Comment on [deleted]

• jet@hackertalks.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  This is why having open conversations on social networks are difficult. People are deliberately taking an obtuse interpretation of your words, or even a total mischaracterization, and reacting to that. But not really engaging in healthy debate.

  From a principled perspective, I agree everyone should have the right to associate and speak.

  If I were to genuinely try to guess the opposing viewpoint, some people have the ideas that are too dangerous, and they shouldn’t communicate, they shouldn’t have the ability to speak. Anybody who associates with those people is enabling them.

  So the core schism here appears to be how do we deal with dangerous ideas, and is it more dangerous to censor people, or to not censor people?

  But we never get to talk about that, because the debate becomes " you’re a Nazi, or you’re supporting Nazis which is the same thing, lalala I’m not listening to Nazis".

  source

  • Dibbix@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    You know that a lot of us, probably even most of us, have literally never been compared to Nazis, right? Any guesses as to why that might be?

    Could one of the reasons be that we do not spend our time rushing to defend Nazis? Their message is pretty clear and they do a decent job of letting everyone know what it is all on their own. They don’t really seem to need anyone to help them but I’m sure they appreciate it when someone does.

    It’s interesting that when I have encountered people who i suspect may be ‘free speech absolutists’ and have looked over their comment history, they have only ever been expressing their concerns about censorship regarding Nazis, Andrew Tate, “straight pride”, or various right wing causes. Not once have i seen a comment by a ‘free speech absolutist’ that was defending drag queen story times, pro-choice protests, ‘extinction rebellion’, or PETA. If I were to look at your comment history, what would i find?

    source

    • jet@hackertalks.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I know your response is rhetorical, but the ad hominem implication proves my core thesis. We are unable to talk about the schism of why our philosophy’s differ, your response focuses entirely on hypotheticals, and assumptions about my motivations rather than my words.

      Lemmy is open, you’re free to inspect my posting history, I’m sure you’ll find lots of objectionable things.

      The post you were responding to, was an observation of how it’s difficult to have genuine conversation on social media platforms not about my personal views about communication theory. Disagreeing on topics is a good thing, that’s how we develop better understandings.

      source
• Dibbix@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Uh huh

  source