualities there, no problem. Or at least, make the standard for how such topics can be discussed (wrt. standard of evidence, expressing oneself such as to be sensitive of others' emotions) so high as to be practically unviable. Trolls won't jump through those hoops because they derive no satisfaction from it then.
I'm not particularly convinced that it's possible to enumerate such a standard in a way that actually keeps out the bad speech and doesn't punish the good speech. Bad actors are experts at toeing the line to keep behavior that has negative impacts on the community just inside the line, so that they can complain "I didn't break any rules!" when any action against them is attempted. Tildes's code of conduct is at least partially inspired by On a Technicality, which does a great job of laying out how this tends to occur.
The way Tildes gets around it is by having a explicitly vague, subjective code of conduct and a dictatorship of its founder. All moderation is going to ultimately come down to the opinions of those controlling the site on how to best moderate anyway, but this makes it explicit that for you to like Tildes and how they moderate here, you've gotta at least tolerate Deimos's subjective opinions on what deserves to stay and what should be locked or deleted. And tbh, I don't think there's a better way to do this. The more explicitly you set out the rules for something like "civil discussion", the more bad actors abuse those rules against others while keeping just inside the rules themselves.
If I may add, it's very similar to a way children sometimes annoy other children. The rules say, "Keep your hands to yourself." Child points their finger an inch away from another's face and...
The more explicitly you set out the rules for something like "civil discussion", the more bad actors abuse those rules against others while keeping just inside the rules themselves.
If I may add, it's very similar to a way children sometimes annoy other children. The rules say, "Keep your hands to yourself." Child points their finger an inch away from another's face and proclaims, "I'm not touching you!", proud that they have managed to find a loophole. Whereas if the rule is "Play nice," the adult is able to simply retort that even if you're not technically touching them, you're not playing nice, thus you have broken a rule.
Years ago when I ran a Minecraft server, we had rule number nine: "Don't be a dick." I didn't know it at the time, it was just shorthand. Everybody knows what "don't be a dick" means! Griefing, harassing, or just saying mean shit in general? "Being a dick, appeal on subreddit or Discord." EZ PZ.
Even if someone does struggle with understanding what "being a dick" entails, enumerating a bunch of specifics is never going to cover all situations without any room for misunderstanding. I don't...
Even if someone does struggle with understanding what "being a dick" entails, enumerating a bunch of specifics is never going to cover all situations without any room for misunderstanding. I don't think it's really possible to do that.
Absolutely, and that's largely why we had the rule in the first place. It was just shorthand for all the conceivable things we didn't feel like writing down. It was just a nice coincidence that my...
Absolutely, and that's largely why we had the rule in the first place. It was just shorthand for all the conceivable things we didn't feel like writing down. It was just a nice coincidence that my act of laziness allowed for a very flexible moderation style.
I'm very much familiar with all that, and I agree. Unfortunately, what it tends towards is that there's just a red line of topics that are more or less off limits, or are at least liable to be...
I'm very much familiar with all that, and I agree. Unfortunately, what it tends towards is that there's just a red line of topics that are more or less off limits, or are at least liable to be moderated fairly strictly. We see this on tildes, where Deimos has certain topics of which he assumes that truly civil discussion is not possible and/or not productive. As a result, these topics are a hair's width from closure at all times. I can't fault the man, his heuristic is generally right on.
What I'm saying is that I have this harebrained idea that I'm sure is only half cooked, but I'm also somewhat convinced of it: We could establish the rule that topics that are more liable to cause distress in parts of the community have a higher standard of contributions; in terms of burden of proof, in terms of novelty of arguments, in terms of emotionally sensitive expression, etc. That's it, that's the rule right there. As vague as that. Same as "don't be an asshole".
Ideally you'd develop some kind of culture around it that makes the emotional labor of the contributors explicit, such that others can passively absorb it. Basically, instead of starting a topic "nazis should be denied the right to vote"[1] and listing a bunch of cold arguments in favor of it, a viable post that would not hurt the feelings of those affected would have to provide more detailed evidence, give known counterarguments a fair shake, and wrap it all in language that aims not to offend. The author would also make that process somewhat explicit, such that people can learn from one another; basically "here's who this topic affects and how it affects them, and this is what I'm doing to reduce the risk of harm."
People who don't invest that kind of effort will stick out like a sore thumb and will be moderated away as they are now. And I genuinely don't believe that trolls will entertain the thought of participating in that. You can either troll on twitter and use slurs to insult minorities as you please (well, not quite, but not far off), or you can write a novel research paper about why minority X is less than. The latter is a far worse deal in a payoff/effort ratio, I don't think it's going to be a thing. You're going to get people genuinely interested in illuminating the topic - people who go into this with an open mind and are actually interested in the process of figuring things out, even if it's made more difficult by having to be accommodating to other's emotions. Nevermind that contributing novelty to the discussion usually entails the possibility of accidentally supporting the other side, so people who aren't in it for truth but for agenda pushing run a huge risk there. Particularly if we believe that our moral high ground is also based in fact.
The one counterpoint I can easily see to this approach is if we're offended by the truth. If genuinely rational, genuinely civil discourse arrives at conclusions we consider harmful, maybe we have bigger problems than how we discuss that? If the truth does no harm, but the discussion does, then I think we just haven't set the standard high enough.
TL;DR: I agree, those rules would have to be as vague as our current "don't be an asshole"; it's not a solution for the rules lawyering problem. But I believe the basic idea has the potential to strike a novel balance between civility and rationality, and would turn away bad actors.
[1] I deliberately chose a less controversial and slightly farcical punching bag because then I get to use the "raw and hurtful" version as an example without shame. Please don't take this as a literal example, but more of a stand-in for topics I'd rather not insert here because I'm not confident I could actually live up to the standards I myself outline here; I'm not that emotionally smart. You can imagine an arbitrarily harmful replacement as you please, but please also imagine an appropriately heightened standard of discourse.
I think you're really really underestimating how likely this is to be a thing. There are already fairly famous books published with a scholarly veneer that aim to essentially do exactly this ("The...
You can either troll on twitter and use slurs to insult minorities as you please (well, not quite, but not far off), or you can write a novel research paper about why minority X is less than. The latter is a far worse deal in a payoff/effort ratio, I don't think it's going to be a thing.
I think you're really really underestimating how likely this is to be a thing. There are already fairly famous books published with a scholarly veneer that aim to essentially do exactly this ("The Bell Curve" is an example that comes to mind). I can promise you that people absolutely can and will put the effort in to have "well-researched" discussions about absolutely vile shit, and they'll have no shortage of historical research and sources to cite.
It also doesn't matter how high you set the bar for the actual content of the post -- there are some topics that are going to drive away victims of oppression just by their nature of being allowed. I don't care how civilly and with how much research someone argues that black people are less intelligent (and trust me, there's plenty of bogus sources and quotes from racist scientists both living and dead they'll LOVE to trot out and elaborate on), black people aren't going to want to exist on a website where that discussion is happening and they certainly aren't going to want to waste their time debating the matter and being forced to show evidence that they aren't intellectually inferior to back it up. What this accomplishes is an environment that's more hostile to minorities than it is to harmful discussions.
These strict rules about burdens of proof and novelty of arguments are also going to harm genuine discussions within these minority communities. After all, my existence as a trans person is distressing to plenty of people. Should I be held to such a strict burden if I want to discuss my own feelings and experiences? Not every venue is a formal debate, but this forces discussions on certain topics to ONLY be such things because there's no other means of kicking out Nazi shit.
See, but all of those examples you mention are things I wouldn't imagine would pass muster. A scholarly veneer is insufficient. I don't think "The Bell Curve" could be considered a neutral account...
See, but all of those examples you mention are things I wouldn't imagine would pass muster. A scholarly veneer is insufficient. I don't think "The Bell Curve" could be considered a neutral account of the science around race and IQ. If one produces a genuinely neutral, well researched account that illuminates all facets of the science around the topic, I imagine it would be quite inoffensive. And it wouldn't be something an agenda-pushing racist is interested in writing down. Sure, you can bring out your bogus sources, but if you're not illuminating how they're bogus, you're not living up to the standards. As I said, the standard can be practically impossibly high for discussions we really don't want to entertain. (Though I'd stop one step short of actually impossibly high.) The standards can be as they are for everyday discussions on here. They should be high around the topics that usually end up in chaos on here; they should be extremely high for the stuff that isn't usually even talked about on here.
As for the fact that your existence is pain (to other people): Not all harm is created equal, and I think it's prudent to acknowledge that. There's slices of society that we get to choose to identify with, and slices we are just part of. The paradox of tolerance still works. We're still working within the broad guidelines that tildes functions under. We can still decide that the harm caused to transphobes by trans people discussing everyday stuff in everyday tone is not relevant, and there's no flowery words needed to ensure they don't feel offended. Meanwhile their agenda is heavily moderated, and they don't get to post unless they remove their agenda and hate from their posts.
Question for everyone participating in this particular string of discussion. How do you allow for deprogramming of those who truly are willing to come around? Edit it to expand: In my own life, I...
Question for everyone participating in this particular string of discussion. How do you allow for deprogramming of those who truly are willing to come around?
Edit it to expand:
In my own life, I know that there are certainly thoughts and opinions that were 100% based on lack of exposure. And I believe this to be true of everybody. Most likely, we can hold some truly horrendous beliefs because we've never had any contact with anything that would cause us to question those. And I don't see that as a moral failure in any way shape or form, it's just simple ignorance. And, as a result, usually takes me multiple exposures to a given idea before it's possible to actually "get it." There's in dash group language, and meanings that go past the surface that it just takes time to realize are there.
That doesn't negate the need for safe spaces where people don't have to put up with it, but without some sort of venue to have ignorant discussions, people who are willing to never get the opportunity to move past their own ignorances.
And one of the problems is those kinds of spaces are absolutely likely to get taken upper by bad faith actors. But you also don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
My moderation experience is principally in areas related to a specific hobby of mine, so ignorant questions about topics like that could be shut down on the basis of being off-topic at our...
My moderation experience is principally in areas related to a specific hobby of mine, so ignorant questions about topics like that could be shut down on the basis of being off-topic at our discretion (since, like, we weren't really the place for that). That said, it's a hobby that disproportionately popular among trans women, so ignorant questions about that topic would likely result in getting dogpiled anyway. Most of our actual bad actors were more blatant that merely asking questions out of ignorance, though.
On the discord server I moderated we had a role that locked a user to a specific channel with only the mods and them, which we could use to quickly shut down an inflammatory conversation without banning anyone. We'd then usually try to have a discussion one-on-one between a mod who wasn't too heated about the situation and the "offender". As mods we'd try to be gentle here if possible, since the goal was to help illuminate what was inappropriate about their behavior and could answer ignorant questions as part of that. I'm not sure whether this was the best solution, since often people would just be like "fuck you" and leave the server, but sometimes we would at least seemingly get through to people. Lots of teens on our server so sometimes it really was just someone being immature.
We also reviewed bans on request, so if someone felt bad and wanted back in they could DM a mod. Depending on the nature of and length of time since what they did, as well as how they asked for it, we were open to unbanning people who seemed to have grown since.
I don't think these are perfect solutions, but they definitely seemed like good enough solutions for at least a small to medium-sized community. As for the advice I'd give to someone in online spaces who genuinely doesn't know where the boundaries are and doesn't want to say shit that'd hurt people or get them banned... I can really only say "lurk moar." You don't need to be the one to start a discussion about a controversial topic you don't understand, and people are going to be more inclined to patiently explain shit to you if you come to it with an open sense of humility. Acknowledging one's own ignorance is key to being received well when asking questions about sensitive subjects like this too.
Civil discussion is actually a great way to phrase it, great thanks. I'd add to that, at least in my ideal world, that: people participating in the discussion should feel free to share their...
Civil discussion is actually a great way to phrase it, great thanks. I'd add to that, at least in my ideal world, that:
people participating in the discussion should feel free to share their honest ideas without the fear of themselves being attacked.
(This wouldn't counteract your point of "free to be wrong, but not free from being challenged/debated;". On the contrary - everyone should be open to being challenged. Attack =/= challenge in the way I'm saying it here. I just like a place where that challenge / debate itself in reaction to an idea is also civil.)
Actually really glad you made that bullet point, because I think it articulates well what I have been unable to do so for myself.
I agree with you, people sometimes are too quick to label things as hateful, living in a bubble avoiding anything they disagree with. I think what you mean actually is free speech, the right to...
I agree with you, people sometimes are too quick to label things as hateful, living in a bubble avoiding anything they disagree with.
what would be a good standin phrase for "free speech" in the form I am thinking
I think what you mean actually is free speech, the right to express oneself without fear of censorship by the government. The issue is when people knowingly or not misinterpret it to mean you have no consequences for your actions or that it applies to private places or individuals, as in "the government may not stop you but I don't have to listen to your crap in my house".
Free speech is not seen as a "bad thing" and is a cornerstone of modern civilization. No-one is attacking free speech. What's happening is that bad actors are abusing free speech as an excuse to...
Free speech is not seen as a "bad thing" and is a cornerstone of modern civilization. No-one is attacking free speech. What's happening is that bad actors are abusing free speech as an excuse to spread hate.
Discussion about topics outside of your viewpoint are fine, but when people start bringing up hatred against minority groups who do not have the representation or the power to resist, then it becomes unfitting of a public platform. We gain nothing from entertaining intolerance - on the contrary, we lower the bar of discussion in an aim to please someone who clearly doesn't have it in them to be respectful of others.
Sorry, I was mostly commenting on the title of the post "free speech nutjob", which seemed bizarre to me. But I think now it is more of a language thing, and I didn't appreciate that. It seems I...
Sorry, I was mostly commenting on the title of the post "free speech nutjob", which seemed bizarre to me. But I think now it is more of a language thing, and I didn't appreciate that. It seems I don't have enough context about this situation, or it might be too political for me. My bad if I caused offense.
My thoughts on people being open to share ideas, even unsavory ones, is that well say somebody has a view that is quite hateful that I disagree with, that is maybe based on emotion rather than fact. I'd rather they discuss it in a civil, logical way with people that think differently, and we can bounce ideas off each other. Who knows? Maybe they will see something in another way because someone was willing to talk to them.
Political extremists aren't interested in "bouncing around ideas" or "discussing" things in a logical way. They view discussion as an venue through which to exert dominance over the space. They...
I'd rather they discuss it in a civil, logical way with people that think differently, and we can bounce ideas off each other.
Political extremists aren't interested in "bouncing around ideas" or "discussing" things in a logical way. They view discussion as an venue through which to exert dominance over the space. They are opaque to reason and indifferent to truth. They care only about sending a signal that the people they don't like aren't welcome and they tailor their every comment towards creating a sentiment of "in-group" and "out-group" that they can use to foment conflict and bully their enemies.
You might think you're "having a discussion" with them, but you are not. A discussion requires participants to care about learning from other perspectives, but extremists are too set in their position for that. They're there to either bully you into submission or to leverage the attention they get from the friction with you to attract and groom fellow travelers to grow their movement. They're not seriously there to test their ideas or grow from the experience of conversing.
My issue with your comment, and I say this gently, is that you're lumping a large swath of people into a group and pre-determining what their actions would be, and the way they think. Who is a...
My issue with your comment, and I say this gently, is that you're lumping a large swath of people into a group and pre-determining what their actions would be, and the way they think. Who is a "Political extremist"? Is it anyone who holds a certain viewpoint? How do you know that others might not lump you into a similar group, and assume that you are immune to reason? (Please don't take that as a personal offense, I'm not claiming that you are immune to reason - I'm saying, you might be surprised to discover that someone might think the same way about you because of some view that you hold.)
I am not defending hateful views with this comment, I'm just trying to poke around with the idea that lumping anyone into a category, I think at least, is a dangerous and biased view. It discounts that everyone in that "group" (whatever it might be) is an individual. Maybe one of the people in this group, is a young teen who has heard a bunch of nonsense on the internet, and is just looking to fit in. Maybe it's someone who has had a bad experience, and is acting out of fear. People are different, and you never know who is the person in the group, their reasons for being in it, and what their level of open-mindedness is.
You might think you're "having a discussion" with them, but you are not. A discussion requires participants to care about learning from other perspectives, but extremists are too set in their position for that. They're there to either bully you into submission or to leverage the attention they get from the friction with you to attract and groom fellow travelers to grow their movement. They're not seriously there to test their ideas or grow from the experience of conversing.
I have held strongly to views, which were slowly dismantled by calm, reasoned discussions with people who thought differently from me. I've also had such discussions in the opposite. I guess it's an existence proof. Perhaps it's rare, but I believe it's possible.
Finally, just because a person does not change their view in that single conversation doesn't mean that they don't go home later and start mulling things over. I believe that such views are often slowly dismantled over time. Because of this, it can be difficult to see the evidence of change "oh that person still believes the same way, so nothing came out of it!". Perhaps, for today. But after the next conversation, and the next, things might be very different. You might be interested to see some talks by Megan Phelps-Roper, who was one of the daughters in the westboro baptist church, and her slow exit from those ideologies.
Yes. Because those people are noxious cancers on having a functioning and welcoming community. I don't care what's in their hearts, I care about their behavior and the likelihood of that behavior...
is that you're lumping a large swath of people into a group and pre-determining what their actions would be, and the way they think.
Yes. Because those people are noxious cancers on having a functioning and welcoming community. I don't care what's in their hearts, I care about their behavior and the likelihood of that behavior doing harm to people or, simply, ruining the vibe of a social space. I don't care if certain people might lump me in as a "political extremist", because I have a fairly well reinforced assumption that I have no interest in hanging out in the spaces they create for themselves nor do I care about being invited to their parties. The problem is, they aren't happy to stay in spaces with like minded people. They have a pathological need to go into spaces they aren't wanted and hassle the people there.
I do not care that they're "individuals." People are under no obligation to facilitate the personal growth of any and every deluded person who wanders into their space. I come from a shame-based culture so I well understand the utility of telling people how much of disappointment they are in motivating them to stop their socially undesirable behavior. I don't go along with the Fear/Guilt frameworks so much.
I have held strongly to views, which were slowly dismantled by calm, reasoned discussions with people who thought differently from me.
Did you pay them to tutor you? I'm being glib there, but this is the fundamental issue with allowing this sort of content in a discussion space. People like this have a way of sucking up all of the oxygen in the room and centering themselves and their personal issues and baggage. They bring in generic talking points that are well known to anyone who spent more than 10 minutes sincerely looking into an issue and the people who like to spend time there have to put their time into debunking the same trite misinformation over and over and over and over and over again. This doesn't make for quality discussion. This doesn't raise interesting observations, not even contrary ones. Anyone with anything worthwhile to say leaves these spaces because nobody wants to spend all of their time teaching the remedial basics of a subject to a bunch of hostile ideologues and the easy marks they cultivate to spread their nonsense.
If you want worthwhile discussions, you have to ban people from bringing this stuff up because otherwise that's all you're going to get. Even among the "informed" people who are on the "right" side of these issues you're going to filter it down to the ones who like rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Who wants to hang out in a space that's nothing but people who like to argue all the time, being absolutely certain of their own entrenched positions and content to repeat the same old points ad nauseum while working themselves up into a righteous fury at each other? Not anyone emotionally healthy that's for sure!
The grim fact is that most people have nothing worthwhile to say. Even people who have worthwhile thoughts and ideas have a very low hit-rate. We are sheep. For the most part this is fine, we tend to just ignore [generic opinion #74,324,292] when it comes up and that experience of being ignored teaches us to self-edit ourselves out of saying trite and boring things. But hateful rhetoric and outrage bait have a way of rising to the top of anything that optimizes around freshness or engagement, thus giving unoriginal, uninteresting, unintelligent sheep the opportunity to get attention for their hackneyed utterances. Let this go on long enough and it will sap the life out of everyone.
Megan Phelps-Roper needed to have multiple people put concerted effort into deprogramming her in an online information environment that was much less rife with targeted disinformation and narrative propaganda than the one we live in today. She is not a specialist on the topic and it's honestly kind of entitled to walk around with this belief that every discussion space needs to turn into a zone for tutoring people like her out of their noxious perspectives. Most of these people have had these discussions hundreds of times. They get off on the attention of getting people to argue or engage with them. Anyone who has trained a dog knows that giving them attention for maladaptive behavior just reinforces the behavior, even if it puts them in states of agitation. Even if you care about their intellectual development and well-being (which I, mostly, do not) the better way to do that is to show them how to fill the sucking void of loneliness that motivates them to act like assholes in more constructive ways, by finding interests and community around something other than arguing about culture war nonsense with generic outrage bait. And the best way to do that is to send a clear message to check that garbage at the door.
It seems you missed the point of what I was saying, unfortunately, as this doesn't address it. I was not saying "have pity on these folks" or saying you must empathize with them, or that it is...
Yes. Because those people are noxious cancers on having a functioning and welcoming community. I don't care what's in their hearts, I care about their behavior and the likelihood of that behavior doing harm to people or, simply, ruining the vibe of a social space. I don't care if certain people might lump me in as a "political extremist", because I have a fairly well reinforced assumption that I have no interest in hanging out in the spaces they create for themselves nor do I care about being invited to their parties. The problem is, they aren't happy to stay in spaces with like minded people. They have a pathological need to go into spaces they aren't wanted and hassle the people there.
It seems you missed the point of what I was saying, unfortunately, as this doesn't address it. I was not saying "have pity on these folks" or saying you must empathize with them, or that it is your duty to educate them. I was saying your (or anyone's) blanket statement about the way they think, and what is possible with them, is frankly biased. I'm sorry, but lumping any set of people into a group and assuming every one of them will think and act a certain way, is, well, exactly what those people are doing that you dislike. It's just not factual; there are people in the group who can and will behave differently than what you are assuming.
Either way - as mentioned in another comment - I think we might be at an impasse. I respect your opinion here, but I will probably disengage at this point. I hope that's ok on Tildes?
The point is that it doesn't matter. Moderation policies operate based on heuristics. Social dynamics do as well. If you quack like a duck it makes more sense to treat you like a duck than to sit...
It's just not factual; there are people in the group who can and will behave differently than what you are assuming.
The point is that it doesn't matter. Moderation policies operate based on heuristics. Social dynamics do as well. If you quack like a duck it makes more sense to treat you like a duck than to sit around and wait to see if you might actually be a mutant chicken. Like I already said, what's in their hearts doesn't matter. Simply raising certain topics and discussing them in certain ways is, itself, bad for the health of a community and the quality of conversation in it.
Ok, I understand your point better I think, thanks for clarifying. I think we just disagree on that point and others you are asserting here, but that's ok. I tend to think biased thinking is worth...
The point is that it doesn't matter.
Ok, I understand your point better I think, thanks for clarifying. I think we just disagree on that point and others you are asserting here, but that's ok. I tend to think biased thinking is worth re-evaluating. Again, I say this gently, but to me I guess it reads like "I'm saying the sky is green, when really it's blue, but I'm going to keep saying it's green because it doesn't matter."
If I can leave you with one thought, it might be this: you know how you feel justified in responding certain ways to these people, or disliking them, or coming to these strong points, because of how you define this group of people? Please understand that they are doing exactly the same thing with you and others, and feel justified in the same way. When everyone is convinced they are right, with no possibility of listening to the other side, I just find that no body wins because nothing is ever being heard.
I am not suggesting you get all warm and fuzzy and invite these folks to dinner; I'm only suggesting that at some point, you might consider that they too are individuals, and painting them all with one broad stroke might cause more problems, and give you nothing in return. Again - not saying you should educate them. That's not your job or your problem. But just as a thought experiment - what is the harm in going from "all these are definitely all one way and they will always respond in one way because they are in this group" to "they are individuals. There's a high likelihood that they will respond in the way I've experienced previously, but maybe they are not all like that. Even if I dislike their thinking - and am perfectly justified in that - maybe they have their reasons for thinking that way (even if it's illogical, or pointless)". EDIT: Doing this thought experiment does not mean you have to like these individuals. You can still be disgusted by people and their actions, and still understand that they are individuals. I'm not suggesting otherwise.
The thing is that the color of the sky is an empirical fact. But whether certain types of posters are worth having around is more like determining whether a plant is a weed or not. This is largely...
I guess it reads like "I'm saying the sky is green, when really it's blue, but I'm going to keep saying it's green because it doesn't matter."
The thing is that the color of the sky is an empirical fact. But whether certain types of posters are worth having around is more like determining whether a plant is a weed or not. This is largely a subjective question of whether it's a desirable thing to have in your garden or not.
You say they're doing the same thing to me. But I know this already. I just don't care. They're wrong. Nazis think Liberals are tyrannical. The Soviets asserted that American imperialism was a special kind of evil while their system was purely benign. Both of these groups were wrong and stupid. I see no reason to entertain opinions founded on exaggerations and misinformations. I see no reason to validate absolute hogwash because adherents to hogwash are good at rationalizing their way into thinking non-hogwash thinkers who have researched and thought through their perspectives are wrong because reasons.
It's a free country, so people are free to think and espouse nonsense, but they can go do that in their own idiot corner, I have no interest in hanging out there. The question comes when they come into corners where they aren't wanted and force their ignorance and malcontent on everyone else. Frankly, I've let slide the equivalence you're drawing between my positions on these and those of intellectually incurious, poorly informed, or uneducated people. The fact that you're drawing that equivalence makes me think you're making assumptions about who I'm talking about or where I'm coming from with this. If you read what I've said closely, I have been pretty clear about targeting political extremists and the patterns of behavior I am talking about are the actual characteristics to identify these people and it's that precise lack of intellectual "virtues" that leads them down the road to becoming extremists.
There's a high likelihood that they will respond in the way I've experienced previously, but maybe they are not all like that.
What is gained though? Like I said, most people have nothing worth listening to. Specific types of topics that aren't worth listening to, nevertheless, get a lot of attention in ways that are self-perpetuating. So why have it around? Why give people the chance? Why not expect people to lurk and research and learn before presuming to butt into discussions with half-informed theory they've absorbed from memes and crank podcasters?
Ok, I do understand better, and sorry for the misunderstand of your previous post. Again - my original point had nothing to do with "are these people worth having in your space". If it came across...
The thing is that the color of the sky is an empirical fact. But whether certain types of posters are worth having around is more like determining whether a plant is a weed or not. This is largely a subjective question of whether it's a desirable thing to have in your garden or not.
Ok, I do understand better, and sorry for the misunderstand of your previous post. Again - my original point had nothing to do with "are these people worth having in your space". If it came across as that, my bad. My only point was that painting any set of people with a broad stroke is biased. That was all.
What is gained though? Like I said, most people have nothing worth listening to. Specific types of topics that aren't worth listening to, nevertheless, get a lot of attention in ways that are self-perpetuating. So why have it around? Why give people the chance? Why not expect people to lurk and research and learn before presuming to butt into discussions with half-informed theory they've absorbed from memes and crank podcasters?
What is gained is that it's a less biased view of the world and of life. To me that always has value, because if my thinking is biased (and I know I have tons of biased thinking, I'm not saying i don't), then maybe I'm taking actions or building beliefs based on faulty thoughts. I don't want to do that. It's not giving anyone a chance, it's not validating them, it's not liking them, it doesn't even really have to do with them; it's just seeing things in a more realistic way. Don't you think there's value in understanding things (whatever it might be) in a less biased way? Just for yourself?
The other value I find in it, is that it allows me to understand better what is at the base of certain ideologies. To me, that's one of the most powerful tools in dismantling such ideologies.
I don't need to personally engage with annoying people to "better understand the base of their ideologies." There are better ways to do that research that don't involve having them impose...
I don't need to personally engage with annoying people to "better understand the base of their ideologies." There are better ways to do that research that don't involve having them impose themselves into a social hangout space. If I really wanted to do that, I'd go lurk in their space so I can see their sincere, unfiltered view instead of the performative mask they wear in polite company.
Besides, people are terrible at actually telling you why they think what they do. They don't actually think it through. Like I said, most people are sheep who just repeat what they've heard from the last sort of persuasive person who kind of aligns with their gut-level idea about things. I learn nothing from such people that I don't absorb through cultural osmosis.
There's an underlying assumption baked into what you're saying that you have to hear things directly from the horse's mouth to understand what it means to be a horse. But there's a very specific context in which you can actually study things like this in ways that you can learn from them. Having them insert themselves into conversations you're having during downtime between work tasks is not it. I also don't buy into this idea that there is any truth value in listening to people who are wrong or operating from bad premises. If I'm an actual economist or sociologist, why should I give two shits what some dunderhead who knows nothing about either has to say about it? It's a waste of my time.
Plus, it's not like you can unbias yourself on everything. Why are these people so important that it should be anyone's priority to understand them or where they come from? You're allowing various internet shitheads to be giving you assignments about what you're gonna learn and what sorts of perspectives you get to absorb. I don't think this is even likely to steer you to edifying ways to use your own mental energy.
I think we just misunderstand each other, I'm sorry :( Not saying that's your fault, so don't take it that way; I don't think I am able to articulate what I was trying to say about bias. I wish...
I think we just misunderstand each other, I'm sorry :( Not saying that's your fault, so don't take it that way; I don't think I am able to articulate what I was trying to say about bias. I wish you well.
Here is one guy who actually did what you are suggesting, in person not online, but it is a heroic act imho and not at all something to expect ordinary people to do....
Thanks so much for sharing that. I saw an interview with this guy several years ago, and I never forgot it. I appreciate this man and have deep respect for him. I wish more people knew about him.....
Thanks so much for sharing that. I saw an interview with this guy several years ago, and I never forgot it. I appreciate this man and have deep respect for him. I wish more people knew about him.. I've seen several people mock this guy, and it makes me sad. I don't think he's saying "everyone should do this", nor is he saying "this is the only way, or the most effective way". I think instead he is just hitting on the point: a lot of people are able to hate others because they have never had a genuine connection with someone in that group they are hating. Once they have that personal connection, and can put a face to that "group", it can change the way they think, and be difficult to hate them any longer.
This does not apply to everyone, many will continue to hate, but I think it applies more people than might seem obvious at first.
I think the issue here is that if we let these abhorrent views be given everywhere (and just to be clear I acknowledge that this isn’t your argument at all and that you specifically said you don’t...
I think the issue here is that if we let these abhorrent views be given everywhere (and just to be clear I acknowledge that this isn’t your argument at all and that you specifically said you don’t want that - I’m just making a broader point!) then people in these protected groups are forced to engage or suffer from reading it. This man Daryl did it willingly, with the full knowledge that he thought he was mentally strong enough to handle the hate that he might receive.
Is it noble? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to expect everyone to be able to do it? Nope.
So while I get where you’re coming from here about it being important to try and change minds and see the person behind the actions, I think our primary concern has to be with the more vulnerable members of the community. I’ll back our gay, black, Jewish etc brothers and sisters and non-binary siblings before I’ll entertain having homophobes, racists and neo-nazis around.
And just to reiterate, I totally understand where you’re coming from, and I think you have a great attitude. I don’t mean this as an argument with you. I just think you might be perhaps a little naive to what that would look like in reality.
This is exactly why I hate what Daryl Davis has come to represent. The vast majority of times I see his name it's because people are trying to argue that we should keep horrible people around so...
This is exactly why I hate what Daryl Davis has come to represent. The vast majority of times I see his name it's because people are trying to argue that we should keep horrible people around so we can train them the same way as one would an animal. But what they're really suggesting is to keep a wild animal in the community center. Few people will try to train it, none will succeed, a lot of innocent people will be hurt, and when it finally gets away it will either not know about the people it hurt or simply won't care about it. Everyone loses.
It's a noble idea, for sure, but it's like that old saying: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I appreciate the comment. I didn't take it in a negative or argumentative way, in fact it was a pleasant comment. I think you make a lot of great points. I'm not advocating that every place must...
I appreciate the comment. I didn't take it in a negative or argumentative way, in fact it was a pleasant comment. I think you make a lot of great points. I'm not advocating that every place must be open to voicing any opinion; online forums are private entities and are allowed to manage them however they see fit and for whatever reason. If Tildes wants to delete any threads that talk about football, I'm ok with that, and I won't fault them for it. There's no right or wrong there - it's just what they want to do.
Without getting into personal details about my life, I am in a vulnerable group, and have had my fair share of humiliating hatred throughout my life. So I do get it. I understand not everyone wants to handle things the way I do, and I don't expect others to; this was just me throwing out another approach, because it's not one that ... ever really see to be honest. Not sure where I'm going with this, guess just trying to clarify..
Also people grow in racist families etc. There is a lot of tragedy in life and our decisions are influenced but not determined by larger forces. However some people are irredeemable and many more...
Also people grow in racist families etc. There is a lot of tragedy in life and our decisions are influenced but not determined by larger forces. However some people are irredeemable and many more are dangerous to deal with regardless of what might be responsible for that fact.
To bring it back to topic, imho moderators of online spaces should be allowed to make decisions that make their work efficient to deal with even if that is not ideal for every individual.
Thanks for being so diligent a contributor. As I said before, I think you have been more than generous with your time and energy.
It is IMO highly encouraged, and much preferable to making you unhappy and/or forcing you to contribute in negative ways. Tildes is deliberately slow paced, and it's fine to come back in a week...
I respect your opinion here, but I will probably disengage at this point. I hope that's ok on Tildes?
It is IMO highly encouraged, and much preferable to making you unhappy and/or forcing you to contribute in negative ways. Tildes is deliberately slow paced, and it's fine to come back in a week when you feel like you've digested things, or in a month when you have the time to properly address it, or never.
As I said elsewhere, feel free to disengage if it's for your own reasons. But I think with the way you've been contributing, there's no reason for you to feel forced to stop; you're not out of line. Though admittedly, with the way people have been interpreting what you wrote, I wouldn't fault you for being sick of this thread.
Thanks. I don't like to leave people hanging online, it always feels rude, so I am always worried about this. I think it's a point that's really emotional and I understand that. It's just a...
Thanks. I don't like to leave people hanging online, it always feels rude, so I am always worried about this. I think it's a point that's really emotional and I understand that. It's just a disagreement and that's ok. We all have our own experiences that lead us to believe different things, and I can't say my thoughts are correct anymore than anyone elses here. For that reason, it might not be worth debating, I guess.
I would encourage you to choose what is best for your own mental health and comfort. You have gone over and above typical effort in contributing to this conversation imho. (She says as just one...
I would encourage you to choose what is best for your own mental health and comfort. You have gone over and above typical effort in contributing to this conversation imho. (She says as just one random user who happens to be observing) But please, take care of yourself.
FYI, if you "Ignore" the topic (at the top of the comment section beside "Bookmark") it will no longer show up on your main pages anymore, and you will also no longer receive notifications for...
FYI, if you "Ignore" the topic (at the top of the comment section beside "Bookmark") it will no longer show up on your main pages anymore, and you will also no longer receive notifications for replies to your comments made in this topic either. So if you need to take a break for your own mental health, please do so without worrying about it, and feel free to Ignore the topic as well so you don't get tempted back in here. That's why that feature is built the way it is, so it can work as a topic disengagement mechanism for people who need/want that.
p.s. Nobody is going to look down on your for doing so. You have engaged in this topic in good faith for a significant amount of time already. So it's totally understandable if you feel you need to walk away from it now.
Hey thanks, I was unaware of that. The conversation has been healthy for me personally, to challenge my own views, and there's a lot to reflect on, which I'm sure I will for many days. However, I...
Hey thanks, I was unaware of that. The conversation has been healthy for me personally, to challenge my own views, and there's a lot to reflect on, which I'm sure I will for many days. However, I think I will ignore it now, as it's been a long day in my personal life, and time for something more enjoyable :) Thank you again for the help. Here's to a great Friday to everyone on tildes.
Definitely it has, and that sucks. But it is what it is, the alt right loves to co-opt phrases associated with popular ideals, usually twisting them in the process. I agree that "free speech nut...
Seems maybe this is a language thing? It appears free speech as a phrase has become aligned with political leanings. That is unfortunate in itself.
Definitely it has, and that sucks. But it is what it is, the alt right loves to co-opt phrases associated with popular ideals, usually twisting them in the process.
I agree that "free speech nut job" is a poor choice of words.
Go for it! I'm happy to have a less-sensationalized title. I trust you to make a more appropriate title up as well. I'm not invested in my title so much as I am about spreading the word that...
Go for it! I'm happy to have a less-sensationalized title. I trust you to make a more appropriate title up as well. I'm not invested in my title so much as I am about spreading the word that squabbles isn't what I (and many others) thought it was and would be.
Sorry for the delayed reply, I'm rate limited right now. I think I participated too much in this thread with short comments and am (very rightfully) being slowed down for it.
First time I'm hearing of that kind of rate limiting. Is that actually a thing? I've heard people workshop the idea a ton, in different contexts, but never got the memo that it's actually implemented.
First time I'm hearing of that kind of rate limiting. Is that actually a thing? I've heard people workshop the idea a ton, in different contexts, but never got the memo that it's actually implemented.
There are some conditions that can cause individual users to get a stricter rate-limit. Generally it's trying to detect when people are getting into extended bickering matches and get them to stop replying to every new comment within minutes, because that pattern is almost always an unproductive argument and usually escalates.
I think it's a great idea, especially to help people cool off when discussing heated topics, but yeah, it's happening to me. I don't think it's undeserved, for what it's worth. I personally like it.
I think it's a great idea, especially to help people cool off when discussing heated topics, but yeah, it's happening to me. I don't think it's undeserved, for what it's worth. I personally like it.
If you have anything on the site, the admins who were just kicked for not agreeing with his right-wing views say to delete your account to delete all content.
It's been a point of contention that he won't support gay rights and looking back, the fire was always burning, but he just unmasked completely. He also let a known Alt-Right guy who might currently be investigated for J6 ties stay on the site.
I think it's one thing to not actively support gay rights, which is his choice (that I disagree with, but still), and a completely different thing to post a giant dog whistle with flashing lights all over it (so that hearing impaired horrible people can also join the party) in the form of proclaiming that your site is now a "free speech platform"...
Horribly disappointed by this - I was starting to feel at home there, and now I don't anymore. I'm not in the US and I'm a white heterosexual male, so this does not affect me in any way directly, but I don't want to support or associate with that site anymore - it feels icky now :(
Edit: as pointed out, my wording was not clear: added actively to the first sentence to avoid misunderstandings.
That is not a "choice" , you cant just go around telling some other humans that they dont matter. Allowing that to be a "choice" just helps fascism fester.
It will never be a choice. Every human has equal rights to exist: "gay rights" goes beyond just marriage. For many of us in lgbt umbrella its just about existing.
Perhaps an unfortunate word choice on my part, but what I was trying to say is he is indeed free to hold any awful idea he wants to, on a personal level. I strongly disagree with anyone holding particular ideas I consider awful and avoid associating with such people, but unless we criminalize thoughts there's very little that can be done.
What I consider much more problematic, is what he DID - using a commonly known dog whistle like that is hard to excuse. Seems he is already reaping the fruits of it, with multiple users leaving, so hopefully he learns his lesson, but I don't think I'll be there to witness it...
Yeah, sorry, sore spot for me.
No problem at all! We all have those - I imagine I'd be pretty distressed if I had to, say, try to explain my atheism to a religious zealot who wants to send me to hell by cutting my head off, and if someone assumed that we can have any sort of reasonable discussion about it, so I definitely see your point.
As a pansexual nonbinary atheist, I'm lucky to live in a country nobody really cares. :'D (Finland)
We have our own problems, racist government being one at the moment. :/
For what it's worth, I'm glad you started the conversation. Their wording bothered me as well.
Maybe this is a language thing, but I understood as what /u/doctortofu said as "not actively support XYZ", as in, go out into the streets to protest and stuff.
That's fine. Plenty people do not. For any number of reasons about any number of topics. For example I don't currently protest climate issues, but frankly I would not know how to mentally add that to my life, too. Just no headspace to even consider something that important.
That's how I understood it at last.
You are of course correct that outside of an individual's decision to actively work towards (or against, if we're talking say BP or Bayer) something there is really no choice there. And I might have misunderstood it anyways, English is not my native language.
Not my native language either, could be i took it too literally. Again, sore spot.
I think one user in that thread summed it up well by saying "Free speech is free speech. Proclamations around free speech, though, are, in our present time, dog whistles."
Seems like nowadays, whenever someone goes on and on about free speech, you know exactly the kind of speech they want to speak.
Being one of the former sitemods/admin: I'm highly doubtful that the dev realises how much of a dog whistle "free speech" was and, like many things brought to his attention, if the definition or explanation did not mesh with his original understanding, then he would disregard it. It was evident in many discussions with us, and with those who supported the site, eg, through running news bots with his permission, that he [edit]was not that[/edit] familiar with contemporary political and social issues. He doesn't read much news outside tech sites, and he wasn't paying much attention to conversations about what makes a "good" social media platform.
[edit] I forgot some words. Resolved.
This is the second most valuable comment I have read in this thread.
I have a top level comment posted way below. I wrote that the situation could be seen as a coder wanting to be left alone to code. Being bothered with requests to moderate users he did the logical thing by changing his rules so people wouldn't have a reason to contact him, being obtuse as to what that looked like to people and that "free speech site" is a dog whistle.
Your comment seems to support the idea that a large part of this situation is simple ignorance his part.
Given things other people have told me about his views I would disinterest in learning.
I do wonder why he hasn't made a post along the lines "I didn't realize I was using a dog whistle".
In any event, you helped me a lot of squabblr. I'm sorry you got treated so poorly. Nice to have you hear.
Complete speculation, but you kinda gave the answer yourself:
He couldn't be assed. When people told him how it looked, he decided that it didn't have merit, because then he wouldn't have to intervene further. The trash is taking itself out; all those meddlesome folks who demand he moderate things he didn't think need moderating will just bug out and he can code for people who appreciate his work.
He originally called it "Squabbles." Once he said that he wished things were more "spicy."
Another way of looking at this is that we made a safe, positive, friendly place & that wasn't entertaining enough for him, so he made a point of stirring things up.
I think this is a self fulfilling prophecy. I think it's an extremely important part of society and being handled atrociously from all angles right now, but I got tired of being called a racist and a bigot for trying to discuss it. I'm hardly the only one. The whole problem with these 3rd rail approaches to subjects is it forces anyone trying to have a normal discussion out.
It's such a shame. I'm not really a content contributor but I loved all the memes and community.
I like Tildes for what it is, but I also really enjoy images and memes. I don't suppose you're headed somewhere else in particular for those after this disaster?
A significant number have migrated to discuit.net, the front page there has been almost entirely taken over by talk of it.
A very short while ago that was the story with reddit and squabbler.
Same shit, different day. Reincarnation.
Maybe the thing to do is to try to leave the cycle of samsara altogether.
The idea is to find a home, but when your home gets destroyed what can you do but wander to another?
For me personally, I just want to find a place where I feel comfortable sharing my art and advertising it (I don't want to do that here because it doesn't make sense and wouldn't be the right place for it anyway).
I love the discussion and education I get here, but I wanted a place to be silly, and possibly sell my coloring book or my stickers, too. Squabbles offered that at first, but now it seems like much wasted time.
I do have a mastodon account. I just rarely post to it, or ever even really go to the app. It's the same with threads. I have one for my Disney account that goes with my Disney art instagram, but I don't really use it much at all.
And leaving one social platform and joining another isn't literal reincarnation. There's a certain irony that you're making this point on the site that many people joined because they were sick of Reddit.
Hopefully not. All hail our benevolent overlord, @Deimos!
I think that the invite feature + users being tied to their inviter helps to keep things civil. It's not easy for outsiders to spin up troll accounts since the root troll account and all its branch and leaf troll accounts can be easily quashed.
This is going to be an extremely unpopular opinion here, but I think the existence of a singular benevolent overload all but guarantees an eventual downward spiral. With a few exceptions, I like the site as it is now, though I wish it were much bigger. But with one person making all the major decisions, that could change literally overnight. That person could change and decide to change the site or something could happen to that one person and control over the site could pass to someone else with less "benevolence". But even without those, one person is still going to be as fallible as the rest of us. Perhaps a series of mistakes unravel the whole thing. Who knows.
Lots of things are possible. The existence of a defined mission statement and philosophy as defined here https://tildes.net/~tildes.official/wiki/philosophy/index, and here https://tildes.net/~tildes.official/wiki/instructions/commenting_on_tildes makes it less likely. Having users collaborate with moderations using malice and exemplary tags also helps keep things consistent. But as you say anything is possible.
I've read both of those documents a couple of different times, and I think they are great in a lot of ways. But that actually highlights exactly what I am saying. With one benevolent overlord controlling everything, there is nothing preventing those documents from being edited, changed, or entirely deleted at any moment. Centralized power is always going to be the subject of one persons whims by definition, and that's the problem.
First of all, not having a formal succession plan for the site and its community is a choice I disagree with although the site claims to still be in alpha and is run on volunteer part time labor including Deimos. Also you raise a good point that it might be good to have some barrier to simply rewriting the docs. There was this discussion. https://tildes.net/~tildes/17ez/tildes_constitution
Centralized power also has efficiencies and allows for clear specific direction and policy choices. (a dynamic that people smarter and more specialized than me have studied).
Everything has cost and benefits, but leadership is frequently centralized in society because some things about that just work when they work well and managing by committee can be cumbersome. Also, comparable to the founder of a pub or coffee shop, he built it and we benefit and we are also free to stop using whenever.
Something that I have seen mentioned by experts is that leadership can be differentiated by whether leaders stay aware of the opinions and experience of group members and whether they incorporate feedback into policy choices in a responsive way. So the difference between a tribal leader and an emperor.
I have seen Deimos do exactly what I'm talking about here https://tildes.net/~tildes.official/177q/lets_add_and_rearrange_some_groups_a_few_notes_about_other_short_term_plans
and here. https://tildes.net/~tildes.official/17q7/group_updates_for_july_2023
It's all about costs and benefits for leadership and group members. Like Camelot, not everything good or inspiring lasts forever. But I am comfy here and I kind of hope Tildes survives, thrives and grows.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that. Centralized leadership can have its advantages in certain situations. But I don't think it's the best leadership structure for an internet forum. Especially not one that has any hope for growth and evolution. I also like tildes, as evidenced by the fact that I'm here, and I hope it survives and thrives. I'm not even trying to suggest that it won't. I'm merely saying that if it does, it will be in spite of its command structure, not because of it.
No obligation, but would you mind saying more about why you don't think it's a good choice? Aside from the obvious fact that we are all balancing costs and benefits of existing organizations as we choose where to engage, I find the coffeeshop or pub metaphor pretty persuasive. But I'm open to learning more if you are willing to share.
I mean, I think I've pretty well covered why I don't think it's a good choice. If you like a thing the way it is now, then ideally you would want the most barriers in place to changing it. A power structure that hinges on a single person is the opposite of that. As long as your views align with theirs, everything is great. But if the one person in charge changes their mind, there is nothing to stop them from making drastic changes.
I actually think the coffee shop metaphor is apt, but I don't think it illustrates what you're intending. If someone owns a local coffee shop you like, there is nothing to stop the owner from turning it into a pub overnight. You, presumably, didn't want a pub, you wanted a coffee shop. And there is nothing to stop you from finding a new coffee shop. And that's all well and good. But from the point of view of the continuity of the coffee shop, that's bad. Because it's gone now, turned into something different that appeals to different people based on the whim of one person.
Thanks. I appreciate the effort.
Thanks, it looks pretty good, I'm giving it a try.
I can't say that I'm very inspired by the appearance or content of Discuit.
Have you tried Imgur?
Don't give imgur money. Their take down of nsfw content is aligned with and part of reddit's attack on nsfw content and by extension LGBTQ+ and Sex Workers.
Others already disputed this, but didn't mention a key point that I think matters to this specific content.
NSFW content is extremely difficult to manage in a way that isn't like any other content. From both a human perspective and a legal perspective.
Think about the difference in just an ordinary picture of a regular clothed person and an unclothed person and the possible legal and moral issues that people might find with those pictures. In the case of a picture of an unidentified clothed person, the issues might be copyright, which is not necessarily unique to this picture but practically all pictures can have potential copyright issues. A picture of the beach could have a copyright issue. The next issue is privacy like potentially personal information within the picture or being able to identify the person and their location etc. which is somewhat unique but also not because a picture of a piece of paper could have privacy issues depending on what information on the paper might be visible.
Then there's also the element of legality of what is happening in the picture. To what extent do you have to exercise judgement about legality of a picture of any content that doesn't contain nudity? For example, if it's a picture of someone working in a factory, from a site administration perspective, you probably don't need to really concern yourself whether or not the person looks like they're being coerced to work in the factory or if they were forced to work in the factory or if they consented to having their picture taken or having the picture shared etc. because humans and the law don't treat these kinds of situations the same as anything that revolves around sexuality. There's not really such a thing as revenge posting a picture of someone sewing for example, because sewing is innocuous, there's no social consequence to sewing. To some extent, there's also not really the same concern around the age of who is depicted in such a scenario either, because there's culturally, socially, and legally there's not necessarily anything wrong with a 5 year old sewing, even though there is the possibility that its a 5 year old being forced into slave labor it again isn't necessarily the same penalty to hosting such an image as it is when there is nudity. Basically all of this applies to videos as well obviously.
Outside of nudity, other content that brings such scrutiny is maybe violence, up to and including people dying or being killed, but the line drawn for those in some ways is clearer. There's few if any places where you can legally, morally or socially acceptably consent to being killed. Something can be fake, like in movies someone shooting someone else isn't a snuff film because it's not real, so that introduces some difficulty in drawing lines with depictions of violence but it usually isn't that difficult, whereas with nudity or sexual content the differences between something being bad or illegal can in some cases be a lot less clear from something that was consensual. From a site administration perspective, being able to draw a clear line of no NSFW/nudity content can probably make a world of difference in ease of administration. In that way, I don't see how you can view it as an attack if someone or some organization decides such a highly burdensome content isn't something they want to continue administrating.
Thank you for doing such a detailed write up on this.
There is a disturbing amount of illegal adult content right now. It has always been a shady industry, but with the internet and modern social media, there's next to 0 real verification going on and all sorts of insanely awful shit is happening because of it.
And ignoring the outright malice angle, there's lots of dangerous incentives. It doesn't take a ton of imagination for someone who's too young to be selling such content of themselves to figure out a way to do so, and to do it for simply selfish or possibly even altruistic reasons. It's still extremely illegal and a major problem.
So while yes, we have backwards views on sex workers that need to be changed, this all or nothing approach totally ignores the hurdles and very dangerous edge cases that need to be overcome.
I don't like them taking down NSFW content, but come on, get real. It's not an attack on LGBTQ+ people or sex workers, it's an attempt to make the sites more hospitable for younger users, which means advertisers will be far more willing to buy ads.
It's all about selling ads and making money, period. The only exception is if being child safe is part of a site's credo (which means it appeals to parents) which was not and still is not the case for either reddit or imgur.
I was gifted emerald at some point and it doesn't seem to expire but before that an AdGuard DNS/Pihole also worked if giving money is not an option.
I typically browse Usersub Rising so the feed stopping it a regular occurance it seems that it literally doesn't have enough new content, refreshing brings in a few borderline Usersub New posts and I know it's time to take a break from scrolling.
Thinking of trying discuit out. Otherwise, probably not.
We were potentially trying to build a community there, but yikes! We are out.
This makes things absolutely clear. Glad I was never there. https://squabblr.co/u/jaycIees/post/NqxK3Nbjxk
Yeesh, that really is egregious. Just deleted my account. You know it's bad when the owner is cool with discrimination against one minority, but draws an arbitrary line at another because that's just going too far. I hate how effective the rhetoric of saying "free speech" is when the people who claim to protect it have no clue what it actually means.
I actually see some truth in this comment personally. Right now with all these new spaces popping up there is a concerted effort by people on both sides of the political fence to seize control through moderation and pressure on moderators/admins to create/modify rules and ban certain persons along ideological lines.
For people on the right wing, they're pretty open about what they want. They push for unabashed free speech spaces to let them say anything, including slurs, allow harassment of others, etc.
For people on the left wing, it's a lot more subtle and usually done in the name of promoting safe spaces that will protect certain groups of users from aggressive rhetoric they've experienced elsewhere, at the expense of coddling the larger user base and removing any contrary opinions from circulation.
I don't want to point out specific people, but for example one squabblr user commenting in these posts was a reddit mod who was removed in a sub I frequent. They were an active and largely effective moderator in terms of keeping the sub running, but were also extremely overbearing and muted users who disagreed with them/banned users for extremely minor issues (like saying it is legal to own a certain kind of car in a certain place when that was not true).
Now personally, politically, I identify with the latter group faaaaar more than the former. And I would imagine most people on Tildes do, and I do think Tildes sees pressure to sanitize as well which may contribute to the population you see here.
I guess my point is "free speech site" sounds great in theory, but we all recognize it as a dogwhistle because it is. But a lot of people don't view "safe space site" the same way, even though I think its just as much of a dogwhistle. I think because at the end of the day, while both are hostile in their own ways, the former is (fairly) viewed with more concern because it can be threatening and dangerous... while the latter is moreso just "echo-chamber"-y and exclusionary.
Having said all that I'm coming from the perspective here of someone who doesn't use Squabblr, never has and after this I have no intention to, so I can't really speak to the bent of this site. But it seems like jayclees was being repeatedly pressured by people to ban certain people/groups/opinions and he was not comfortable with that (becaude frankly i'm sure a lot of it was going overboard) and decided to make a rule change as a result... but it's a rule change that will poison the site by sending up a flag to a very bad crowd who will now attempt to bend it to their liking.
I disagree with this. If you think they’re being open about their desires, they have you fooled.
Look what happens when these free speech absolutists actually get a platform. They ban political speech they disagree with. Look at /r/conservative, or Twitter banning the pro-choice Ohio ad, or Parler banning users it didn’t like on the platform.
They don’t actually want free speech absolutism. That’s generally a lie they’re telling you, in order to allow them to have more control of platforms. In general, they want platforms where their speech is favored, and leftists are banned. This doesn’t apply to everyone at an individual level, but more the expressed preferences of the crowd.
yeah that's always the deal with these "free speech absolutists". They absolutely don't actually want free speech platforms. They absolutely want to oppress and remove the speech of those that disagree with them on platforms they have control over. On platforms where they aren't in control, they have simply found that "free speech" is one of the arguments that gets their rhetoric tolerated the most in centrist/liberal spaces.
This. There was literally a story last week about Elon suing the "Center for Countering Digital Hate" for saying things he didn't like. The same people who campaign for "parents rights" are also campaigning to make it illegal for parents to get gender affirming care for their children. The super worried about a kid getting a surgery they can't reverse, but don't give a shit about forcing them to have their voice change.
They just want everyone to cowtow to their beliefs and rules. That's all their is to it. I guess we want similar things, but in general leftish beliefs lean more towards "be nice to everyone" while rightish ones lean more towards "traditionally we don't do this".
In my eyes what you're describing represents a specific subsection of the right wing, not the entirety. There are many who legitimately want a space where you can say anything and that's the long and short of it, and selling their spaces that way are how SOME of them build a censored space like you describe.
But you also have places like 4chan, which are dominated by right-wingers, and really are an "anything that isn't illegal goes and sometimes even that" kind of place.
I guess the $64 million dollar question is how do you create a truly free speech place which doesn't devolve into the nastiness that is say /pol/? And with that said, big chunks of 4chan are indeed moderated which is why say some of the niche boards aren't as hellish.
You don't. Bluntly it's why every functioning large democracy in history is representative.
You will always have sort of moderation and you will always have some sort of undesirable element. How you handle that is the most important part.
I'm a big believer in letting people agree to disagree and discuss issues. I think it's by far the best way to see real effective change, and that the "agree with me or fuck off" attitude that we've fostered is extremely destructive. That said, i've mostly given up even admitting that because it can get me labeled as all sorts of nasty things.
I love that tildes is the first place in forever that seems to be "properly" free speech. You want to discuss difficult topics, fine. It needs to be civil, and it needs to be productive (not just two people rattling off their points).
The people who can't be civil are dealt with, the people who are just rattling off points and ignoring each other get topics closed, or can go do that in their corner of a discussion while the rest have a more serious one.
It's a very good model of how this could work. That doesn't mean there won't be awkward or difficult moments where the line gets fuzzy between disagreement and civility.
I think the thing is that that kind of nastiness used to be spread around the Internet and isn't anymore. You can only find it in very specific places like that or in private channels. So people end up going to those and staying, and the people who don't like said nastiness leave.
Sure, and I acknowledge it’s not universal. I specifically stated that it doesn’t apply to individuals. There are plenty of right wing individuals who have stated and honest preferences for free speech absolutism (then again, there are those on the left that will honestly say the same thing)
There are some specific places where it’s truly anything goes. But I’d argue that’s a minority compared to the expressed preferences of a majority of those that espouse “free speech absolutism” preferences. The majority of that crowd are on Twitter cheering Elon Musk, compared to the numbers on something like 4chan.
I just think taking “the right wing” as a whole on this issue at face value is… naive.
This comment can not be upvoted enough.
You forgot misinformation and disinformation ( intentional misinformation, lying ). Additionally not everyone looking for "slurs" being allowed is a MAGA. Many adults want to use the language they enjoy using and not live in fear of being harassed,banned,etc.
I'm an American liberal. I don't want safe spaces, nor unity of opinions. I want misinformation and disinformation actively kept out. I don't want conversations with people stating that Trump won in 2020, that ivermectin is a Covid 19 cure, etc.
This was the only thing I care about as well. I'm a socialist in the US and I care more about the distinct lack of removing mis- and disinformation as a huge issue. You're free to say what you want, but I am free to ignore you or call you out on your bullshit.
It also seems to be a common talking point about leftists that we want to be exclusionary, but the problem was that the exclusions people were asking for were reasonable: No J6ers, no Nazis, no bigoted trolls (there is a user who was on the site who was actively being harassed by several trolls who popped up frequently and would harass anyone else in their way as well).
I can't speak for everyone, but as a queer, disabled, Jewish woman, I don't hate conservatives. I just hate their ideology that wants people like me dead (even if they don't say it in so many words, or they don't outright admit that). Not every conservative is a MAGA person, and not every leftist is a radical anarchist hellbent on excluding everyone who doesn't fit into their worldview of equality.
That isn't enough for me after 2020 when misinformation and disinformation got people killed from Covid19 and likely lead to people getting killed on January 06. I was social media sites to be responsible for removing misinformation and disinformation. They can do it. Look how fast and thorough they are with copyright violations.
Exactly
People like jayclees never stop to ask themselves what the end goal of the right wing is. What they would do if they would get their way. They would murder other people first, but when they get to it they will be just as happy to put people who like him into ovens and he is giving them a podium.
Which he should be scared to think because he's Asian. Many people haven't stopped to think about whether they actually fit into the mold of the ideal view of the people on right-wing people's minds.
Seriously, look at the attacks on Asians by nutjobs with a right wing bent earlier on in the pandemic.
What percentage of the right wing do you suppose want to actually murder… minorities, I guess? Seems like needlessly inflammatory rhetoric to me.
This is always the biggest thing to me in these arguments. People treating the for right and the far left as if they are somewhat equivalent. They aren't, and haven't been since ww2 (in the US).
Far left: we should use them when talking about people to make them more comfortable and allow children to have gender affirming surgery
Far right: we should kill and oppress anyone who doesn't fit into our ever narrowing definition of correct way to live.
Caveat, we haven't seen the actual extreme far left active in decades in the US. Extremists come in both sides of the spectrum but at this moment in history I don't see truly radical leftists active or popular the way the right wing is.
I agree, that's why this is a false equivalence.
The political spectrum is do skewed to the right you can't even identify as a leftist without being called commie, traitor or a lot of different slurs.
The day a real radical left will have any hold, I'll shun it just as I do the far right.
It doesn't matter when they elect and give platform to people who want it.
How many Germans wanted all Jews murdered? Probably a small minority. But the majority still elected a leader who, openly, wanted it.
More importantly they empowered their media arm to publish more lies that ended up radicalizing a shit ton more after they came into powers and those lies became the de-facto “truth”.
If all the newspapers start saying Jews are ruining everything, your neighbors will start believing them. And when your neighbors start saying the same things, you start believing them.
Are there any prominent politicians that are running on a pro-murder campaign?
No.
Republican politicians run campaigns that advocate for reducing or removing access to abortion and limiting the rights of LGBTQ people (among many other policies. I am focusing my point here despite there being other examples.)
A recent study estimated that, if abortions were banned in the US, it would lead to around a 21% increase in pregnancy related deaths (and a 33% increase for black women.) The scope of how republican policies lead to deaths of LGBTQ people can be vast, but a specific example is the fact that gender-affirming surgeries have been associated with a "42% reduction in psychological distress and a 44% reduction in suicidal ideation," so if Republicans are campaigning on the elimination of gender-affirming surgeries, what does that tell us about how they feel about trans peoples' lives?
I think you know as well as anyone (and I mean that genuinely, you seem reasonable,) that politicians do not step behind podiums and announce their deepest darkest plans, nor do politicians always care about the implications or outcomes of their policies in the first place. But policies have impact regardless.
Not directly, but encouraging white supremacists ideologies leads directly to murder.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-bitter-fruits-of-trumps-white-power-presidency
Nazis didn't start off building ovens on day 1 after forming their group.
Like everyone else, amalgamation of the American right with supremacists will not be satisfied achieving their current set of goals. They will move on to make new goals. They are already taking away the rights of women. If they get more power they will take away the rights of other types people, then move on to persecuting people, and then murdering them.
If you are talking about right wing voters, it is a subset, and undercurrent, but it is there and has always been there in the US. Look at the history of lynchings. Some people still want to get away with that when they think it is called for, that is when minorities get out of line and are 'disrespectful'.
Sure, they exist, but they are a very small minority. Framing the entire right wing as being out to lynch minorities is kind of absurd hyperbole. Especially claiming that the right wing wants to finish with murdering asians once they finish murdering … black people? Gay people? Trans people? They were kind of non-specific about that.
I don't have time to adequately respond right now, but might come back to this.
Re gay people, The Heart's Invisible Furies is a novel by gay Irish author John Boyne that is hugely entertaining but is also representational. He shows what it was like to be a gay man, starting in the 1940s and following a long life.
Re black people, I was recently in Atlanta and saw a museum exhibit about Emmett Til.
Re Women I would recommend reading Why Does He Do that by Lundy Bancroft.
The subset of people who believe they should be free to enforce their sense of superiority with violence when they choose is larger than you think.
But is it that absurd? Standing by and letting something terrible happen, knowing it is going to happen and the results that will come of it, does that not make the non lynching right wing individual an accomplice at that point? We don't look back at Nazi Germany and say "yeah, the majority that voted for the genocidal maniac was not responsible for the genocidal maniac."
The age old quote from Martin Niemoller, First they came for, stands out in what you describe. The problem doesn't seem apparent until you look at it in that light. They've made clear their dislike for all of the groups you've mentioned, but they're targeting them in a sequence they feel can get the most acceptance. First they'll aim for Trans people, then LGBT entirely, eventually they'll target minorities, and within all of those you'll find them targeting non Christian beliefs over time in an ever expanding fashion. The last one they'll perform under the guise of religious freedom and use that to target more of the original groups mentioned while also slowly pushing out and putting down other religions.
Yeah, it is pretty absurd. Specifically which politician is on the ballot who is going to start murdering minorities?
Claiming that any actual even remotely viable candidate today is a genocidal maniac on par with Hitler is absolutely ridiculous.
Seriously now. Is Trump or DeSantis actually Hitler?
I think what you're missing is that there were others in Germany who also could have become what hitler became, and that they were only allowed to come to power because of the people who came before them to shift popular view. Trump and Desantis may not be Hitler, but they are precursors to a Hitler-like figure. Another big portion of how Nazi Germany was formed was the propagandists who were on the scene before they came to power, and we see them already in the form of people like Christopher Rufo, James O'Keefe, Matt Walsh, and many many more. These people are not saying "Let's kill some people" out loud, but they are using the kind of language of people who are advocating for exactly that.
Abbott is a great example of someone pushing closer to the sun than the other 2. Placing a saw bladed floating wall is just dumbfounding in a country that used to welcome immigrants. But the other 2 are actively encouraging the behavior of their right wing base and by that, what they stand for. The same right wing base that aims to bring harm to minorities and wishes for the same things as, you guessed it, Nazi Germany.
No one should ignore that the issue at hand isn't Republicans as they once were, but Republicans as to what they've become and allowed to happen, and even encouraged. History shows this to be an issue in the past, not speaking up and standing up when others are placed at risk just because you're not one of that group. Just because they don't come out and say "kill that person because of these specific reasons" doesn't mean they're not trying to get there. Showing up to a BLM rally or a trans book reading with masks and guns is not trying to avoid a conflict, it's attempting to force a conflict. Driving around in a convoy shooting pepper balls at people from the back of trucks, that's trying to force a conflict. They're hoping for that retaliation. We saw it in Kenosha, when armed people showed up on both sides, and we saw the results of that.
I'm just saying that ignoring the obvious enablement of these people is not the right choice. Their hands aren't clean in this, not by any means. Not speaking out or standing up, letting them continue this rise to power, this push to maintain power at any cost is not a good thing for anyone that doesn't fit their mold of a perfect person. We may not get to Nazi Germany levels of genocide, but it'd be ignorant to not see how they're trying to diminish the value of people that don't fit that mold.
The part that always got me though, "keep the government out of my stuff" is what they say, right up until someone's stuff isn't just like they want it to be.
Did Hitler start out his first campaign with explicit calls for genocide? Or did he stir up sentiments against minorities to garner political power and blame minorities for the problems the common citizens were having? And when he was elected, was his first act to announce his genocidal plans? Or did he set about rolling back protections for the minorities he had vilified and work to pass bills direct targeting them? Was the first violence against the jews state sanctioned action, or was it extremist violence that was downplayed?
Anyone who doesn't see the parallels between the nazis rise to power and the current republican party simply isn't looking.
There were some pretty strong clues.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/first-moments-hitlers-final-solution-180961387/
I’m asking again: do you or anyone else believe that Trump or DeSantis in particular are actually planning a mass genocide campaign? Specifically, to murder minorities, and particularly asians as was alluded to by OP somewhere above?
You can ask as many times as you like, the answer is still an obvious yes. That's where their rhetoric inevitably leads, and if they thought they could get away with it they'd have already started.
And if it does come to that, it will be enitely the fault of people who were so adamant in their belief that "It can't happen here."
This is actually the first time anyone has really answered the question directly with a yes.
I have to say, I think this is a pretty extreme belief and I can’t say I find it very plausible.
How fucking nice it must be to live in a world where you don't have to hear trump supporters "joke" about the mass murder of LGBT people or immigrants or democrats on a literally weekly basis.
There is a big difference between banning users for posting misinformation about specific topics and banning users for lying in general. A problem I have with "safe spaces" is that some of them take this principle too far. As I mentioned in my comment I've specifically seen an incident where a user was banned for misinformation for a totally trivial subject because they didn't align with a mod's personal views, or perhaps frustrated them - when in reality those rules are meant only to apply to very specific topics (in most cases, solely about COVID19 misinformation).
My wife and I actually both used this subreddit, and I mentioned to her one day how irritating this moderator was in part because they were constantly butting heads with users over trivial things and were incredibly overbearing... and she knew exactly what I was talking about and was in agreement. But the reason I mention the whole "safe space" thing is that they used that as cover for their own mod abuse... and when it comes to new sites/spaces that are NOT reddit, there are aggressive personalities who get in on the ground floor to try and create/mold those spaces to their liking. I see it happening here too and I think Tildes is somewhat more resilient to it in part because it's been around for years already at a small scale, whereas others (like Lemmy instances or Squabblr) either have these people as creators or the creators want to appease those people in order to get them to stay.
The whole upset of the reddit "norm" just seems to be an attempt on the part of many people to "power grab". I'm a former reddit mod who quit as a result of the whole recent fiasco and I never considered moderation a power thing (I think largely because the sub I moderated was not totally discussion-focused and a lot of removals were more about reposts and formatting), but it is very very clear that there are a lot of people who view that power as valuable, because they see it as their responsibility to censor/control conversations. For extreme conservatives that means opening up the doors to anything and everything and letting the worst fester. For extreme leftists it seems to be about removing anything that could be construed as the least bit offensive to their ideologies.
I see people in that Squabblr post recommending Beehaw (a Lemmy instance) as a place to flee to, and frankly I view them both as good examples of what I'm talking about here. I can't speak to discuit as this thread is the first I've heard of it.
Just gotta say "wow" when you read the comments in that thread where people are questioning whether the comments in the screenshot were taken out of context... in a post authored by the person who said them.When someone tells you who they are...It's a fake account.
I think that's a troll account? There's a L/I typosquat kinda thing going on there I believe?
Ah yeah you're right. That's what you get for using sans-serif
In the comment chain on your link I found this link talking about a reddit clone called discuit that sounds interesting and I'd never heard of before:
https://discuit.substack.com/p/introducing-discuit
If anyone knows anything about discuit please share, going to go check it out!
I've used Discuit for about a month now. having joined on 2023/7/15. It's been my main Reddit replacement, and I've been trying to help out with the site where possible. I do mod the "SpaceImages" community over there, but that's a more recent development, and I'm not a site admin.
It's developed by a single guy called Previnder, it's rather bare bones with a lot of functionality being relegated to a roadmap, however the core functionality is extremely solid. It recently got a Progressive Web App, so the lack of a current mobile app isn't nearly as much of a problem. It's also soon to go open source, for those interested in that kind of thing.
The rules specify "No racism or hate. Don't post anything that promotes violence or discrimination against a group of people based on race, ethnicity, sex, gender, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation.", which ended up being the primary draw to the site for Squabblr users from what I've heard. As from what I understand, even before Squabblr became "free speech", it didn't have the best outline of what did and didn't constitute hate, and Discuit's rule was commonly cited as an example of how the rules should be written over there.
Currently Discuit is rather flooded with ex-Squabblr users, which is leaving the original core of active users a bit, for lack of a better term, "weirded out" due to the culture clash. Ex-Squabblr users like to self-post a lot as that site had a Twitter like functionality, and have their own cliques and famous users. Whereas Discuit has no such functionality, the original userbase primarily posted links and discussion, and there wasn't really that kind of clique culture. Ex-Squabblr users have also created a self post community in an effort to somewhat retain that culture. It also doesn't help that the Squabblr migration has effectively at least tripled the active users, potentially more, so ex-Squabblr users are certainly rather noticable and distinct from those who came before. It's my hope that the ex-Squabblr users integrate more thoroughly with the Discuit and its culture over the coming weeks.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them!
(EDIT: A few additional points)
Hanging out on r/redditalternatives I have only heard positive comments except that it is small. Let us know what you think.
Hello from the world of tomorrow (or 20 hours)! I created an account (also godzilla_lives) and have lurked a little bit here and there. Seems very similar to Reddit from about ten or so years ago; a lot of memes and pictures of cats with some discussion about random topics sprinkled throughout. Currently my subscription feed is filled with former Squabbler users lamenting the loss their website and some complaints about those posts, but I imagine that will quiet down in a few days.
One thing I'll point out is that it took me no less than five minutes of scrolling to find people bickering back and forth about Internet drama, which made me grateful that comments like those are removed on Tildes. There's also no email requirement to create a website and account creation is wide open, so I'm sure there will be no shortage of trolls.
I'll keep an eye on the website myself just because I like having sites to bounce around on, but my (albeit brief) experience felt like what I was trying to avoid. BUT, I do think this could be curated easily by adding/removing communities, and reading the web master's substack post was encouraging. My wife seemed very happy to scroll on the 'peppers' community, and she's a good judge of everything, so that checks for me.
I also noticed that there are a ton of communities, but they are created by the site admin on a case-by-case request basis. Also no NFSW content, so there's not a large worry of random porn or combat footage on my feed. There is an onlyfans community, but those looking for NSFW content may be disappointed, heh.
Like Reddit back in the day, I think it could be a good compliment to Tildes. Hang out around here for friendly discussion and conversation, hang out there when I'm still trying to wake up in the mornings.
It seems pretty nice from what I've used so far. I started a DisneyParks community over there and it seems to be pretty positive. The modtools are fairly limited right now, but the dev is active and is trying hard to make the site work better, much like Deimos.
Good to know. Maybe I will join if I can find time. Thanks.
I just opened an account there. It's a lot like old reddit.
Thanks for the heads up! Just deleted my account there. I compared the new Squabbles TOS to an archive from June 17. The "Spam and Misleading Content" section was removed. I could understand if mods don't have time to fact check all reported posts, but there was no need to also remove protections on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, disability, and any other protected characteristic. That just shows their true intent. Free speech is literally limited by the law and the federal protections written in their previous TOS!
Wow! Thanks for the interesting comment. I never knew those things were there and were recently removed. My account there has several hundred comments. I am going to take it slow over a week and delete them all. I don't want that platform getting any value from my content.
Glad I’m not making 3rd party code for Squabbles… unfortunately always a risk with any platform, especially when there’s one powerful leader.
I'm sad to say I supported him on Patreon before I realized what a creep he is. I deleted my account and have reported his private discord and his patreon accounts as spreading misinformation/hate speech (since he refused to take action on many instances of hate speech on his site and other mods were handicapped to take them down in a reasonable time frame).
Don't feel bad, we all make mistakes. I wasn't so lazy, I would have joined you in that one.
I had also supported on Patreon. I don't feel regret over it, because I was happy with what the community was and the direction it was going. I wasn't donating to support jayclees; I was supporting Squabbles.
2 (maybe 3) of the third party app devs for squabblr immediately killed their apps as a result of this (other two have made no public comments since last I checked)
Kind of ironic the only reason squabblr had users in the first place is bc of the migration from reddit for killing 3rd party apps, and he just caused the death of half of his third party apps with his decision.
Every time I had a thought that I might be overreacting by deleting all of the content in my account I remind myself that one of the mobile squabblr app developers scuttled his entire project.
I had actually written a Python API client for squabbles but I might just delete that now, I can’t see any good coming from it.
Apparently the admin said this on discord: (Imgur link)
Yip, seems like this platform is going to do super well going forward...
Just gonna paste some great comments from the thread by the way lol:
And look, a Tildes shout-out whether or not this user knew about it or not 😎
Wait! Did he post incriminating screenshots of himself?
He didn't. It's a former user who has receipts.
I've never been on that website before so I was a little confused. But I looked around and I believe they use a different @ system. I think that multiple people can use the same @, but the person who posted this is called "who's jayclees?" on their profile while the real jayclees (the admin/dev/owner) is just called "jayclees". So the screenshot was posted to a /trans community and yeah it seems like it wasn't posted by himself
https://squabblr.co/u/jaycIees/post/NqxK3Nbjxk
When they had the conflict over the conservative community it was a red flag. That user was really bad news and not doing something about them was a telling sign. I really liked the site, but I deleted my account.
Yeah, I stopped using squabbles about two weeks ago. I got the impression that the owner's wishy-washy statements about community standards on the platform would eventually lead to this kind of announcement.
It wasn't just about what the owner was saying, it was also about questionable decisions to not take immediate action on accounts whose submissions and comments couldn't be interpreted as anything but hate speech unless you were operating from the narrowest definition possible. I've had my fill of that approach from the reddit admins/AEO so I jumped ship before sinking any more time into it.
It's a shame because hybridizing reddit and twitter was an interesting concept that I took to quickly but it appears that squabbles is interested in courting the worst of both platforms.
If you still like a hybrid of Twitter and Reddit, look into kbin. It is using ActivityPub and has both link aggregation and microblogging.
Agreed. I hadn’t deleted my account yet there after that, but I did pretty much stop using it entirely. I enjoyed the conversations I had on there and it’s also where I got my tildes invite so it was a little sentimental to me to at least keep the account. But if it’s just going to turn into a right wing echo chamber, I’m not really interested in keeping an account. I may go back and check on it to see how it’s changed but I’ll do so without an account.
How did people find out about this site? I thought I was relatively hip to these things, but this is the first I'm hearing of this one.
tThere was a sub called redditalternatives (or something similar) where I found out about squabbles and tildes too. The sub got a lot of activity during the API exodus
Yep. To add, it was the most complete non-altright Redditlike that wasn't fediverse. It was also open access unlike Bluesky or Tildes. The admin was very active developing the site, so it was an easy fit for many Redditors looking to bounce. The admin was praised immensely for his work and the positivity of the community. But it seems he was not ready for the pressures of moderating and crumpled.
He was praised and it was a super positive place until he decided that those of us who were "super users" were too nice and there was too much "toxic positivity" and too many cliques. Several of us basically stopped being kind and posting all the time to populate the site.
Several of us formed a discord server where we could be friends and kind to one another there instead.
It really was off-putting when he started complaining about the user engagement. I thought maybe it was something I wasn't seeing as I didn't watch the self posts. Now I can see he was just unhappy with what type of user the site was attracting, and was trying to change the community. Those subtle changes didn't work so he got more aggressive. Unfortunately for him, the people he was trying to chase off were the people supporting his site the most.
I'll miss the quick and silly aspect of the site, but I think slow social is the way to go. I'm here and on Discuit and the devs in both places are wonderful and seem to have good heads on their shoulders.
Ah that makes sense. I left reddit a year earlier. My hipness coefficient was gradually decaying but my self-image was lagging reality.
Thanks, I'm going to put this on my tombstone.
Oh, it's certainly going to lead to a certain kind of growth in the short term. I've already seen one person who claimed to have signed up in response to this announcement. You can imagine the kind of person. Once those people take root, it's going to be "very interesting" to see whether the admin holds on to the pretense of "nothing is going to change, if you see things that shouldn't be here, report them", or whether nazis will be given the reins. After that, every sane individual will eventually leave. Then the platform will continue to exist for a while as a living memorial to humans' hubris. It finally shuttering will be far off.
There are somewhat frequent posts on /r/redditalternatives by people who are looking for this kind of platform. The most absurd one I remember was someone who specifically needed a platform where they could use the r-slur.
Free speech debates aside, it's genuinely hilarious to me that someone would consider the r-slur to be such an important part of their vocabulary that it informs where they spend their time. Seems like a shame when there are countless words like asshat, nitwit, birdbrain, and buffoon. Bigotry is uncreative and lazy.
I think it's a bit disingenuous to say people used the r-word with no intent of hurting the feelings of handicapped people. It's technically a true statement, but only because the feelings of the people being insulted were never a consideration, either through sheer thoughtlessness (which is and should be discouraged these days) or precisely because of the contempt that the r-word carries.
I agree with you that there's no emotional alternative with the same meaning, but that doesn't prevent people from stacking emotional equivalents alongside words of equivalent meaning, e.g. "fucking stupid".
Well it's because the same meaning is inherently ableist. Any way to rephrase it brings you right back to mocking intellectual disabilities by default. Much like how many people don't think about "gay" the insult as associated with their queer friends. But it is.
That's why I used "stupid" as my example, because its etymological roots have nothing to do with mental illness or developmental delay, and nor does its casual usage.
An equivalent meaning also doesn't have to mean a synonym for the entire word, just the nuance you're getting at. E.g. the r-word strictly meant intellectual disability, but it has nuances of being literally slow, archaic, and backwards, etc. which would also work with a "fucking" prefix.
It's amusing that you're familiar with "gay" as the insult but not "queer", given gay originally meant happy before being adopted by the community, while queer means "strange in a negative way" and was the insult when I was at school.
Almost definitely a generational and/or regional thing. "Queer" wasn't used at all when I was in school and feels like something my grandfather would say, but using "gay" as an insult was extremely common among kids my age growing up (much like the r-slur was, tbh -- I think both those peaked when I was an elementary schooler, at least if popular culture is anything to go by). Their presence as popular slurs in the same era is possibly why it came up alongside the r-slur in the first place.
Not sure what was the dominant insult for my mother's generation (she was too much of a square to be a good source on slurs), but the reclamation of "queer" really took off in the 1980s which were her late teens and early 20s. This also goes along with my experience of talking about the word with others in the community. Those who dislike "queer" tend to come from two camps -- either they're quite old gay men who had a lot of active experience with it as a slur prior to the 80s (unfortunately a group with a pretty small population due to everything else happening in the 80s) or they're straight-up TERFs who oppose it on ideological grounds because they're exclusionists (though that group includes plenty of straight cis folks too, possibly outnumbering the number of actual LGBT+ people in that category).
I find it interesting that you think queer's non-slur meaning is "strange in a negative way" -- I wasn't aware of any connotations of negativity in its normal meaning. I've always perceived its basic meaning to be basically identical to "strange" or "odd" or "peculiar" in terms of how negative it is. Even that usage wasn't something I saw super often as a kid though -- I have an old notebook of a story I wrote in middle school, and I use the word "queer" to mean "strange" in a line but followed it with a parenthetical "great, now I sound British" because I thought that's how using "queer" made the sentence sound. I think its use for just "strange" sounded either a little too pretentious or like a hillbilly depending on one's accent, since in my dialect growing up you'd say "weird" or maybe "strange". Anyway this is a tangent but I find it interesting how much a word's usage and feeling can vary even outside of the more controversial uses.
Two things of note, First, you said "same meaning" not "equivalent". I was agreeing that that there's a fundamental contempt and expanded it to ableism, which it is.
Second, I am rather annoyed at you assuming that I am unfamiliar with "queer" as an insult. It is irksome to have someone assume a lack of knowledge, be amused by that assumption and go a step further to announce that. I'm queer. I'm very familiar with a plethora of slurs, insults and insinuations on the topic.
But in recent times the term used by teens and such has been "gay". And it's thrown around like the r-word. I might be called "a fucking queer" once in a great while but thirty things will be described as "so gay" in a day. (I do see this much less in my college students in the past couple of years though it does still happen, so I'm optimistic.)
Anyway, I had been agreeing with you. Though personally I don't really love calling folks stupid either. If only because smart people do careless, harmful, hurtful things all the time.
Wow, ok, I was just expanding on what I'd said above about how it's easy to use words of equivalent meaning, i.e. I was also agreeing with you.
jayclees is a coder who wanted to be left alone to code, so he did a logical thing by changing his rules so users wouldn't have a reason contact him. jayclees may not have realized what his logical solution looked like to other people.
That alternative view breaks down since he has now had ample responses to educate him to the fact that "free speech site" means "right wing site" too many people and that removing LGBTQIA+ protections is seen as hostility.
He hasn't made an effort to tell people that he did not mean to convey those things.
He could be one of the many people, right or wrong, who will not respond when criticized as sort of an ego thing.
Who knows? I am just thinking out loud.
I've personally seen more receipts from conversations with him that show he thinks LGBTQIA+ are "just a political wedge issue" and "a political movement" and should be ignored when talking about discrimination.
I would like to believe this is the case, but unfortunately we can’t know that without them actually coming out and saying something.
Whelp, good thing the "Delete Account" button still works. It's a shame, it was a good spot for the sort of light-hearted memeing I missed from old reddit, but not making the mistake of hanging around with terminally online, rage-baiting, racist shitposters again.
Always suspected this since my first week on that website. Thank you for the confirmation.
No difference from spez apparently. :(
just deleted my account, thanks for the heads up.
Almost a year later. The running count of members has been removed. The site gets maybe 3-4 posts a week.
After the "freeze peach" announcement its Patreon collapsed from hundreds of members raising more than $1000 a month to 15 raising $60. (I'd gawk at what kind of content was still posted by the dead-enders, but it's got a hard registration wall.)
Squabblr looked like a good thing until the developer & owner exercised his poor judgement.
You don't invite other people over for dinner and have them arrive before you cleaned your home and gone shopping.
You don't open a social media platform before it is finished.
You don't have developers manage people. Sort of like letting the maintenance man for your home into your dinner party.
More to the point, you don't build up a userbase of people who were so disgusted by a previous platform's disregard for moderation that they left it.... only to tell those people that your new platform will have minimal moderation and that protecting LGBT rights is an unwanted "wedge issue."
The site's owner was entirely focused on trying to get successful by starting a platform and getting a large user base to monetize. The user base was entirely secondary to his plans. This was obvious with every one of his posts where he asked people to do free work for him to promote and build the website.
The users left Reddit due to the API changes, not due to moderation/administration.
I'd say a bit of both. There was ire at the API changes, and also a lot of anger at the administration's handling of it. They just didn't seem willing to compromise even a little despite the massive outrage. A lot of subreddits had their moderator teams replaced by Reddit because they were protesting by keeping their subs dark, showing a lack of respect for the moderators volunteering their time. I vaguely recall a lot of drama around some subs getting new mods who understood nothing about its culture or even the topic, like a diving sub getting a guy with zero diving knowledge put in charge of it.
I left because of the API changes. I left because I could no longer use RIF. I left because reddit was forcing me on their app regardless of my wishes and I don't like that.
They're kind of bound up together -- the API changes also impacted mod tooling and third-party services, and Reddit Inc. retaliated against protesting mods in an unprecedentedly disrespectful way.
Not everybody left for these reasons, but on the whole the type of person offended by the API fiasco would likely not be the type to appreciate a service abandoning moderation and giving free reign to Nazis and transphobes.
I think I covered that by writing this:
The developer/owner had horrible judgement in regards to handling people.
When/why did he/they change their URL?
The why is because there is supposedly already a squabbles company (but they are entirely unrelated) and he thought it would be a copyright/trademark issue. Clearly he doesn't understand laws at all, and when I pressed him several times to talk to an attorney about this stuff, I was ignored. Because his new TOS is pretty not legal from a GDPR or California's GDPR-lite, and he still doesn't understand trademarks and copyright since it wouldn't have been an issue since social media and bullying aren't the same category.
Then again, he "hired" (read: exploited) a 16-year-old from the Netherlands to do his off-site social media "street team"
When? That was like, last week's drama. Why? Insanity I guess? Apparently when you stare into the abyss, the abyss also gazes back. And a "free speech platform" is definitely the abyss.
"Free speech!... no, not like that"
Wasn't it called Squabbles? Why does every platform do the 'r' thing? Seriously, it's like an in-joke at this point.
He changed it because apparenlty there is another online brand that's squables about bullying.
Yes, it was changed to Squabblr to avoid potential name space/legal issues. Squabbler used "s" instead of "r".
Does anyone have a link to Iluvtar's analysis of amightybeard?
No, but it was fantastic.
Wow, this thread is getting unwieldy.
Would people who aren't posting about Squabblr directly, but about some meta issue open up another thread?
While I too share your concerns about what this direction could perhaps mean for that service, I must ask if a title like this is really appropriate for Tildes? By all means express your thoughts, of course, but to make the entire title an immediately hostile political stance that not only presumes familiarity with what appears to be an interpretation/definition from online American leftwing circles, but also to presume that we all are on board with that interpretation reminds me of exactly the type of uncomfortable behaviour across Reddit that prompted me to leave that website some years ago.
Am I alone in these concerns?
The title should probably be edited to be less editorialized.
The inflammatory ragebait is a bit over the top, yes.
There is actually a discussion here that deals with the exact issue you framed here, notably that someone from somewhere else doesn't know what this means and assumes it's anti-free speech in general.
While I'm hardcore rolling my eyes at the squabbles dev, I can't help but think that this fingerpointing is just a little unbecoming.
I'm not at all bothered by the title.
I'm glad this was brought up.
The title doesn't accomplish much other than vent. As someone who knows nothing about squabbles, the discussion was lacking as well, and I was worried that if I asked "why do we know this person is a nut job" i'd just be bombarded (as i've seen many times before).
I get that this is almost certainly an asshole being an asshole, but it'd be nice if we offered more evidence so people who aren't in the loop can discuss. Otherwise it boils down to DAE hate X or Y?, which leaves the rest of us out of the loop. In this particular case I found some concerning examples (and some were provided by other commenters in this thread), but it wasn't exactly simple.
I do have other concerns with these kinds of discussions, but I do think that going down those roads is more "people have made up their mind and there's nothing to be gained here" style things that just recently got two topics closed.
The learning curve for redditors is steep as some just want to transfer the service elsewhere. The habits formed from years of karma farming is hard to break. I filtered out reddit posts and it's been nice. I don't want to filter out any more though but I may have to.
I was really upset by what had happened on the site since I was so active on it. it was a poor choice of words on my part, but not at all meant to be a reddit-type post.
Really pains me that free speech is seen as a bad thing. :( Personally, I love to see a bunch of different viewpoints. I don't mind talking to someone with an unsavory point of view in my eyes. As long as everyone is civil, and actually has their minds open, and isn't just talking to hear themselves talk. Isn't that how we learn as people (by talking to people who think differently than us)? Grow our perspectives? I know this is a utopia I will likely never find, but still.
To clarify, this is not a comment on squabbles, I have no thoughts on that site. Also not a political comment, as I think I despise politics just about more than anything. Just... seeing free speech nutjob seems like such a bizarre phrase.
EDIT: Seems maybe this is a language thing? It appears free speech as a phrase has become aligned with political leanings. That is unfortunate in itself.
Going into your comment realizing that you have no strong opinion on Squabbles or their policies, I do want to add a few things in support of why people, including myself, run in the other direction when someone defaults to free speech as an argument online.
"free speech nutjob" isn't (probably, I can't speak for OP) really saying that this dude is a nutjob for believing in free speech, but because he's using the banner of free speech to allow hate speech. There's a popular saying that goes something like "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins," and I like to apply this logic to why I believe in disallowing hate speech in online spaces especially.
Say you have a chatroom of ten trans people, and ten people who are transphobic. The trans people talk topics that relate to them, maybe transitioning tips, maybe politics relevant to them. The transphobes talk about why they think trans people should be barred from being taught about in schools, or why they think they should be denied healthcare, maybe someone is on an even more extreme end and they say they think it should be illegal to be transgender. On one side you have a group fighting for their rights, or otherwise living their lives, and the other is dedicated to taking their already existing rights away. Replace trans people and transphobes with any two groups you wish, Roma and anti-roma racists, Black people and KKK members, Jewish people and nazi's. In each of these situations the voices of the later groups create an environment that is extremely uncomfortable and unsafe for the conversation of the former groups to even take place, and that group will likely leave the chatroom. Their free speech has been censored by the allowed existence of that hatespeech.
If you want a more real-life example, we can look at the current state of Twitter. Since Elon Musk's takeover, the use of racial slurs on the platform has risen by 500%. We don't have the data to really see if this has caused a meaningful drop in activity among people of color, but when accounts exist and thrive on a platform while being named "Blacks taking Ls" with their @ username being "@ NsPostingFs" (absolutely not providing a link to that one) you can imagine how the public square of the internet could begin lacking in the opinions of some voices.
That would be the perfect world, but like you said, this is not a perfect world. Inevtiably when speech like what I've described is allowed on a platform, even for the purpose of just letting everyone air their opinion for the marketplace of ideas to decide on it's worth, the worst actors will take advantage of that freedom and use it to air their opinions which by way of being voiced creates a worse environment for free speech.
If you allow one nazi to scream "Heil Hitler" on the corner with no social or societal consequence, then other nazi's will show up because they can, and all of a sudden there are a lot less Jewish people living on that corner.
Whew, that was a longer post than I was planning on! I hope I wasn't too redundant or long-winded, but I had to write a looooong paper on this subject last semester so I was a little excited to be able to put it to use lol!
I do want to reiterate this this is not meant to be calling you a nazi, KKK member, any type of racist, or anything else. I just wanted to give you my viewpoint of why "free speech" such as what is outlined in the new guidelines on Squabbles actually harms free speech, and hopefully you find it valuable or at least interesting. If anything I said sounds like it made a little bit of sense I suggest you check out Talia Lavin's Culture Warlords: My Journey into the Dark Web of White Supremacy. As much as the book drags a little near the end, she still is a much better writer than I am and expresses these views much more clearly. Of course I'm also open to counterpoints!
Edit: to fix some poor choice of words. Thank you @vektor for pointing this out!
I appreciate the well thought out post here, and no it was not redundant or long-winded. I understand you much better now. I think you make a lot of good points too that I should probably take time to mull over. I think I probably should not have commented. My views here are probably not in the majority, and a lot of that is probably due to being raised in a quite oppressive environment and have maybe seen a strange side of things. I don't want to cause anyone discomfort.
If I can offer one counterpoint it's this - I think the flipside of pushing people with unsavory views into a corner, is that those views are never challenged. Now they are in a little echo chamber and their views only become more extreme. These people will not go away. They don't stop being hateful just because they are kicked out of other corners. I don't think it makes them stop and think "well why did this person ban me?" Rather they think "well this person is crazy for banning me!", and it validates them. That worries me. I started to see this a lot in american politics around the whole trump thing (caution: not trying to shame any side of the american political state - it's just an example). There were the folks supporting trump, and the ones not supporting him. I felt you just saw people hating each other. When it came to people who found trump hateful (which I tend to think he was also), they sort of just pushed the trump people away "they are idiots, morons, douchebags!" (fill in the blank here). So what was the response? Did those supporters think "well yeah, they have a point there, let me re-evaluate things! Ah, I no longer feel this way!" No, it just enhanced their views. Pushed them to only talk with each other. Validated them. To me, that's sad. What if people had said "well why do you feel that way? Let's talk about it together." Maybe things would be different. That's just one example but it could apply to so many things. This culture of inviting these civil discussion is what I wish we had more of in the world. I think I am going around in circles, and I don't mean to.
That said - here's the other thing. Every site is its own thing and I respect that. And not every place needs to be this ideal place where people can discuss uncomfortable views in the hopes of making a better society or something. Sometimes it's nice to just kick back and have a nice time. I actually hate political discussion, and actively avoid it. Even on tildes, if I see any sort of political article, I hide it (not because I disagree or don't like OP, I just find it tiresome. And I don't mean to say "stop sharing anything political here" - share away, if people like that, I will not judge.) Anyway, I realize I am a hypocrite in this regard, as I completely disengaged from any and all politics or controversial discussions in society several years ago because of the divisiveness. It's just every once in a while I stick my head out when I hear things and just wish it wasn't that way, when I should just keep being quiet.
No no! Please don't ever be discouraged from commenting, you're a super civil and chill dude and I'm enjoying the back and forth!
I don't really disagree with your counterpoint, to be honest. I suppose I find it hard to empathize with people on the other side of the isle. Being born in a very blue place to leftie parents, and now going to university in a large city and taking a women's and gender minor, I am usually pretty insulated from people who might have more outwardly conservative opinions in my everyday life. Remembering the people behind the opinions is very important and I wouldn't want to lose track of the fact the everyone is a human with life that got them where they are that day.
The only real way I can rebuke that is that I believe if we inact more social consequences to the worst people in our society, then peoples tendency to listen to those people opinions goes down. Essentially we'd be making the worst opinions into a taboo, pushing them further into that corner until there's only so many that can fit inside that space. Giving those nazi's that street corner to shout from increases passerby's exposure and perhaps belief in the normalcy of those opinions. That's something I could be better read on, though.
Empathy is an interesting thing. I find it incredibly useful to empathize with those I find most undesirable, who I disagree with the most. I started doing this as an exercise several years ago and it was life changing for me. I started to realize how much less difference there was between me and others than I thought. I realized I am not better than anyone else; it humbled me. When I empathize with folks I disagree with intensely, it forces me strip away my own biases. It reminds me that is just a person too, with their own complexities. They have reasons for coming to those conclusions, no matter how much I disagree. It makes me want to understand them, rather than hate them. This breaks me out of "damn what an asshole" to "that is just another person not very different from myself." It helps me have calm, rational dialogs with them.
It is a fascinating experience to have a conversation with someone who is calling you an asshole, a piece of shit, whatever terrible things, because you believe the opposite from them; then, to keep responding calmly, empathizing with them, trying to understand them, staying civil. Then to slowly see that person start treating you well, to come onto the same level with you. I think very few people want to be an asshole; I think it's difficult for most people to continue being hateful to someone who is showing them genuine kindness for this reason. Yes, there are many exceptions. I'm just speaking to my experiences. The way I've seen people realize their hatred, is by showing them kindness and understanding when they are being hateful to me. I've also been on the flipside of this: I think the conversations that have been most impactful for me, are when I was being an ass, and someone showed me grace that I didn't deserve. That said, my sample size is small, so take it with a grain of salt. Also - I am not saying everyone should do this. It's not for everyone. People have different comfort levels. I have been called a piece of shit enough in my life that it doesn't bother me, I guess, but for others it might cause a lot of distress and I respect that.
I agree a lot here. The more taboo something becomes, it seems the less popular it becomes over time. People generally don't want to be pariahs, as we are social creatures. But I don't think these strategies are mutually exclusive; we as a society can determine things are taboo, and still be willing to talk civilly with people who hold those views.
Well said.
I believe that these conversations are a blessing when they 'happen' between two ready human beings. It's a difficult topic that requires careful timing and involves a lot of factors good faith, love and humility and hope alone can't account for.
It is important and valuable to create spaces where the possibility of something so precious can happen, I believe.
In my own life I've found the episodes when the "scales fell from my eyes" and I come to truly see I was in the wrong, that, looking back, these episodes were precious to me and will contribute to my eternal good. And I owe all of them to a large number of people who allowed me the grace to be an idiot for a much longer time, to converse with me and even sometimes rebuke. And my reactions weren't always gracious when I held firmly to the old ideas like my core identity hinges on it.
But precisely because of how precious they are, also in the words of Christ:
I've come to believe that these precious conversations where we might be able to pull someone from the fire need to happen, but they don't need to happen everywhere and indeed cannot. That, they seem to happen more in isolation and in a quiet place, between who they truly are and one person who is polite or kind to them who is willing to engage. Christ Himself changed many lives conversing with folks along quiet shores, alone by a well, on a long road to Emmaus, when a totally socially rejected person is dying naked beside Him....but He did not change anyone's mind among a mob screaming for blood and national identity.
Thanks for the encouraging thoughts, and for understanding. I can not say that I am religious myself, but I think there is a lot of really useful things that can be learned from different religious leaders, such as what you've pointed out. The idea of changes like this happening in more private settings vs in public ones is interesting, and not something I've thought about before at all. It could be that that is where those things are most likely to take place. The pressure is off of everyone, and maybe here thoughts can be more easily and freely exchanged, without fear of ridicule, etc.
I guess my thought in all of this, is that if we are a society were more willing to civil to each other, maybe these things would be possible in public, too. Maybe they wouldn't be rare, and could happen more frequently. That said, I can understand why some people in these comments don't like this approach, or might even think it's harmful, I guess. I wish I knew what was the right way to do things, but I'm just limited to my own experiences. It's seems like a difficult problem to solve, and people have wildly different opinions on how to go about it.
I'm glad you pointed this out, and I agree. I want to make clear, I'm not trying to say that every platform, etc. should be open to such discussions. Every place can be what it wants to be. For example, tildes is what it is. Reddit is what it is. That squabbles is what it is. That's ok. They can all be what they are, and they serve difference purposes. Not every place is there to try and change society or whatever, again, sometimes people just want to have a good time, enjoy low key, stress free things, that's fine of course :) I was more talking about my ideal little utopia, but it's ok that not every place is that.
I quite agree with you in that I wish things were optimised for kindness and genuine exchange :) well, you and I each have our little sphere of social interactions that maybe we can be positive catalysts of.
Yeah and even if it's just a few people over time, I still think that's significant. You never know what impact those people will have or who they could help. And even if it just stays with that one person, I think everyone's life is equally important. It could make their life happier. I am so grateful to the people who helped me see different ways of thinking. Thank you for the dialogue :)
Edit: It's been fixed, everyone else please ignore. Thanks!
I'm sure you didn't mean this this way, but to see trans people, Roma and black people in a line, and transphobes, western Europeans and KKK members on the other side is.... oh boy.
Yeah, you're right. I did add a little part at the end saying "not to equivocate" but I definitely could have used much better wording there. Absolutely did not mean to imply that they are in the same class. I'll fix the wording so I don't take away from what I'm trying to say
Cheers.
TBF, I've seen anti-roma racists on the internet equivocate themselves with western Europeans in.... unfortunate ways, basically claiming that their stance is "the western European one" and that there's no one who would disagree with them. I think it saw that in a western european themed shitposting sub. No surprise there.
Perfectly said. And thank you for clarifying what I mean by "free speech nutjob".
Just chiming in to add one more bit. You seem like a thoughtful and empathetic person, and the personal growth you describe in your comments is laudable. To speak to your "hate" of politics: I'd encourage you to consider that politics is ultimately the moving of forces that massively influence people's lives, and that many people do not have the luxury of disengaging from politics when it makes them uncomfortable. For some people, politics, or what you might refer to as political topics, is their entire life. Not because they chose such a life, but because others chose it for them. Slavery was/is a political issue. Nazism was/is a political issue. "Politics" is what happens when people disagree, and when the disagreement involves acts of oppression and violence, "politics" becomes life and death. There's a reason people get emotional when it comes to politics - it's difficult to have a calm "debate" when the other person's view is "you are less than me and deserve no rights".
Politics is fundamentally about people's lives. You seem like you have a good head on your shoulders, and the idealized "can't we all discuss this civilly" desire you articulate is what politics ought to be and can be when the stakes are lower. I think that this desire might make you a better fit for political engagement than you expect, if you're willing to get in the trenches and work through the question "how do we deal with people who resist being reasoned with?"
Kind_of_Ben, thanks for sharing these thoughts. I made a response to you then deleted it, because I realized I hadn't understand you fully. I hope I understand you better now. I believe you're correct that saying "hate politics" is a strong phrase, and I spoke boldly without thinking. Reflecting, I realize this is from years old frustration, and I haven't revisited that frustration in a long time. I need to do so.
You're right, speaking so strongly like that discounts people who are suffering under extreme political oppression, and for that I deeply apologize. I really didn't think about it until now. but I will going forward, 100%. I appreciate this part of your post the most.
I realize now that I also might be using the word politics incorrectly.
I'm still not certain I'm a good one to have politically motivated discussions, at least at this time in my life. It's not really that it makes me uncomfortable. Rather, there are just some other problems in this world that I want to devote my energy to solving. They might not be as far reaching as some other issues, but people are still suffering with these problems, and I don't want them to be forgotten. However, I am open to revisiting the idea.
By the way - what do you mean by "lower stakes"?
Eh, I'm not sure I'd say that. There's many closely-related uses of the word, and yours is certainly a common one. I simply wanted to offer a different framing of the concept.
For example, it's easier to have a civil debate about the use of public funds to build a library than it is to have a civil "debate" about whether trans people deserve to exist. The former is a practical and philosophical question with the potential to moderately impact the general public's quality of life; the latter is literally life and death for a vulnerable group of people, and the threatening side of the "debate" arguably doesn't deserve to be listened to.
That is totally okay - awesome, even! Not everyone needs to be an activist or public servant (I myself am probably a pretty poor fit for either of those, particularly right now). I'm not religious, but many traditions talk about how the best way you can help others is by using your unique skills/"gifts", and I think they're right on the money in that case. However, I think it's still important to remember that (to some extent), everything involving other people is political. I don't mean to say that "everything is political and you should aggressively have an opinion on everything and always be angry about something" because that's just massively unhelpful and part of what gets us into messes like the US is in right now. But I do mean that it's simply a fact of life that people disagree, often in ways that greatly impact each other, and in order to have a functioning society we have to work through those disagreements instead of just ignoring them. A classic response to people who say "ugh I don't do politics" is "well, too bad, politics is gonna do you," because politics affects everyone whether it seems like it or not. Maybe I personally don't feel it, but what about the people I care about? What about the people THEY care about? We're all connected, even if we can't always see it.
You don't have to be an activist or write a manifesto, but you should know what you will and won't stand for. Know what your neighbors need from you, and what you need from them. That's how you make space for there to be civil discussions that allow society to progress forward, instead of constantly being stuck in frustrated loops where various groups of people are endlessly fighting for their right to simply exist.
Ah ok. Yeah, that makes sense. I would be more inclined to have such discussions. Seems like there might be less emotions, and it would be a comfortable discussion, and not one that drains energy.
It's an interesting way to think of things, and one I have never considered. It does change the way I see things. I think the problems I'm trying to solve however are not ones where there's any sort of disagreement, so I'm not sure they would be political by this definition?
I think one of my problems here, and with politics in general, that I neglected to mention, is that I find it difficult to determine such things. The reason: I've held strongly to views in the past, believed them 100%, and then they were changed over time when I discovered new information, or saw different perspectives. Because of this, it is difficult for me to hold on to views about society because I have limited knowledge, and I believe I could be wrong. Just like this thread itself - there were some people who have a completely different approach than me. That is fine. More than that - who am I to say I am right and they are wrong? I have come to my conclusions based on my limited knowledge and experiences. Perhaps if I had more experiences and knowledge I would change these views.
It's not that I don't hold any opinions at all, but it is difficult for me to hold strongly enough to them that I'd want to see legislation around those opinions, because again, I could be wrong. It seems like only if I were to become some sort of expert on a topic, that I could feel comfortable being strong enough in that opinion. Even then, there would still always be the chance I'm lacking some knowledge, but that chance would be less, I guess. That said, maybe this approach in itself is not a good one, so I'm not trying to discount people who do believe strongly in their views. Maybe they are the ones with the right approach, and mine is flawed.
I think at that point I was driving more towards the "politics affects everyone" than "these problems you're trying to solve are highly political" so perhaps I could have worded that better, sorry.
On the contrary, if your mind is as open as you describe, I'd say it's an incredibly socially healthy approach. I too hold VERY different beliefs than I used to so I can empathize with the journey you must have gone through. For me, it was a process of distilling things down to the most fundamental beliefs I had and then building back up from there. That's glossing over a really difficult 5ish years (and in reality the process is still ongoing because it will probably never end), but that's how I found some sort of foundation on which to construct my new philosophy of life. Like I said, I really do think it boils down to figuring out on an incredibly simple level what you will and will not stand for. Everything else follows from there. You just have to do your best to make decisions and educate yourself based on those conclusions and that's enough, because your best is all anyone (including you) can ask of you. There's a lot of things we can't ever know for certain (some would say we can't know anything for certain at all), and that's okay. We just have to do the best we can with what we've got.
(Or maybe you don't have to, these are just my views of how to be a member of society haha.)
Thanks. Really I'm glad we explored the semantics here, because to be honest I have never put much thought into politics, what it is, what it means, all that kind of stuff. I know it's a little off topic, but I really do want to circle back around to the whole idea of not everyone having the luxury to disengage. I have thought about that a lot since you wrote it, and just saying something like "i hate politics", is kind of embarrassing now. I mean, even if I still chose to disengage, which truthfully, I probably will - it deserves more thought as to how I chose to talk about it or express it, or even think about myself. I will pass the sentiment to others are well.
I'm glad you understand. Sometimes I find it difficult to express this. Losing your beliefs is a difficult thing to go through, but also very liberating. I am trying to get better about trusting anything, any sort of belief at all (within reason of course, because like you said, there's some things we can't know for certain, and to be honest, I am definitely one of those people who believes we can't know anything for certain.) Previously, my thoughts was only "well this could be wrong", but these days I try to balance that with "yes, but who knows, maybe it's right as well." If you're only focused on it being wrong, it's just as biased I guess as assuming it must be correct. Anyway, I think I need to sit with those changing thoughts for some time.
Thanks for understanding the reasons behind not committing to certain things, and not seeing me in a negative light.
I'm glad what I said was valuable to you! And of course I don't see you in a negative light; I strive to be as open-minded and mindful of others as you have been in this thread.
I'll leave you with this which I hope can help: you and I are far from the first people to walk the whole "we can't know anything...uhhhh...shit" path. I wish I could recommend authors/philosophers off the top of my head but unfortunately my memory's failing me at the moment. I can at least tell you that people have definitely worked through this problem before. I believe one proposed solution is the idea that even if all knowledge is guesses and morality is a useful lie, knowledge and morality are still exactly that: useful. If we can use those things to build more fulfilling and satisfying lives for ourselves and those around us, then... Does it matter if they're philosophical/sociological/psychological fabrications?
That's heavily paraphrased, but I think that's the gist. It's possible to face meaninglessness and find meaning anyway. "Positive nihilism" might be a good search term to get you started.
Best of luck :)
"I don't think you have a right to exist, and statistically people like you are rapists and murderers. I am being perfectly civil, so you have no right to complain, we're just having a friendly discussion about why people like you are harmful and taking my rights away."
No, fuck that, don't tolerate intolerance is very basic beginner level anti-fascist work and we see how terrible online forums become for a wide range of people as soon as we allow people have polite discussions about why they hate others.
I think a subtle point that's often overlooked with this line of reasoning, at least by the right wing and sometimes by "enlightened centrists" is that it matters a lot what "people like you" in your quote are. There's two broad categories: Inherent characteristics and personality/ideology traits. If "people like you" are a sexual, ethnic, disability identifier, the above line of arguing is extremely cynical and harmful.
On the contrary, if "people like you" refers to assholes, racists, transphobes and the like, the argument makes a lot more sense. If I dilute your quoted statement a bit and adapt it:
The basic structure is the same, but it's basically the philosophy tildes applies to trolls and bigots. That's not a difference in degree, that's a difference in kind, and people who don't see the difference should maybe consider that one group can leave those parts of their identity that cause strife at the door, while others can not. One can stop being a homophobe when one enters a space, one can not stop being gay.
But I think I'm preaching to the choir here.
I understand your hesitance to this idea, and I respect that. I elaborated a little bit more on this idea in one of the other comment chains, but it's ok if it's not for you.
Sounds to me more like you two have different assumptions about what civility means. I assume you mean genuine civility, where an argument such as the one quoted by DanBC won't be tolerated because, well, it's not very civil, is it? When DanBC knows that bad actors will hide behind a very thin veneer of civility to advance a fundamentally uncivil agenda. It's very OK to want genuine civil exchange, even about controversial subjects.
If you feel like you're being dogpiled here by people disagreeing with you, let me reassure you that I think people don't disagree with you; they misunderstand you because we're all bringing our biases and assumptions into the conversation. If that's too much for you, maybe you can edit your top-level comment either to clarify your stance or to encourage others to read the rest of the conversation first before commenting. Oh, and you don't have to "defend" your statement against everyone who replies, because I genuinely think there's nothing that needs defending.
To clarify to everyone else: I'm not accusing anyone here of dogpiling, but I think kuzbr's top comment is a bit of a lightning rod for all the wrong reasons.
I appreciate the remark, but don't worry I don't feel dogpiled on :) I think though I might have unintentionally veered this topic into a place that's a little hostile for tildes. I didn't want to do that. For that I'm sorry I commented, and won't comment beyond this post, to avoid furthering anything negative.
Naahh, I think you're fine. Maaaaaybe I'm giving you too much credit, but I genuinely think you're in the right place. The discussion is going a bit pear-shaped, but that's hardly solely your fault. Feel free to disengage, but don't feel pressured to.
You're correct, "free speech" has become code for "consequence-free speech." Its use is a beacon for people who are so toxic that they immediately get banned from any platform that has any moderation standards.
It's also quite unfortunate that many people don't understand what free speech really means, at least in the US' case. So seeing people talk about their free speech rights really grinds my gears. People really don't seem to understand that they are free to say what they want without consequences from the government, about the government, and while they are "free" to say what they want about other things, the rest are free to not tolerate their bullshit and tell them so, or exclude them from using certain spaces for that fact.
That's sad, that people want to be uncivil with each other. I don't enjoy such discussions, personally. I wonder if there is a good alternative phrase that I can use, because I don't want that to be what people think of when I say free speech. Language evolves, and I can understand how it has different connotations than what I'm thinking.
Yeah, I don't think it's anything new. I think it's human nature. Maybe one day when we are robots are something, we will get past this, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. :)
This change is pretty explicit about civility not being required. You can be a massive raging asshole, as long as you stay clear of outright illegal speech (by US law I assume), you can harass, insult and incite all you like.
Basically, by allowing as much speech as possible, you're creating a very pleasant space for assholes, and a very unpleasant one for kind people. Those kind people will be perspectives and opinions that will be sorely missed in your free exchange of ideas. This has happened to a lot of online spaces previously. If you look at any of the asshole-infested spaces like 4chan, coat, etc, they're often not explicitly pro asshole, just pro free speech. But the assholes and often Nazis follow.
Fwiw, I don't think it's a Utopia. Currently, many topics are a bit too spicy to be discussed here, as they result in too much moderation effort for deimos. Once we have tools for trusted users to take over much of that, and maybe a bit more cultural growth towards mutual respect during controversy, I feel we might start to revisit that.
Well that is sad :( I feel like the moment a conversation is no longer civil, the conversation is sort of dead. Human defenses will go up, everyone is on guard, and listening is kind of over.
That's fair, and to be clear, I wasn't referring to squabbles with that comment. I generally don't know what that site is like. I just meant, somewhere out there where I can exchange ideas with people who think radically different from me, and all of us have open minds, and treat each other well, and want to learn (and do our best to leave our biases behind). I don't think I'll ever find this! To be honest, Tildes is probably the closest to that ideal place that i have found online - people are civil and seem open to different viewpoints. I cherish that about this site, and why I like to lurk around here.
With regards to politics, generally I just dislike political discussion of any kind (specifically because they always seem to be quite biased and emotional). Maybe that's why I'm a little naive in this regards, as I just don't participate in such discussions. In no way was I trying to encourage more politics or hot button topics here or anywhere else. My bad if it came across that way.
While I mostly agree with your sentiment, people acting in bad faith have been (wrongly) using "free speech" as an excuse to both allow and spread hatespeech and misinformation online for a while now, to the point where it's become a kind of dogwhistle for these folks.
That's fair. It seems like it might be a language thing. Either way, sometimes I get a little nervous around what people label as hateful. Sometimes it seems to get confused with "someone that doesn't agree with me" or "someone that doesn't agree with my morality." That said, I think that's a different discussion with its own complexities. My original comment was probably out of place.
Side note: what would be a good standin phrase for "free speech" in the form I am thinking - i.e., I just picture a group of people who are just talking to each other. Civil, just wanting to learn, even if people have wildly different views and ethics. No shouting and arguing, just people that want to exchange ideas. I don't know a better term to use, and definetely don't want to say free speech if it is politically-charged, as that is not at all what I want (i hate politics actually).
As you've already used the term more-or-less, I would nominate "civil discussion".
Where one is:
The problem is that it's perfectly possible for a bunch of guys to have a "civil discussion" under this definition about really harmful things, like the inherent inferiority of certain races or sexualities. Even if the conversation around that happens extremely civily, I'm not going to want to be having my civil discussions about literally anything else when the next thread over is a bunch of people civilly discussing why I should be force detransitioned, and when those same people can come and debate in my own discussions about, say, how to recover from top surgery. A goal of civility doesn't remotely eliminate the Nazi bar problem.
I think that hinges heavily on how you choose to interpret "as long as it is without malice". You can apply a standard that precludes discussions about inferiority of certain races or sexualities there, no problem. Or at least, make the standard for how such topics can be discussed (wrt. standard of evidence, expressing oneself such as to be sensitive of others' emotions) so high as to be practically unviable. Trolls won't jump through those hoops because they derive no satisfaction from it then.
(In an ideal world, that kind of standard can, I think, be used to build a space where any topic can be discussed genuinely civilly, i.e. so as to not be harmful towards those affects. There's a half-cooked idea floating around my brain of a space where the more potential for harm a topic has, the higher the standard of evidence, conduct, rationality, etc, gets. My underpinning assumption here is that it eliminates all bigoted opinions, because those are founded on bad evidence or bad reasoning; however, such a space would still always accept truth even where it conflicts with our morality.)
I'm not particularly convinced that it's possible to enumerate such a standard in a way that actually keeps out the bad speech and doesn't punish the good speech. Bad actors are experts at toeing the line to keep behavior that has negative impacts on the community just inside the line, so that they can complain "I didn't break any rules!" when any action against them is attempted. Tildes's code of conduct is at least partially inspired by On a Technicality, which does a great job of laying out how this tends to occur.
The way Tildes gets around it is by having a explicitly vague, subjective code of conduct and a dictatorship of its founder. All moderation is going to ultimately come down to the opinions of those controlling the site on how to best moderate anyway, but this makes it explicit that for you to like Tildes and how they moderate here, you've gotta at least tolerate Deimos's subjective opinions on what deserves to stay and what should be locked or deleted. And tbh, I don't think there's a better way to do this. The more explicitly you set out the rules for something like "civil discussion", the more bad actors abuse those rules against others while keeping just inside the rules themselves.
If I may add, it's very similar to a way children sometimes annoy other children. The rules say, "Keep your hands to yourself." Child points their finger an inch away from another's face and proclaims, "I'm not touching you!", proud that they have managed to find a loophole. Whereas if the rule is "Play nice," the adult is able to simply retort that even if you're not technically touching them, you're not playing nice, thus you have broken a rule.
Years ago when I ran a Minecraft server, we had rule number nine: "Don't be a dick." I didn't know it at the time, it was just shorthand. Everybody knows what "don't be a dick" means! Griefing, harassing, or just saying mean shit in general? "Being a dick, appeal on subreddit or Discord." EZ PZ.
Even if someone does struggle with understanding what "being a dick" entails, enumerating a bunch of specifics is never going to cover all situations without any room for misunderstanding. I don't think it's really possible to do that.
Absolutely, and that's largely why we had the rule in the first place. It was just shorthand for all the conceivable things we didn't feel like writing down. It was just a nice coincidence that my act of laziness allowed for a very flexible moderation style.
Oh yeah 100% agree. We had a long list of rules with a "mod discretion clause" at the end and it was less effective imo.
I'm very much familiar with all that, and I agree. Unfortunately, what it tends towards is that there's just a red line of topics that are more or less off limits, or are at least liable to be moderated fairly strictly. We see this on tildes, where Deimos has certain topics of which he assumes that truly civil discussion is not possible and/or not productive. As a result, these topics are a hair's width from closure at all times. I can't fault the man, his heuristic is generally right on.
What I'm saying is that I have this harebrained idea that I'm sure is only half cooked, but I'm also somewhat convinced of it: We could establish the rule that topics that are more liable to cause distress in parts of the community have a higher standard of contributions; in terms of burden of proof, in terms of novelty of arguments, in terms of emotionally sensitive expression, etc. That's it, that's the rule right there. As vague as that. Same as "don't be an asshole".
Ideally you'd develop some kind of culture around it that makes the emotional labor of the contributors explicit, such that others can passively absorb it. Basically, instead of starting a topic "nazis should be denied the right to vote"[1] and listing a bunch of cold arguments in favor of it, a viable post that would not hurt the feelings of those affected would have to provide more detailed evidence, give known counterarguments a fair shake, and wrap it all in language that aims not to offend. The author would also make that process somewhat explicit, such that people can learn from one another; basically "here's who this topic affects and how it affects them, and this is what I'm doing to reduce the risk of harm."
People who don't invest that kind of effort will stick out like a sore thumb and will be moderated away as they are now. And I genuinely don't believe that trolls will entertain the thought of participating in that. You can either troll on twitter and use slurs to insult minorities as you please (well, not quite, but not far off), or you can write a novel research paper about why minority X is less than. The latter is a far worse deal in a payoff/effort ratio, I don't think it's going to be a thing. You're going to get people genuinely interested in illuminating the topic - people who go into this with an open mind and are actually interested in the process of figuring things out, even if it's made more difficult by having to be accommodating to other's emotions. Nevermind that contributing novelty to the discussion usually entails the possibility of accidentally supporting the other side, so people who aren't in it for truth but for agenda pushing run a huge risk there. Particularly if we believe that our moral high ground is also based in fact.
The one counterpoint I can easily see to this approach is if we're offended by the truth. If genuinely rational, genuinely civil discourse arrives at conclusions we consider harmful, maybe we have bigger problems than how we discuss that? If the truth does no harm, but the discussion does, then I think we just haven't set the standard high enough.
TL;DR: I agree, those rules would have to be as vague as our current "don't be an asshole"; it's not a solution for the rules lawyering problem. But I believe the basic idea has the potential to strike a novel balance between civility and rationality, and would turn away bad actors.
[1] I deliberately chose a less controversial and slightly farcical punching bag because then I get to use the "raw and hurtful" version as an example without shame. Please don't take this as a literal example, but more of a stand-in for topics I'd rather not insert here because I'm not confident I could actually live up to the standards I myself outline here; I'm not that emotionally smart. You can imagine an arbitrarily harmful replacement as you please, but please also imagine an appropriately heightened standard of discourse.
I think you're really really underestimating how likely this is to be a thing. There are already fairly famous books published with a scholarly veneer that aim to essentially do exactly this ("The Bell Curve" is an example that comes to mind). I can promise you that people absolutely can and will put the effort in to have "well-researched" discussions about absolutely vile shit, and they'll have no shortage of historical research and sources to cite.
It also doesn't matter how high you set the bar for the actual content of the post -- there are some topics that are going to drive away victims of oppression just by their nature of being allowed. I don't care how civilly and with how much research someone argues that black people are less intelligent (and trust me, there's plenty of bogus sources and quotes from racist scientists both living and dead they'll LOVE to trot out and elaborate on), black people aren't going to want to exist on a website where that discussion is happening and they certainly aren't going to want to waste their time debating the matter and being forced to show evidence that they aren't intellectually inferior to back it up. What this accomplishes is an environment that's more hostile to minorities than it is to harmful discussions.
These strict rules about burdens of proof and novelty of arguments are also going to harm genuine discussions within these minority communities. After all, my existence as a trans person is distressing to plenty of people. Should I be held to such a strict burden if I want to discuss my own feelings and experiences? Not every venue is a formal debate, but this forces discussions on certain topics to ONLY be such things because there's no other means of kicking out Nazi shit.
See, but all of those examples you mention are things I wouldn't imagine would pass muster. A scholarly veneer is insufficient. I don't think "The Bell Curve" could be considered a neutral account of the science around race and IQ. If one produces a genuinely neutral, well researched account that illuminates all facets of the science around the topic, I imagine it would be quite inoffensive. And it wouldn't be something an agenda-pushing racist is interested in writing down. Sure, you can bring out your bogus sources, but if you're not illuminating how they're bogus, you're not living up to the standards. As I said, the standard can be practically impossibly high for discussions we really don't want to entertain. (Though I'd stop one step short of actually impossibly high.) The standards can be as they are for everyday discussions on here. They should be high around the topics that usually end up in chaos on here; they should be extremely high for the stuff that isn't usually even talked about on here.
As for the fact that your existence is pain (to other people): Not all harm is created equal, and I think it's prudent to acknowledge that. There's slices of society that we get to choose to identify with, and slices we are just part of. The paradox of tolerance still works. We're still working within the broad guidelines that tildes functions under. We can still decide that the harm caused to transphobes by trans people discussing everyday stuff in everyday tone is not relevant, and there's no flowery words needed to ensure they don't feel offended. Meanwhile their agenda is heavily moderated, and they don't get to post unless they remove their agenda and hate from their posts.
Question for everyone participating in this particular string of discussion. How do you allow for deprogramming of those who truly are willing to come around?
Edit it to expand:
In my own life, I know that there are certainly thoughts and opinions that were 100% based on lack of exposure. And I believe this to be true of everybody. Most likely, we can hold some truly horrendous beliefs because we've never had any contact with anything that would cause us to question those. And I don't see that as a moral failure in any way shape or form, it's just simple ignorance. And, as a result, usually takes me multiple exposures to a given idea before it's possible to actually "get it." There's in dash group language, and meanings that go past the surface that it just takes time to realize are there.
That doesn't negate the need for safe spaces where people don't have to put up with it, but without some sort of venue to have ignorant discussions, people who are willing to never get the opportunity to move past their own ignorances.
And one of the problems is those kinds of spaces are absolutely likely to get taken upper by bad faith actors. But you also don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
My moderation experience is principally in areas related to a specific hobby of mine, so ignorant questions about topics like that could be shut down on the basis of being off-topic at our discretion (since, like, we weren't really the place for that). That said, it's a hobby that disproportionately popular among trans women, so ignorant questions about that topic would likely result in getting dogpiled anyway. Most of our actual bad actors were more blatant that merely asking questions out of ignorance, though.
On the discord server I moderated we had a role that locked a user to a specific channel with only the mods and them, which we could use to quickly shut down an inflammatory conversation without banning anyone. We'd then usually try to have a discussion one-on-one between a mod who wasn't too heated about the situation and the "offender". As mods we'd try to be gentle here if possible, since the goal was to help illuminate what was inappropriate about their behavior and could answer ignorant questions as part of that. I'm not sure whether this was the best solution, since often people would just be like "fuck you" and leave the server, but sometimes we would at least seemingly get through to people. Lots of teens on our server so sometimes it really was just someone being immature.
We also reviewed bans on request, so if someone felt bad and wanted back in they could DM a mod. Depending on the nature of and length of time since what they did, as well as how they asked for it, we were open to unbanning people who seemed to have grown since.
I don't think these are perfect solutions, but they definitely seemed like good enough solutions for at least a small to medium-sized community. As for the advice I'd give to someone in online spaces who genuinely doesn't know where the boundaries are and doesn't want to say shit that'd hurt people or get them banned... I can really only say "lurk moar." You don't need to be the one to start a discussion about a controversial topic you don't understand, and people are going to be more inclined to patiently explain shit to you if you come to it with an open sense of humility. Acknowledging one's own ignorance is key to being received well when asking questions about sensitive subjects like this too.
I really enjoyed reading that blog post you linked and even read some of what was linked there!
It was a good, thought provoking piece.
Civil discussion is actually a great way to phrase it, great thanks. I'd add to that, at least in my ideal world, that:
(This wouldn't counteract your point of "free to be wrong, but not free from being challenged/debated;". On the contrary - everyone should be open to being challenged. Attack =/= challenge in the way I'm saying it here. I just like a place where that challenge / debate itself in reaction to an idea is also civil.)
Actually really glad you made that bullet point, because I think it articulates well what I have been unable to do so for myself.
I agree with you, people sometimes are too quick to label things as hateful, living in a bubble avoiding anything they disagree with.
I think what you mean actually is free speech, the right to express oneself without fear of censorship by the government. The issue is when people knowingly or not misinterpret it to mean you have no consequences for your actions or that it applies to private places or individuals, as in "the government may not stop you but I don't have to listen to your crap in my house".
Free speech is not seen as a "bad thing" and is a cornerstone of modern civilization. No-one is attacking free speech. What's happening is that bad actors are abusing free speech as an excuse to spread hate.
Discussion about topics outside of your viewpoint are fine, but when people start bringing up hatred against minority groups who do not have the representation or the power to resist, then it becomes unfitting of a public platform. We gain nothing from entertaining intolerance - on the contrary, we lower the bar of discussion in an aim to please someone who clearly doesn't have it in them to be respectful of others.
Sorry, I was mostly commenting on the title of the post "free speech nutjob", which seemed bizarre to me. But I think now it is more of a language thing, and I didn't appreciate that. It seems I don't have enough context about this situation, or it might be too political for me. My bad if I caused offense.
My thoughts on people being open to share ideas, even unsavory ones, is that well say somebody has a view that is quite hateful that I disagree with, that is maybe based on emotion rather than fact. I'd rather they discuss it in a civil, logical way with people that think differently, and we can bounce ideas off each other. Who knows? Maybe they will see something in another way because someone was willing to talk to them.
Political extremists aren't interested in "bouncing around ideas" or "discussing" things in a logical way. They view discussion as an venue through which to exert dominance over the space. They are opaque to reason and indifferent to truth. They care only about sending a signal that the people they don't like aren't welcome and they tailor their every comment towards creating a sentiment of "in-group" and "out-group" that they can use to foment conflict and bully their enemies.
You might think you're "having a discussion" with them, but you are not. A discussion requires participants to care about learning from other perspectives, but extremists are too set in their position for that. They're there to either bully you into submission or to leverage the attention they get from the friction with you to attract and groom fellow travelers to grow their movement. They're not seriously there to test their ideas or grow from the experience of conversing.
My issue with your comment, and I say this gently, is that you're lumping a large swath of people into a group and pre-determining what their actions would be, and the way they think. Who is a "Political extremist"? Is it anyone who holds a certain viewpoint? How do you know that others might not lump you into a similar group, and assume that you are immune to reason? (Please don't take that as a personal offense, I'm not claiming that you are immune to reason - I'm saying, you might be surprised to discover that someone might think the same way about you because of some view that you hold.)
I am not defending hateful views with this comment, I'm just trying to poke around with the idea that lumping anyone into a category, I think at least, is a dangerous and biased view. It discounts that everyone in that "group" (whatever it might be) is an individual. Maybe one of the people in this group, is a young teen who has heard a bunch of nonsense on the internet, and is just looking to fit in. Maybe it's someone who has had a bad experience, and is acting out of fear. People are different, and you never know who is the person in the group, their reasons for being in it, and what their level of open-mindedness is.
I have held strongly to views, which were slowly dismantled by calm, reasoned discussions with people who thought differently from me. I've also had such discussions in the opposite. I guess it's an existence proof. Perhaps it's rare, but I believe it's possible.
Finally, just because a person does not change their view in that single conversation doesn't mean that they don't go home later and start mulling things over. I believe that such views are often slowly dismantled over time. Because of this, it can be difficult to see the evidence of change "oh that person still believes the same way, so nothing came out of it!". Perhaps, for today. But after the next conversation, and the next, things might be very different. You might be interested to see some talks by Megan Phelps-Roper, who was one of the daughters in the westboro baptist church, and her slow exit from those ideologies.
Yes. Because those people are noxious cancers on having a functioning and welcoming community. I don't care what's in their hearts, I care about their behavior and the likelihood of that behavior doing harm to people or, simply, ruining the vibe of a social space. I don't care if certain people might lump me in as a "political extremist", because I have a fairly well reinforced assumption that I have no interest in hanging out in the spaces they create for themselves nor do I care about being invited to their parties. The problem is, they aren't happy to stay in spaces with like minded people. They have a pathological need to go into spaces they aren't wanted and hassle the people there.
I do not care that they're "individuals." People are under no obligation to facilitate the personal growth of any and every deluded person who wanders into their space. I come from a shame-based culture so I well understand the utility of telling people how much of disappointment they are in motivating them to stop their socially undesirable behavior. I don't go along with the Fear/Guilt frameworks so much.
Did you pay them to tutor you? I'm being glib there, but this is the fundamental issue with allowing this sort of content in a discussion space. People like this have a way of sucking up all of the oxygen in the room and centering themselves and their personal issues and baggage. They bring in generic talking points that are well known to anyone who spent more than 10 minutes sincerely looking into an issue and the people who like to spend time there have to put their time into debunking the same trite misinformation over and over and over and over and over again. This doesn't make for quality discussion. This doesn't raise interesting observations, not even contrary ones. Anyone with anything worthwhile to say leaves these spaces because nobody wants to spend all of their time teaching the remedial basics of a subject to a bunch of hostile ideologues and the easy marks they cultivate to spread their nonsense.
If you want worthwhile discussions, you have to ban people from bringing this stuff up because otherwise that's all you're going to get. Even among the "informed" people who are on the "right" side of these issues you're going to filter it down to the ones who like rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Who wants to hang out in a space that's nothing but people who like to argue all the time, being absolutely certain of their own entrenched positions and content to repeat the same old points ad nauseum while working themselves up into a righteous fury at each other? Not anyone emotionally healthy that's for sure!
The grim fact is that most people have nothing worthwhile to say. Even people who have worthwhile thoughts and ideas have a very low hit-rate. We are sheep. For the most part this is fine, we tend to just ignore [generic opinion #74,324,292] when it comes up and that experience of being ignored teaches us to self-edit ourselves out of saying trite and boring things. But hateful rhetoric and outrage bait have a way of rising to the top of anything that optimizes around freshness or engagement, thus giving unoriginal, uninteresting, unintelligent sheep the opportunity to get attention for their hackneyed utterances. Let this go on long enough and it will sap the life out of everyone.
Megan Phelps-Roper needed to have multiple people put concerted effort into deprogramming her in an online information environment that was much less rife with targeted disinformation and narrative propaganda than the one we live in today. She is not a specialist on the topic and it's honestly kind of entitled to walk around with this belief that every discussion space needs to turn into a zone for tutoring people like her out of their noxious perspectives. Most of these people have had these discussions hundreds of times. They get off on the attention of getting people to argue or engage with them. Anyone who has trained a dog knows that giving them attention for maladaptive behavior just reinforces the behavior, even if it puts them in states of agitation. Even if you care about their intellectual development and well-being (which I, mostly, do not) the better way to do that is to show them how to fill the sucking void of loneliness that motivates them to act like assholes in more constructive ways, by finding interests and community around something other than arguing about culture war nonsense with generic outrage bait. And the best way to do that is to send a clear message to check that garbage at the door.
It seems you missed the point of what I was saying, unfortunately, as this doesn't address it. I was not saying "have pity on these folks" or saying you must empathize with them, or that it is your duty to educate them. I was saying your (or anyone's) blanket statement about the way they think, and what is possible with them, is frankly biased. I'm sorry, but lumping any set of people into a group and assuming every one of them will think and act a certain way, is, well, exactly what those people are doing that you dislike. It's just not factual; there are people in the group who can and will behave differently than what you are assuming.
Either way - as mentioned in another comment - I think we might be at an impasse. I respect your opinion here, but I will probably disengage at this point. I hope that's ok on Tildes?
The point is that it doesn't matter. Moderation policies operate based on heuristics. Social dynamics do as well. If you quack like a duck it makes more sense to treat you like a duck than to sit around and wait to see if you might actually be a mutant chicken. Like I already said, what's in their hearts doesn't matter. Simply raising certain topics and discussing them in certain ways is, itself, bad for the health of a community and the quality of conversation in it.
Ok, I understand your point better I think, thanks for clarifying. I think we just disagree on that point and others you are asserting here, but that's ok. I tend to think biased thinking is worth re-evaluating. Again, I say this gently, but to me I guess it reads like "I'm saying the sky is green, when really it's blue, but I'm going to keep saying it's green because it doesn't matter."
If I can leave you with one thought, it might be this: you know how you feel justified in responding certain ways to these people, or disliking them, or coming to these strong points, because of how you define this group of people? Please understand that they are doing exactly the same thing with you and others, and feel justified in the same way. When everyone is convinced they are right, with no possibility of listening to the other side, I just find that no body wins because nothing is ever being heard.
I am not suggesting you get all warm and fuzzy and invite these folks to dinner; I'm only suggesting that at some point, you might consider that they too are individuals, and painting them all with one broad stroke might cause more problems, and give you nothing in return. Again - not saying you should educate them. That's not your job or your problem. But just as a thought experiment - what is the harm in going from "all these are definitely all one way and they will always respond in one way because they are in this group" to "they are individuals. There's a high likelihood that they will respond in the way I've experienced previously, but maybe they are not all like that. Even if I dislike their thinking - and am perfectly justified in that - maybe they have their reasons for thinking that way (even if it's illogical, or pointless)". EDIT: Doing this thought experiment does not mean you have to like these individuals. You can still be disgusted by people and their actions, and still understand that they are individuals. I'm not suggesting otherwise.
The thing is that the color of the sky is an empirical fact. But whether certain types of posters are worth having around is more like determining whether a plant is a weed or not. This is largely a subjective question of whether it's a desirable thing to have in your garden or not.
You say they're doing the same thing to me. But I know this already. I just don't care. They're wrong. Nazis think Liberals are tyrannical. The Soviets asserted that American imperialism was a special kind of evil while their system was purely benign. Both of these groups were wrong and stupid. I see no reason to entertain opinions founded on exaggerations and misinformations. I see no reason to validate absolute hogwash because adherents to hogwash are good at rationalizing their way into thinking non-hogwash thinkers who have researched and thought through their perspectives are wrong because reasons.
It's a free country, so people are free to think and espouse nonsense, but they can go do that in their own idiot corner, I have no interest in hanging out there. The question comes when they come into corners where they aren't wanted and force their ignorance and malcontent on everyone else. Frankly, I've let slide the equivalence you're drawing between my positions on these and those of intellectually incurious, poorly informed, or uneducated people. The fact that you're drawing that equivalence makes me think you're making assumptions about who I'm talking about or where I'm coming from with this. If you read what I've said closely, I have been pretty clear about targeting political extremists and the patterns of behavior I am talking about are the actual characteristics to identify these people and it's that precise lack of intellectual "virtues" that leads them down the road to becoming extremists.
What is gained though? Like I said, most people have nothing worth listening to. Specific types of topics that aren't worth listening to, nevertheless, get a lot of attention in ways that are self-perpetuating. So why have it around? Why give people the chance? Why not expect people to lurk and research and learn before presuming to butt into discussions with half-informed theory they've absorbed from memes and crank podcasters?
Ok, I do understand better, and sorry for the misunderstand of your previous post. Again - my original point had nothing to do with "are these people worth having in your space". If it came across as that, my bad. My only point was that painting any set of people with a broad stroke is biased. That was all.
What is gained is that it's a less biased view of the world and of life. To me that always has value, because if my thinking is biased (and I know I have tons of biased thinking, I'm not saying i don't), then maybe I'm taking actions or building beliefs based on faulty thoughts. I don't want to do that. It's not giving anyone a chance, it's not validating them, it's not liking them, it doesn't even really have to do with them; it's just seeing things in a more realistic way. Don't you think there's value in understanding things (whatever it might be) in a less biased way? Just for yourself?
The other value I find in it, is that it allows me to understand better what is at the base of certain ideologies. To me, that's one of the most powerful tools in dismantling such ideologies.
I don't need to personally engage with annoying people to "better understand the base of their ideologies." There are better ways to do that research that don't involve having them impose themselves into a social hangout space. If I really wanted to do that, I'd go lurk in their space so I can see their sincere, unfiltered view instead of the performative mask they wear in polite company.
Besides, people are terrible at actually telling you why they think what they do. They don't actually think it through. Like I said, most people are sheep who just repeat what they've heard from the last sort of persuasive person who kind of aligns with their gut-level idea about things. I learn nothing from such people that I don't absorb through cultural osmosis.
There's an underlying assumption baked into what you're saying that you have to hear things directly from the horse's mouth to understand what it means to be a horse. But there's a very specific context in which you can actually study things like this in ways that you can learn from them. Having them insert themselves into conversations you're having during downtime between work tasks is not it. I also don't buy into this idea that there is any truth value in listening to people who are wrong or operating from bad premises. If I'm an actual economist or sociologist, why should I give two shits what some dunderhead who knows nothing about either has to say about it? It's a waste of my time.
Plus, it's not like you can unbias yourself on everything. Why are these people so important that it should be anyone's priority to understand them or where they come from? You're allowing various internet shitheads to be giving you assignments about what you're gonna learn and what sorts of perspectives you get to absorb. I don't think this is even likely to steer you to edifying ways to use your own mental energy.
I think we just misunderstand each other, I'm sorry :( Not saying that's your fault, so don't take it that way; I don't think I am able to articulate what I was trying to say about bias. I wish you well.
Here is one guy who actually did what you are suggesting, in person not online, but it is a heroic act imho and not at all something to expect ordinary people to do. https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis
Thanks so much for sharing that. I saw an interview with this guy several years ago, and I never forgot it. I appreciate this man and have deep respect for him. I wish more people knew about him.. I've seen several people mock this guy, and it makes me sad. I don't think he's saying "everyone should do this", nor is he saying "this is the only way, or the most effective way". I think instead he is just hitting on the point: a lot of people are able to hate others because they have never had a genuine connection with someone in that group they are hating. Once they have that personal connection, and can put a face to that "group", it can change the way they think, and be difficult to hate them any longer.
This does not apply to everyone, many will continue to hate, but I think it applies more people than might seem obvious at first.
I think the issue here is that if we let these abhorrent views be given everywhere (and just to be clear I acknowledge that this isn’t your argument at all and that you specifically said you don’t want that - I’m just making a broader point!) then people in these protected groups are forced to engage or suffer from reading it. This man Daryl did it willingly, with the full knowledge that he thought he was mentally strong enough to handle the hate that he might receive.
Is it noble? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to expect everyone to be able to do it? Nope.
So while I get where you’re coming from here about it being important to try and change minds and see the person behind the actions, I think our primary concern has to be with the more vulnerable members of the community. I’ll back our gay, black, Jewish etc brothers and sisters and non-binary siblings before I’ll entertain having homophobes, racists and neo-nazis around.
And just to reiterate, I totally understand where you’re coming from, and I think you have a great attitude. I don’t mean this as an argument with you. I just think you might be perhaps a little naive to what that would look like in reality.
This is exactly why I hate what Daryl Davis has come to represent. The vast majority of times I see his name it's because people are trying to argue that we should keep horrible people around so we can train them the same way as one would an animal. But what they're really suggesting is to keep a wild animal in the community center. Few people will try to train it, none will succeed, a lot of innocent people will be hurt, and when it finally gets away it will either not know about the people it hurt or simply won't care about it. Everyone loses.
It's a noble idea, for sure, but it's like that old saying: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I appreciate the comment. I didn't take it in a negative or argumentative way, in fact it was a pleasant comment. I think you make a lot of great points. I'm not advocating that every place must be open to voicing any opinion; online forums are private entities and are allowed to manage them however they see fit and for whatever reason. If Tildes wants to delete any threads that talk about football, I'm ok with that, and I won't fault them for it. There's no right or wrong there - it's just what they want to do.
Without getting into personal details about my life, I am in a vulnerable group, and have had my fair share of humiliating hatred throughout my life. So I do get it. I understand not everyone wants to handle things the way I do, and I don't expect others to; this was just me throwing out another approach, because it's not one that ... ever really see to be honest. Not sure where I'm going with this, guess just trying to clarify..
Also people grow in racist families etc. There is a lot of tragedy in life and our decisions are influenced but not determined by larger forces. However some people are irredeemable and many more are dangerous to deal with regardless of what might be responsible for that fact.
To bring it back to topic, imho moderators of online spaces should be allowed to make decisions that make their work efficient to deal with even if that is not ideal for every individual.
Thanks for being so diligent a contributor. As I said before, I think you have been more than generous with your time and energy.
It is IMO highly encouraged, and much preferable to making you unhappy and/or forcing you to contribute in negative ways. Tildes is deliberately slow paced, and it's fine to come back in a week when you feel like you've digested things, or in a month when you have the time to properly address it, or never.
In fact, it's even been the official position, though that was in a slightly different context.
As I said elsewhere, feel free to disengage if it's for your own reasons. But I think with the way you've been contributing, there's no reason for you to feel forced to stop; you're not out of line. Though admittedly, with the way people have been interpreting what you wrote, I wouldn't fault you for being sick of this thread.
Thanks. I don't like to leave people hanging online, it always feels rude, so I am always worried about this. I think it's a point that's really emotional and I understand that. It's just a disagreement and that's ok. We all have our own experiences that lead us to believe different things, and I can't say my thoughts are correct anymore than anyone elses here. For that reason, it might not be worth debating, I guess.
I would encourage you to choose what is best for your own mental health and comfort. You have gone over and above typical effort in contributing to this conversation imho. (She says as just one random user who happens to be observing) But please, take care of yourself.
FYI, if you "Ignore" the topic (at the top of the comment section beside "Bookmark") it will no longer show up on your main pages anymore, and you will also no longer receive notifications for replies to your comments made in this topic either. So if you need to take a break for your own mental health, please do so without worrying about it, and feel free to Ignore the topic as well so you don't get tempted back in here. That's why that feature is built the way it is, so it can work as a topic disengagement mechanism for people who need/want that.
p.s. Nobody is going to look down on your for doing so. You have engaged in this topic in good faith for a significant amount of time already. So it's totally understandable if you feel you need to walk away from it now.
Hey thanks, I was unaware of that. The conversation has been healthy for me personally, to challenge my own views, and there's a lot to reflect on, which I'm sure I will for many days. However, I think I will ignore it now, as it's been a long day in my personal life, and time for something more enjoyable :) Thank you again for the help. Here's to a great Friday to everyone on tildes.
Definitely it has, and that sucks. But it is what it is, the alt right loves to co-opt phrases associated with popular ideals, usually twisting them in the process.
I agree that "free speech nut job" is a poor choice of words.
You're right, it was a poor choice of words. I just struggled to find something better when I was already upset about what happened on the site.
If you’d like, I can edit the title for you to say something else. Let me know if you want me (or anyone else who can edit titles) to change it.
Go for it! I'm happy to have a less-sensationalized title. I trust you to make a more appropriate title up as well. I'm not invested in my title so much as I am about spreading the word that squabbles isn't what I (and many others) thought it was and would be.
Sorry for the delayed reply, I'm rate limited right now. I think I participated too much in this thread with short comments and am (very rightfully) being slowed down for it.
First time I'm hearing of that kind of rate limiting. Is that actually a thing? I've heard people workshop the idea a ton, in different contexts, but never got the memo that it's actually implemented.
Source: Deimos
I think it's a great idea, especially to help people cool off when discussing heated topics, but yeah, it's happening to me. I don't think it's undeserved, for what it's worth. I personally like it.
It happened to me once. I'm kind of glad that it is built into the site. People can always move to private messages.
Hey habituallytired. Iluvatar here, what a shitshow lol.
Hey! Happy to have found you here! it's bad.