Comment on [deleted]
goldenballs@wolfballs.com 2 years agoI aren't bothered... and I know...
We might well agree that antifa are toxic fascists, but i don't see how banning violence is workable. Freedom fighters are often smeared as terrorists. These are just words. It's like an oppressive government making unreasonable laws to criminalize normal and legitimate behaviour - a recent example is the govt Nova Scotia criminalizing protest, by abusing unreasonable laws made for another illegitimate purpose and mission creeping them to apply for yet another illegitimate purpose. Nova Scotians should be protesting outside their provincial govt..
I agree that people should be free to comment and also give everyone else the freedom to take the piss out of them... Which is precisely what lefties try to do
Calling people terrorists is problematic, because why aren't globalist bankers called that too? I don't think you can define animherently violent ideology. There's plenty of violence in religious books.
The original reddit way of just ignoring people seems simpler. If the ideology is the problem, liberate the criticism and mockery of it, and add an admin cost to that kind of free expression... Like a hypocrite tax... Like communists could be forced to run their servers as unpaid collectives, so that they're shit, and nobody wants to use them. Let the market decide as much as possible.
I mean you can go the dark web, make death threats, and people will ril the shit out of the threat issuer... they are not taken seriously, and lose network, and that's the admin cost of being a dickhead.
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
My issue with sites like I propose is that there needs to be a way to keep the crackpots and plants out. So, in that case, have a regular site and have special private rooms for vetted folks to discuss certain topics. Those rooms could require a subscription fee and background checks. I wouldn't want real or fake skinheads taking over. Every time there is a new free speech site, the Left finds a way to cause violence and pin it on them. That isn't much different than Nero having the city set on fire and blaming Christians, whether he actually played a violin or similar or not.
You have a good point. International bankers are financial terrorists.
goldenballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
I don't think you will find much support for a bureaucracy, the right simply has to raise its game to win in the marketplace of ideas.
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
That's not quite what I'm calling for either. In fact, I'm saying much what you are. Self-policing is part of raising one's game. So allow extra privileges for those willing to pay and be vetted so they won't humiliate whatever new site. Often, those who raise the objection of increased security being a problem want to take your rights in some other way with their double standards.
goldenballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Vetting that means "background checks" and traceable "subscription fees" is of no interest to some of us who prefer liberty, and also security from potential trojan horse bad actors who want to smole out and dox some of us. The best you can hope for to get buy in, us a 2-tier system, where you have the shallow surface where people self-police, and are mostly dishonest (like at work); and the deeper depths, where people say what they really think (like at home). Submitting to "vetting" is creating a vulnerability that can be exploited or exposed through incompetence. Anonymity or privacy or security is not a flag for malign intent, but a protection in a hostile information space, where reputation attacks are real, and trust is for sheep not for wolves.