https://kbin.social/m/modernmisogyny
I ran across that magazine recently and every post is transphobic af. Does that fit within kbin.social’s code of conduct?
The magazine’s rule #1: NO BIGOTRY omfg I can’t 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I tried to report this magazine using the “contact” page a while back as it violates the kbin.social terms of service, but I guess as long as it’s only one nutjob posting and all the posts are getting disliked, it isn’t really a priority to remove.
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall fight to the death to defend your right to say it.
When you ban people, you tell them to go form an echo chamber where they’ll flourish.
A more intelligent approach is to imitate Daryl Davis, who has convinced hundreds of KKK members to leave the KKK, simply by respectfully talking with them.
You might actually learn a thing or two in the process.
For every Daryl Davis who can successfully talk down 100 Klansmen, you’ll find 100 Black people begging for their lives trying to reason with the Klan in their last moments. For every thought of “I can fix them!” that you may have, you have to weigh that against how many more people you’ll need to fix if you platform their ideas and treat them as something worth “respectfully debating”.
Convincing people to leave hate groups is a great thing to do, but if respectful debate were effective on the large scale, and we have no shortage of people respectfully arguing that hate is a bad thing, why is the far right a bigger threat now than it was ten years ago? Do not tolerate the intolerant, do not debate the undebatable, do not respect the unrespectable.
The “far right” is growing because the left keeps moving further left, and normal people realize they’re now considered conservative.
If you want an echo chamber, go on and kick me out. You reap what you sow.
I have mixed feelings about this
On one hand, Daryl Davis is a hero, and his method actually works to de-radicalize people. I prefer using this method when I encounter bigots irl.
On the other hand, allowing bigoted speech in your online platform has the potential to drive away normal folks and turn your platform into the echo-chamber where bigotry flourishes that you mentioned. This is basically what happened to Voat.
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall fight to the death to defend your right to say it.
I agree with this, but it’s beside the point. This isn’t a public space like a street corner, it’s a managed public/private space like a bar, where the bouncer will kick you out for abusing other patrons.
A group of patrons sitting at a table in a bar, quietly discussing their TERF perspective, is entirely different from one of them walking up to a trans table and picking a fight. The former is an exercise of free speech, whereas the latter is cause for ejection.
No. You don’t have the right to debate other people’s right to exist. Such speech is an act of violence and should be treated as such.
I don’t want a group of people sitting around “discussing” whether or not black people are inherently inferior either. That is not speech we should accept in the public sphere
Have you never heard “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me”? It’s preschool 101. Speech is never an act of violence.
Additionally, nobody is debating anyone’s right to exist.
Says the person who’s never heard their own right to exist or the rights of their loved ones called into question publicly.
You don’t have the right to “debate” other people’s equal rights.
Except really, nobody’s ever debating anyone’s right to exist. That’s absurd.
Consider this: If a mass murderer was captured and imprisoned, he could claim that the justice system opposes his right to exist. The trouble with that is he’d be completely incorrect. The justice system opposes his behavior of murder. No matter how much he believes his very existence is inextricably bound to his behavior of murder, the reality is he murders by choice, and it is that intentional action which the justice system opposes.
Did you just compare trans people living their lives without hurting anyone to murder?
Except it’s more like a group of patrons at a bar talking about killing a trans person, and than the next day one of them actually does it.
What kind of absurd hyperbole is that? Nobody has called for murder. And certainly nobody has committed a murder based on a call for it.
Speech has real life consequences.
“Known transgender killings increased 93% in that four-year period – from 29 in 2017 to 56 in 2021”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/homicide-rate-trans-people-doubled-gun-killings-fueling/story?id=91348274
“Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime”
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/
I don’t condone murder under any circumstances. But using 56 murders as an excuse to silence anyone online is a disgrace to the principle of free speech.
The principle of free speech, in America, has nothing to do with forcing people to tolerate hateful rhetoric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States.
In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government.
As long as the government isn’t arresting you for your opinions then nothing going on here has to do with “free speech”. Individuals and corporations silencing you online is not a “disgrace to the principle of free speech”.
deleted by creator
You’re confusing that “Voltaire” quote (which wasn’t actually said by him) with the American First Amendment.
The American First Amendment is predicated on America’s cultural basis in the principle of free speech, which is embodied by the quote. The American First Amendment indeed applies only to government, restricting its overreach. But the principle of free speech is one of the core principles of American culture. It goes far deeper than the First Amendment.
If you don’t want to debate with them then don’t subscribe to their magazine, and leave them alone.
deleted by creator
I find it interesting that, at the heart of our differences, is a disagreement over the nature of the internet itself — whether it’s public or private, more like a town square or more like our own living rooms. If you go back to the '90s, when the Web was nascent, I think technologists would have been surprised to learn that the issue is still so unsettled in 2023. I suppose it’s a tough issue to settle. Ultimately, neither of our traditional notions of “public” and “private” fit it well.
We agree that people who want us dead should not be invited into our living rooms. My position is that by surfing kbin we are putting ourselves in the middle of a town square, and opening ourselves up to any and all perspectives, disagreeable as they may be. As an American, my sentiment is “bring it on.”
The internet is public, go register a domain for hate speech, or “free speech” as some call it.
Websites are private property and do have moderation.
You sound like you’ve never argued with fascists online.
They only exist in echo chambers, anyway, and do not debate in good faith. There is nothing similar to what Daryl Davis did except in the most superficial way possible. Go visit /r/conservative and you might actually learn a thing or two.
I was active in r/Conservative, and here I’m the primary contributer to m/Conservative. Hi, nice to meet you. When I’m engaged in arguments involving the word “fascist”, it’s rarely me using that word (unless we’re literally discussing Mussolini), and usually me who’s called that for favoring levelheaded conservative principles. I enjoy mutually respectful debate, but I find most others prefer to fearfully call me a “fascist,” downvote everything I’ve ever written, block me, and walk away feeling sanctimonious.
That’s a hilarious turn; my statement was meant to be rhetorical. But you really have never argued with fascists!
And I never said YOU were fascist… but I guess that doesn’t fit with your canned response then, huh?
Fascists haven’t existed since 25 Luglio in 1943. You can find a tiny number of exceptions over the years, but as a broad statement it’s true. I’m not old enough to have argued with fascists, and I bet you’re not either.
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Yea wow, we’ve never seen that in the last 7 years!
I can see I really triggered you with that word. It’s hilarious that you self-identified with it and got defensive.
It certainly does sound like typical leftists if you squint. Everyone in this thread opposing free speech is an authoritarian. But if you actually read that definition word for word, it’s a position almost nobody supports. What’s more, the definition has been changed from the original political affiliation. I’m not surprised Miriam-Webster’s open to redefining words, but try as they might, words still mean what they originally meant. Still, their definition is close enough to the original to demonstrate my point that there are no fascists left, unless you squint and look at modern leftists.
Ah, right- There are no fascists but if there are it’s the leftists! Thanks for a good laugh today. Don’t ever let facts get in your way, bud.
Ugh, and 10A somehow also hasn’t been banned yet (and a quick check to his profile shows that he isn’t just still making bad-faith arguments about “free speech” but is also still spreading xenophobia, fake news about the last election, and so on).
I’m out. Anyone know of a kbin (not lemmy) instance with reasonably good moderation?
This comment is libel against me. I am not xenophobic, and I do not spread fake news (to the best of my knowledge).
There are not a lot of Kbin instances yet, so it’s hard to say at a glance whether an instance has actually good moderation or if it just doesn’t have enough users to cause trouble to begin with.
Edit: I found a more expansive list of instances and fedi196.gay seems like a good one
IIRC don’t think there’s even way to export data if you want to move instances either . Hope it all gets resolved sooner than later
Indeed. It’s easy enough to back up your posts/threads/comments with “save page as” on each page of your profile, but you can’t automatically transfer your followers, following, subscriptions, or moderated in a migration. You’d have to ask to be re-added as a moderator, have to contact your followers individually, have to add your subscriptions and following one by one to your new account… Has anybody made any sort of third-party tool to make migration easier?
Our main problem is that the kbin software doesn’t yet support having multiple admins on an instance. Ernest isn’t really able to handle both improving the code and doing instance-wide moderation, so the latter is neglected.
Your best bet for now would be a smaller instance with an active admin, though the overall problem will persist until the right features get added to the software.
This makes me wonder if adding some temporary restrictions to creating magazines here (based on account age or activity?) would be worth it to potentially help slow down ones like this being made (and to help slow down magazine squatting?).
@ernest You should look into that, how is it allowed?
I’ve already sent him a PM about that user & magazine a while ago. Still waiting and hoping to hear / see something.
Edit: I also think this is kinda disappointing. Kbin immediately defederated from nsfwlemmy over some bullshit allegations that weren’t even true. Meanwhile this and other examples of toxicity remain to fester directly on this instance.
No, fascists (which TERFs are) should not be allowed to fester here.
This article is really not convincing.
like, fuck terfs, fuck the anti-trans movement, but the connection between the anti-trans movement and fascism is framed in this suuuuper abstract way that no meaningful definition of fascism would allow. It kind of just makes fascism sound like “statism.”
There are plenty of terfs (again, fuck terfs) who are not calling for government action, but trying to exclude trans women from feminist spaces on non-governmental levels, arguing for a limiting social or academic definition of feminism or of a woman and holding exclusionary events. Fascism is an incorrect label for that behavior.
Furthermore, to call terfs fascists implies that they are generally for other things fascists are for, like a command economy, which I don’t think is common.
And to be clear, there is an overlap between terfs and fascists, and an even bigger overlap between anti-trans people in general and fascists. We all know the Nazis fucked up a lot of good gender research, but they were never pretending to be feminists.
Nope, terfs are fascists.
… did you link to the wrong article by mistake? that article doesn’t really have anything to do with fascism, except insofar as most fascists also happen to be racists.
I could link articles all day but I have better things to do than entertain (presumably) a cis guy while he plays devils advocate about the people who want my friends thrown in camps not being fascists.
that’s literally the first article you linked to. Do you have a point at all? You can link to articles all day, but only two of them, and only one that argues for your point at all, which I’ve already addressed?
I’m not advocating for terfs or fascists, they’re both villains, but to say they’re the same is like saying the KKK and the muslim brotherhood are the same. Just because they’re both evil and there are some common threads between their ideas doesn’t mean they’re the same. I think we should learn how to talk about the terrible groups out there instead of just equating all of them and dancing around our own ignorance. I’m not advocating them, I’m advocating against them as strongly as I can, and you’re promoting ignorance instead of responding to the one damn point I’ve made.
that’s literally the first article you linked to.
Yeah I thought maybe you would read it this time.
I read it, and responded to it. You’ve been ignoring my response because you don’t have an answer to it. So again. The core argument that terfs are fascists is:
To that end, Butler does a good job of laying out that the anti-trans movement ultimately is about strengthening government oversight — restricting access to medical care and generally seeking to ban LGBTQ+ people from the public sphere, which fits pretty neatly into just about every standard definition of fascism. That includes gender critical feminists, the self-professed “leftist” equivalent of the more extreme right-wing fundamentalists.
Which, again:
- Pretends the entire social-focused aspect of the anti-trans movement doesn’t exist, when it obviously does, and there are obviously many, many terfs focused on non-governmental oppression. The article itself describes governmental forms of oppression, but this does nothing to imply that the anti-trans movement is actually all about focusing on government oppression
- identifies an extremely superficial relationship between two positions as both being statist and therefore being the same. The police state is also about increasing government oversight. A command economy is about increasing government oversight. The founding of the CFPB was about increasing government oversight. Having courts is about increasing government oversight. These are not all forms of fascism.
- fails to describe fascism at all. Fascism is a specific thing with a specific definition, it’s not just the idea of having an active government. Fascism is a form of nationalism with a dictatorial government, a strong military focus, a hard command economy that exists to support the state and the military, expansionist policies, suppression of opposition to the government, denigration of the individual in favor of the collective in the form of the state… Now, the terf movement, overall, is doing some of those things, but the article doesn’t reference any of them.
- fails to establish that most terfs, or the core proponents of the terf movement, or terfs in general, are fascists, let alone that a terf is categorically a type of fascists.
If you have a point, then instead of linking to the same article again or linking article that isn’t about fascism, please make your point.
