• doctortofu@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    220
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The phrase “free speech platform” sounds like a giant, enormous dog whistle. Which is a damn shame, because I used to enjoy that place, and now I’m not sure I will anymore… Don’t want to jump to conclusions, but is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?

    I’m a white, heterosexual cis male in my 40s not living in the US, so this does not affect me in any way, shape or form directly, but it still feels just icky, unnecessary and tone-deaf. Guess I’ll post photos of my succulents and my goofy dog just on Lemmy from now on, bummer…

    • panCatE@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      82
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it is a dog whistle , here in India there are people who openly talk of genocide , homophobia and what not and call it their right to speech and expression !

      • hh93@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The “funny” thing is that the moment those people have power they don’t have a problem going against free speech (see having books banned (in the US) or trying to stop people from voicing their opinion (Meloni in Italy))

        It’s all just exploiting the tolerance of the system in order to make it less tolerant That’s why completely unchecked free speech is a bad idea as it will eventually lead in its complete demise

        • panCatE@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          That way yall can let nazi shit going and call it freedom of speech , murder is also freedom of expression in a way then ?

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, not at all. Murder is an action that is illegal. Saying something isn’t, no matter how much you disagree with it. I don’t like people saying racist stuff, but I’m certainly not of the belief that they shouldn’t be allowed to say it.

            • panCatE@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Now imagine people holding hate speech conferences where they gather and talk about cleaning the population (a dogwhistle to genocide) I wonder if that is ok ! And the riots that happen coz of the radicalised masses ?

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                And the riots that happen coz of the radicalised masses ?

                Aren’t these called “mostly peaceful protests” now? Or is that only when it’s your “side” that’s doing the rioting?

    • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?

      No, because awful people congregate wherever they are tolerated.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people

      When you have a “free speech” policy, you attract principled free-speech advocates who want to discuss issues rather than shouting down unpopular opinions, a few people who are well-behaved and intelligent but write about ideas that the majority may find offensive or horrifying, and a whole bunch of people who got banned everywhere else for being rude and disruptive.

      The best-moderated such place that I’ve seen had a policy requiring politeness and high-effort posts, which kept out the third group.

      The second group can be tough to tolerate. Sometimes they’re interesting, sometimes they’re a Holocaust denier who cites references, and you look up those references and they appear to be real papers written by real academics, and you know this is all wrong but you’re not a historian and even if you were you don’t have time to address every issue in this guy’s entire life’s work and you just wish the topic never came up. But you can’t keep out the second group unless you compromise your principles as a member of the first group.

        • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, that’s exactly what it means. Often, participating is very unpleasant. (I had to leave the Holocaust denial discussion - that one was too personal for me.) And I still think we ought to respect places where people do get to talk like that.

          There is good and bad, and good people can’t assume they’ll always be able to fight harder or yell louder. On the contrary, bad people tend to be better at fighting and at yelling. So if good people fight and yell, they give up the long-term advantages that they may have. Those advantages are that appeals to our common humanity sometimes work, and that peaceful coexistence makes everyone safer and wealthier. But to have these advantages, you need to be willing to tolerate people you hate and hear them out. After all, that’s what you want the other side to do.

          (Sometimes that doesn’t work and you do have to fight, but if you’re in that position then you’re already competing on the enemy’s terms. The Allies didn’t win World War II because they were the good guys. They won because they had more guns, and next time the bad guys may have more guns.)

            • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              Who gets to decide what thoughts, beliefs, and groups are allowed to be tolerated?

              Is there a quantifiable threshold for what is and what is not tolerable?

              Does that threshold change over time?

                • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t understand how one can advocate for censorship, yet be incapable of defining what speech should be restricted.

                  I suppose it makes sense for somebody unable to express their belief system to also be unable to consider more than one viewpoint.

              • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes there is. When your freedom directly invades the freedom of other people you are passing the threshold of what is tolerable.

                When you form a group of people and declare it’s free speech to discuss how women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, for example, you aren’t just voicing any random opinion. Words have consequences and words can hurt people. You are past the line of tolerance because you actively invade other people’s freedom.

                I can only imagine that thinking it’s freedom to allow these talking points to freely flourish online stems from the naive believe that nothing will come of these types of echo chambers, but it does. We have already experience with this from the incel and racist mass shooters and the online communities that helped birthing them.

                I don’t say it’s easy to decide in every case when you should put a stop to a discussion. But simply allowing everything is not the way. And ironically this squabble community realises this by also not allowing everything.

                • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Thanks for your response. Free speech is a nuanced topic and I appreciate well though out discussions about it.

                  I agree, It’s very hard to decide on a case by case basis what is and isn’t tolerable. That’s the main reason why I questions arguments for limiting speech–how can you make non-arbitrary distinctions between the two and who should have the authority to decide?

                  I think your example of speech advocating for women to not have the right to vote is a good subject to consider.

                  I agree, arguing that women shouldn’t have the right to vote is beyond rediciulous and in a vacuum, it would be reasonable to consider that speech intolerable. But on the other hand, wasn’t it freedom of speech that gave women the power to gain suffrage in the first place?

                  You mention drawing the distinction for intolerable speech at speech that limits the freedom of others. In an abstract sense I think that’s reasonable, but in practice I’m not so sure. Anti-suffragists often argued that granting women the right to vote infringed on their freedom. That’s obviously a morally wrong argument, but who should be allowed to decide that?

            • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              lmao you are the perfect example of what is wrong with this kind of thinking. You are free to ahead and block someone who was simply arguing in favor of free speech, but no one thinks big of you for it and the fact you decided to declare it to the world is hilarious.

            • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Anyone who advocates tolerating literal Nazis is either a hopelessly naive useful idiot for Nazis, or a Nazi themselves.

              This rubbish is part of the problem with the internet right now. Just because you decided that one side is a “nazi” or “hateful” it doesn’t mean it’s actually true. You’re saying “my opinion is right and the only real opinion so everyone else should be banned”.

              You know who also thinks that? Fascists. The literal nazis thought like that too.

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is good and bad, and good people can’t assume they’ll always be able to fight harder or yell louder.

            People have to remember that to the “bad people”, you’re the “bad people”. Neither side should be advocating for banning the other from discussing their opinions and views, yet it’s only one side that’s calling for that.

            • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              it’s only one side that’s calling for that

              I don’t think this is due to some ideological commitment. The strong can suppress the weak, but the weak can’t suppress the strong. Whichever side has the upper hand at the moment will have members calling for censorship.

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                1 year ago

                Currently the weak are suppressing the strong though through their scare tactics of labelling anyone that disagrees “transphobic” or “bigot” or “nazi”.

                • glue_snorter@lemmy.sdfeu.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  “It’s bad to be transphobic, bigoted or a nazi”

                  “you call anyone who disagrees with you ‘transphobic’ or ‘bigot’ or ‘nazi’”

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a great overview of the benefits and problems of free speech platforms without the immediate nosedive into the dogwhistle argument that seems to just be used as a thought/discussion stopper more than anything else lately.

        I feel that it’s vitally important that free speech spaces exist. Places to discuss “ideas that the majority may find offensive or horrifying” are important, but they aren’t for everyone and they do by their nature offer spaces for “undesirable” people like holocaust deniers.

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Exactly, and as long as the platform provides ways to ignore people like holocaust deniers, holocaust deniers should be allowed on the platform.

          I hate racists, but I don’t want all racists to be banned from Lemmy/Twitter/Facebook/etc. I want them to be able to share their opinions on there, in large part because I can then challenge their ideas and opinions. If I feel that they’re being disingenuous, arguing in bad faith, and start name calling etc I can just block them and move on. That is how places like this should work IMO. That is what “free speech” advocates want.

          I don’t believe there should be ANY restrictions on what people can say on here as long as it isn’t illegal. No one should be getting banned or censored for sharing their opinions IMO.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        But you can’t keep out the second group unless you compromise your principles as a member of the first group.

        The thing is that you don’t need to and shouldn’t “keep them out”. What you should do is just let people ignore/block/mute them.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          How do you prevent such a platform to turn into an environment that is actively hostile towards the people they “nicely discuss” should be dead / subjugated / tortured / etc.?

          Or do you think it is okay to drive out certain types of people? How is that still considered “free speech” if those people’s voices will be completely missing from the platform?

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            You let people self moderate. Once you block a user you don’t see them anymore.

            How is that still considered “free speech” if those people’s voices will be completely missing from the platform?

            It’s free speech because they’re allowed to post there. Them choosing not to because they can’t handle other people being allowed to exercise their free speech is a them problem, not the platforms problem.

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Considering the original movement for free speech it is rather cynical to think it’s freedom to silence people. But that’s what people are doing when they create an environment that is so hostile towards certain groups of people that these people won’t participate. Freedom to communicate hate speech is creating an echo chamber, not a free speech platform.

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The problem is when one side is calling everything they disagree with “hate speech” and banning everyone that even questions it.

                Individuals blocking people isn’t “silencing” them. It’s not infringing on free speech.

                It’s funny that you mention an echo chamber when this heavy handed Moderation and censorship is literally making one. When you only allow one viewpoint and ban all the others you’re literally making an echo chamber. You guys want an echo chamber, just one that echos your viewpoint.

    • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why bummer? It’s a great place so far in my opinion. The people are so much friendlier here.

    • tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like someone else said in another comment, I’m sure everybody on the left agree with the concept of free speech. So IMHO the real question is, why is it the case that platforms advocating free speech attract right wingers and extremists?

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because the left does not approve of hate speech, which is what right wingers immediately rush to spew whenever they see freeze peach.

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        People confuse free speech with freedom to harass and driving people out. When 90 % of a site (as an example) are antisemitic rants and antisemitic memes Jews are actively driven out of the place. You actually make a place less free by allowing discrimatory content. People have to potentially hide their identity or have to endure constant hostility. In consequence you are removing their voices from the platform.

        I guess most “people on the left” would agree that you can create such a platform for yourself and your buddies but do not call it “free speech” when in reality it just creates a venting platform for a certain type of people.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m sure everybody on the left agree with the concept of free speech

        Not sure if serious…?

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yo dog, I gotta know. Where are you posting those succulent pics?! I’ve been missing r/Succulents since the blackout.

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      but is there ANY self-described “bastion of free speech on the internet” that is not a cesspool full of awful people? Just one?

      The thing is that you’re just calling people that you disagree with “awful people” because they have different opinions. They also think you’re awful for the same reason.

      People need to get away from this idea that people shouldn’t be allowed to express their opinions and ideas. I’m all for completely unrestricted free speech. Let racist people spew their racist hateful garbage - but let people call them out on it. Let people try to change their mind. Let people show them exactly how they’re being a piece of shit.

      All you have to do is give people options to block/mute people and you can take care of it yourself. What I hate is when people call for censoring and banning of differing opinions on a platform level.

      • doctortofu@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is not what I’m saying at all. What I’m saying is that every single online platform that I know that describes itself as a “free speech platform/bastion/zone/whatever” gets sooner or later filled to the brim with people spouting vile, deplorable and often violent rhetoric.

        I can discuss a lot of things and accept, understand or at least tolerate a lot of opinions differing from mine, but things like “black people are sub-human”, “gays should be killed” or “preschoolers can be sexy”* are NOT in that group. And these types of comments are inevitably what naming your site a “free speech platform” attracts in my experience. I think there is no way to discuss (or even just utter) them in good faith, and yes, I do consider people holding such beliefs to be awful - it’s not like I’m trying to use the term lightly or to denote folks who like different pizza toppings or TV shows than I do…

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          My point is that just because you can’t tolerate them it doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be allowed to be presented. Like I said - give people the ability to block/mute people and let them self moderate what content they interact with and see. You don’t like people saying “black people are sub human” and don’t want to have a conversation with them to point out why they’re wrong etc? Cool, block them. Problem solved.

          I will discuss anything with anyone. I’ll happily debate a racist to try and show them why they’re wrong and being a piece of shit. I’ll debate a flat earther to show them the facts that prove the earth is round. If/when the racist starts name calling and being disingenous I’ll call them out on it and if they double down I simply block them - that’s what I’ve done in this very thread when some guy started name calling and becoming abusive when we were 6 comments deep each in conversation. I disagreed with their viewpoint, but I would never want their ability to give their viewpoint to be taken away. Once it became clear that they were not interested in an actual discussion and just resorted to name calling, I simply blocked them and “walk away”.

          That is what free speech advocates want. Just because you’re offended by something it doesn’t mean it should be censored or banned. As Ricky Gervais said:

          “I want people to stop saying that joke’s offensive. I want them to start saying “I found it offensive” because that’s all that it is. You’re just telling me how you feel about it.”

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What “genocidal fascism” is currently happening against trans people? How many thousand trans people have been rounded up and murdered by the government in 2023? Tens of thousands? Millions already?

          Going by your profile you’re trans, right? How many times have you escaped from the people rounding up the trans people to take them to their death?

          There’s no genocide happening.

  • uuhhhhmmmm@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    133
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    >people are on the proprietary and centralized platform

    >the proprietary and centralized platform does a bad thing

    >people are moving to another proprietary and centralized platform

    >another proprietary and centralized platform does a bad thing

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      71
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I dont think most people care about whether something is centralized or not. I definitely dont. I am on Lemmy because it is afaik the biggest alternative to reddit with the most content. If there was a centralized version with more and better content I would go there

      • Snapz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        75
        ·
        1 year ago

        Seems you’re kind of a leech though, that just wants people to keep creating these sandboxed for you to play in. Federated means they are less likely to have to do all this work to rebuild in the future.

        But as long as you get yours, right?

        • 🔍🦘🛎@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          51
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The vast majority just wants to browse the place with all the relevant content so that they don’t miss out on current events. No need to resort to calling people leeches when the vast majority never even comment, let alone post.

          • Uranium3006@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            honestly my experience starting this month is we’re already over the critical mass of users. there’s still stuff that isn’t here that I’ve seen yet but I don’t run out of content and get bored, so reddit’s already obsolete.

        • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re not wrong, but that person shouldn’t be chastised for expecting a place that bills itself as being like Reddit to uhh… be like Reddit.

          The lemmy federation should try to be something fundamentally different from Reddit, given the indisputable fact that it’s form led to its downfall like other aggregators before it.

        • Hangglide@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Federation just means it’s confusing to sign up. I don’t care if I am a leech. I just want content and the ability to use my preferred app to get it.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        32
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s also telling when people frame any and all discussion around anything LGBT+ as “transphobic” and “trying to kill trans people”.

        The current gender/trans ideology isn’t just scientific fact that has to be followed and believed. People should be allowed to disagree and question it without being censored and banned.

        That seems to be the point the creator is making - they didn’t make it to be a circle jerking safe space for only the far left “progressives”. They made it for everyone to be able to talk about their beliefs without being censored and banned, but one ideological group absolutely doesn’t want that.

        • Vlhacs@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the point OP was making when they said LGBT+ isn’t political. LGBT+ isn’t an ideology for people to share “beliefs” about. It will exist whether or not you believe in it, and normalizing people who say I don’t believe in it is essentially denying the LGBT+ person’s identity. It’s ok to say you don’t understand, or even like it, but to simply say “you’re making up your gender identity” is wrong and harmful.

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The current LGBTQ+ ideology is a political ideology though. It’s not just facts and it’s not about “existing” like people try to make it out to be.

            The current trend of “a 3 year old boy that plays with barbies is trans so should be put on puberty blockers” is an ideology, same with “trans women have no physical advantages over biological women”, same with trying to teach 8 year olds about anal sex and masturbation. None of these things have anything to do with people “existing”.

            The ideology that says simply saying you’re a woman makes you a woman and therefore are entitled to women-only places and things like scholarships and awards is what most people are against. No one cares if a 25 year old biological male wants to put on a dress and wear makeup and call themself Jane. Most people will even play along with your new pronouns. People shouldn’t be forced to by law though, and that’s another of the big issues people have.

            Tl;dr - being trans isn’t political. Pushing the current trans beliefs and ideologies like gender identity, self ID, and “trans women are women” is.

            • Vlhacs@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              How are medically approved operations by doctors an ideology? As long as the parents and their doctors have identified an issue they need to address, and the procedure they decide on is safe, reversible, and is known to make the child’s life happier, who are you and I to stop them?

              Pushing the current trans beliefs and ideologies like gender identity, self ID, and “trans women are women” is.

              That’s conservatives making it political. Claiming your own gender identity is not political, it’s a natural human behavior to self identify. Please explain how you can say trans people can exist while at the same time if they try to self-identity then they’re being political? There’s no “conservative gene” that prevents you from choosing your gender identity (i.e. Caitlyn Jenner). Just acknowledging transgenderism exists is completely apolitical. If you see it as “pushing gender identity” that’s your problem.

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                How are medically approved operations by doctors an ideology?

                I didn’t once mention medically approved operations? If you’re talking about doing them on kids then that’s a whole other issue.

                and the procedure they decide on is safe, reversible, and is known to make the child’s life happier, who are you and I to stop them?

                And here lies the problem - parents pushing their ideology on to their kids. Also what “trans surgeries” are “safe and reversible”? None. Cutting off your male genitalia is not reversible. A hysterectomy is not reversible. Cutting off your breasts is not reversible (though you can at least try and make up for it with breast implants). Puberty blockers are not fully reversible, and most countries are now acknowledging this. You simply cannot stunt someones physical (and mental) growth and have it just resume years later as if nothing has changed. There are zero long term studies on puberty blockers. There are however known long term issues with them.

                it’s a natural human behavior to self identify.

                Not as a different gender/sex it’s not. It has only become a thing very recently, where simply saying “I’m a woman” now means you’re a woman, no questions asked.

                Please explain how you can say trans people can exist while at the same time if they try to self-identity then they’re being political?

                That’s not at all what I said. Pushing for being able to let “Self ID” give you access to the opposite sexes spaces and sports and awards and other things is the political part. Trans people existing has nothing to do with that. The issues with self ID are that men who have literally done nothing to transition can now go in to womens events/spaces without question. A great example is the weightlifting competitions where gender Self ID was allowed, so a anti-self id man entered and just annihilated the competition as a protest to show how stupid it is. The only requirement for him to enter the womens competition was for him to tick a box saying he’s a woman.

                Transgender and gender ideology are different things. Transgender is “I am the other gender to what I was born as”. Gender ideology is “I can be whatever gender i want, whenever i want, and can change gender a thousand times during the day, and I should get all of the rights afforded to whichever sex/gender i call myself at the time”. They’re not one and the same.

                • Vlhacs@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I didn’t once mention medically approved operations? If you’re talking about doing them on kids then that’s a whole other issue.

                  No, I don’t approve of irreversible medical surgeries on people under age of 16, but that’s not a thing in any case. It’s in response to your comments about 3 year olds getting puberty blockers (which is also not a thing) in which case it is temporary, reversible, and typically starts at 8 (10+ for boys).

                  And here lies the problem - parents pushing their ideology on to their kids. Also what “trans surgeries” are “safe and reversible”? None. Cutting off your male genitalia is not reversible. A hysterectomy is not reversible

                  My child is sick, feeling depressed, I go to the doctor, they discuss possible issues, and through preset, clinical guidelines, they decide that treatment for gender dysmorphia is an option. Again, reversible, safe treatments like puberty blockers and therapy that help prevent children from self-harm and further confusion about their identify. It’s not like they’re passing out puberty blockers like candies for funsies and doing this for fun.

                  I’m not even talking about transgender surgeries, which happens at 18+ of age.

                  it’s a natural human behavior to self identify. Not as a different gender/sex it’s not. It has only become a thing very recently, where simply saying “I’m a woman” now means you’re a woman, no questions asked.

                  Say’s who? If one wants another to call them by another thing, who are we to dispute that? Gender CAN be fluid. Your biological sex that you were born with hasn’t changed, it’s their GENDER. Gender doesn’t have to match your sex. And transgenderism has been a thing since ancient times. Have you considered that maybe more people are coming “out” recently because they’re feeling safer to express themselves?

                  The issues with self ID are that men who have literally done nothing to transition can now go in to womens events/spaces without question. A great example is the weightlifting competitions where gender Self ID was allowed, so a anti-self id man entered and just annihilated the competition as a protest to show how stupid it is. The only requirement for him to enter the womens competition was for him to tick a box saying he’s a woman.

                  There have been exactly 0 assaults by transgender women entering a public bathroom. And your concerns about a troll entering sports competitions is going to out-weight all of the self-harm and suicides committed by people suffering from unaddressed/repressed gender identity issues?

                  Gender ideology is “I can be whatever gender i want, whenever i want, and can change gender a thousand times during the day, and I should get all of the rights afforded to whichever sex/gender i call myself at the time”.

                  Show me one time where that has happened and it has harmed someone else by doing it. And again, if they want to change their gender once or a thousand times, how is it any of your business? Besides sports competitions and bathrooms, I mean.

                  Having empowerment over their gender identity is an important part of being a transgender person, denying them that right is inhuman and cruel. Gender ideology, or whatever you want to call it, is simply (in my opinion) expressing a sense of safety and freedom to others that want to identify as something else from what they were born as. And believe it or not, this can happen whether you are conservative or liberal - it is absolutely a HUMAN desire, not a political one.

                  Look, I understand that if I call someone that looks and talk like a women a she, but wants to be called a man, there’s going to be confusion. But what do I lose out of my day if they simply said “sorry, I’m actually a he” and I respect that moving forward?

                • zahel@cosmere.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Indigenous peoples have acknowledged a “third gender” aka non binary for centuries - way before colonization.

                  How can you say self identifying in regards to sex/gender is a recent ideology when it’s been part of human history for centuries?

                  Sounds like bland, generic, thoughtless conservative nonsense to eliminate other perspectives (especially when you discount them as new despite existing for centuries)

            • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Genuine question, what would you expect people who were born intersex to do? How would you know whether or not someone is intersex?

              Edit: They do exist.

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Chances are you and I will go our entire lives never coming in contact with an actual intersex person. Your children probably won’t either. Their children also won’t. Your parents wouldn’t have either. Statistically they’re just basically not a thing.

                What would I have them do in regards to what exactly?

        • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It is scientific fact; at least every major medical organization in the US is in total agreement about what you refer to as “gender ideology,” and what we call the existence of trans people.

          “Just asking questions” about it is as disingenuous and false as “just asking questions” about evolution. If you truly believe trans people exist and deserve to be respected you wouldn’t feel the need to ask these questions.

          But yes, the founder chose anti-trans concerns above trans concerns. LGBT people will leave and the platform will become a conservative circlejerk. You have that part right at least.

          • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’ve really jumped deep into things by assuming what the person you’re responding to means isn’t scientific fact is the actual existence of trans people. They could, but they were woefully vague.

            Most people I’ve interacted with who have misgivings are more focused on things like the insistence that there are no differences between afab and amab bodies, and therefore trans women athletes should be allowed to compete against afab athletes.

            That’s a currently “unallowed to challenge” topic that pretty much immediately gets you labelled transphobic, but here’s the rub: female athletes doping with testosterone to achieve higher muscle mass is something that is banned from sports competitions, so why does it matter whether it was artificially obtained via pill or naturally by the fact that they had years of body and muscle development as male before transistioning?

            There’s no good solution to this problem, but the fact that anyone who brings it up gets labelled as transphobic is ridiculous. It’s not inherently denying trans people anything to discuss it (that has more to do with the person discussing it than the topic itself). For me it’s an attempt to ensure that all female athletes afab trans or other are on an even playing field, ideally so people have less excuse to easily dismiss trans athlete achievements.

            • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think this is vague in the slightest:

              The current gender/trans ideology isn’t just scientific fact that has to be followed and believed.

              I know no person interested in trans liberation that also talks about “gender/trans ideology.”

              I find sports misgivings a red herring with regards to trans liberation. To me, it feels like asking someone to be less racist, and hearing them respond “well what about Black people in sports? What about white athletes’ feelings? How do we determine if an athlete is white enough to compete against other whites?” The entire notion is wrong-headed to begin with. Yes, if we include trans people in sports, sometimes they might win. What’s so bad about trans people winning at sports?

              In any case, clearly the person I was responding to was not talking about this.

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Here is the thing when it comes to sports, there are usually two main divisions in most sports, the best of the best league, and the women league. In most sports there is technically no rule against women playing in the best of the best leagues, but they are just at so much of a disadvantage it is almost unheard of for them to be able to compete at that level. The only reason that women only sports exist is to allow people with that biological disadvantage to compete professionally against others with the same disadvantage. It’s a league that’s sole purpose is to allow women to be competitive against other women because the men are just so much better.

                It might sound like I’m bashing women’s sports, but I’m not. I’m glad women have an avenue to compete at pro levels, because without women only sports they would not.

                I have no problem with anybody trying to compete in the best of the best league, men, women, trans, black, white, etc. But when it comes to leagues specifically limited to give those in the league a fair competition, we shouldn’t be opening that up to those who don’t have the disadvantage that defines the league. This applies to women leagues, the special Olympics, and other limited leagues.

                • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I know this, I just don’t think it matters. Our a priori assumption must be trans people should be included everywhere as much as possible, just like Black people or Jewish people. Fairness will adjust to our expectations, so everything will feel fine in the end, just as it did when we allowed other minorities to compete in leagues they were formerly barred from.

                • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Exactly.

                  The NFL isn’t a male league for example - it’s an open league. How many women have ever even made it to the tryout stage? One. A kicker. She didn’t come close to making even a training squad.

                  Sam Kerr, the best women’s soccer player on earth, wouldn’t even get close to making a men’s pro team. The world beating women’s USA team, winners of the past 2 world cups, got annihilated by an under 15s boys team.

                  Sex matters in sport, not gender.

              • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The issue isn’t just that they might win, it’s that they will naturally dominate in competitions where biological makeup matters.

                If you don’t see how that’s not fair I don’t know what to tell you. There are hard rules in biology that don’t mesh with gender identity politics, and there’s no way around that.

                • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Fair to whom?

                  Lots of people were worried about Black people dominating certain sports. And, as it turns out, Black people do dominate certain sports. Is that unfair to white people?

                  No. People are just different. Fairness adjusts and we get over it.

                  So too here.

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You’re right, it’s not vague at all - it’s not denying trans people exist in any way. Trans people existing isn’t an ideology, so questioning the current trans and gender ideology has nothing to do with trans people existing or not. You’re jumping to conclusions because you want to dismiss any opinion you don’t agree with, and currently the “that’s transphobic!” line is basically a get out of jail free card in that way. Just call someone transphobic and get them banned so you don’t have to have your opinion challenged, create that echo chamber you want so badly.

                Your response to the sports issue of “what’s so wrong with trans women winning women’s sporting events” says it all. “Who cares about biological women, the feelings of trans women matter more.”

                Trans women can compete with men. If there is no physical or biological advantage for males then why do they need to compete with the women? They can compete with the men and should do just fine.

                Lia Thomas is all that needs to be pointed out for why your ideology here is wrong. 500+ ranked man……instantly #1 ranked woman. Breaks all the women’s records. Where are the trans men swimmers dominating the men’s division in swimming? Or in track and field? Cycling? Anywhere at all?!

            • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Bingo.

              No one denies trans people exist, but this is how the “progressives” that want males competing with females in sport and using female-only services frame any and all questioning of their ideology and motives.

          • tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you truly believe trans people exist and deserve to be respected you wouldn’t feel the need to ask these questions.

            I don’t agree. I have A LOT of questions about gender identity to which I can’t hypothesize answers because as a cis/het person I have no idea what it means and what it feels like being transgender, and I grew up in a time and a place where nobody ever talked about gender identity. The only way I can educate myself is by asking questions. Now I know a lot of people in the LGBTQ community are kinda fed up answering this kind of questions, and with good reason (cf. the “just asking questions” posture of anti-trans people). But some of us are being honest at just asking questions.

            • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Those aren’t the kinds of questions the OP was talking about; their dogwhistle about “trans/gender ideology isn’t scientific fact” shows that they are indeed the kind of anti-trans person who is “just asking questions” to harass trans people.

              If you have legitimate questions there are many excellent resources on the Internet and even in Lemmy itself where LGBTQ people will be happy to chat with you, if you approach them in a respectful manner :)

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why do you guys always always jump straight to “you’re trying to deny trans people exist”? No one is saying trans people don’t exist. people are, however, opposed to people telling preschoolers that if they like stereotypical opposite sex things that they’re trans and should choose a new name and wear the other genders stereotypical clothes. It’s indoctrination.

            If a kid still believes in Santa clause, telling them they’re trans and giving them praise and letting them choose their own name etc is forcing your ideology on them. They don’t know any better. All they know is an adult is telling them something so it must be true. Again - they believe in Santa clause and the tooth fairy. They don’t have the mental capacity to understand these things. They don’t have the mental capacity to be making permanent life altering decisions.

            This whole “just asking questions” bullshit is just a way the “progressives” try to weaponise anyone questioning their beliefs and ideologies.

            If lgbtq people can’t stand seeing people have different opinions to them then they should leave. They shouldn’t be trying to get everyone else banned.

            • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s indoctrination.

              This is totally nonsense. No one is “indoctrinating” children… except those who claim that children can’t be trans. I would encourage you to swallow your pride and your preconceived notions and actually talk to trans people, many of whom report knowing exactly who they were at the first age they were aware of gender.

              Anyway, the rest of your point is basically hateful bullshit. If you can’t deal with LGBT people and our opinions, you’re the one that should get out. We frankly don’t need you.

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                No one is “indoctrinating” children… except those who claim that children can’t be trans.

                When people say this they mean that children don’t have the mental capacity to make that life changing decision. Again - kids believe in santa clause, the easter bunny, and the tooth fairy. They are extremely easily influenced and will believe what their parents tell them to a fault. If you tell a kid they’re trans because they like the colour pink as a boy or blue as a girl, they’re gonna believe you. That is the indoctrination people are talking about.

                Are there kids that actually have gender dysphoria? Sure. They’re the extreme minority of the kids that are currently trans though, because they don’t even understand gender let alone “gender identity”. Even teenagers aren’t mentally developed enough to be making life altering decisions, which is why we don’t let under 18 year olds get tattoos, drink, vote, etc. If you accept that these restrictions need to be in place for children, how can you be ok with giving them life altering drugs and surgeries?

                Anyway, the rest of your point is basically hateful bullshit.

                Sigh…there’s the usual “transphobic” type dismissal/attack used to try and stop any and all discussion of differing viewpoints.

                If you can’t deal with LGBT people and our opinions, you’re the one that should get out. We frankly don’t need you.

                I can deal with LGBT people, I have no issues with them at all as I’ve said many times. I’ve explained why I don’t, and what I do have problems with. Ironic that you say “We frankly don’t need you.” because if that were true you wouldn’t be constantly trying to force your beliefs on me.

    • SamC@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Let’s have a reasonable rational debate about whether certain groups should have the right to exist! If you’re a member of one of these groups, please be respectful to the people who say you should be exterminated!”

    • Madbrad200@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      honestly reading this, it just sounds to me like he isn’t cut out for community management. It is stressful and hard sometimes, so I get it, but he’s going to kill his own site doing this. I did wonder about this before - it seemed like to me he regularly made changes based on feedback on a whim, and these changes were often rushed without much thinking. Needs to know when to pass the baton elsewhere and stick to development, but alas…

      The last comments also speak to someone who’s probably hiding some contrarian views of his own.

      Shame.

      • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        cOnSeRvaTiVe vOiCeS aRe bEiNg sILeNcED!!

        i.e. boohoohoo, I’m facing consequences for my hate speech.

      • rar@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s the engineers doing graphic design but worse: engineers speedrunning social sciences.

      • Khotetsu@lib.lgbt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a wise bartender once said, “If you allow one Nazi, you no longer have a bar. You have a Nazi bar.”

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thinking everyone you disagree with should be silenced and not allowed in is literally what fascists do. It’s what the nazis did. How very “progressive” of you.

        Everyone should be allowed to express their opinions and beliefs. Everyone, no matter how much you disagree with them. The onus should be on you to simply not engage with any that you don’t want to, be that by simply ignoring them or by using the built in tools of the platform like blocking/ignoring. You’re literally asking for censorship of speech.

        • Neato@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is a private site not the government. Private entries get to decide what goes as long as they aren’t harming a protected class. Macy’s e aren’t a protected class.

          You gave carpet bombed this thread with your fascist and bigoted posts. Absolutely pathetic. You’re what these sites don’t need. Go back to truth social.

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Being against censorship = nazi fascist bigoted views now?

            Goddamn you guys are so far gone it’s not funny. You don’t even see that you’re the fascists in this situation.

        • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Is the person you’re responding to not also using their free speech?

          It’s ironic, because you’re implying that they shouldn’t make comments on their thoughts about this, because the thought of censorship upsets you.

          Don’t forget that complaining and critiquing are also under the idea of free speech, even if you disagree with the other person.

    • Derin@lemmy.beru.co
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      LGBT people: “We have a right to exist.”

      ‘Free speech absolutists’: “Ugh, take your political bullshit someplace else.”

      No idea how people think this is a valid way to talk about people literally fighting for their right to simply be present in public spaces without people attacking their very being.

    • TheSpookiestUser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If true: Well, that’s the end of that platform I guess. Shame, I liked that there were so many alternatives cropping up.

  • Chozo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They also removed the admins who disagreed with this decision. Jayclees and Daniel are the only “staff” left now. This is a really bad look for them.

  • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Literally why would you go to this website over Reddit. It has all the same problems and is just more boring.

    “Free speech” is just a dog whistle and gas lighting now. Unless it’s fully allowing illegal content, then it’s not free speech, which is obviously sane to not allow. That’s why its a silly term to throw around in the first place.

    • girthero@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Free speech” is just a dog whistle and gas lighting now.

      You’re not wrong, but I remember when free speech was more of a liberal issue. Freedom for artistic expression and all that. Freedom to curse in music, freedom to create and view porn etc.

      • ahal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think people really know what gas lighting is :p.

        Relatedly, whether you understand the term or not, go watch the movie Gaslight where it comes from. Great film.

        • ggppjj@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d go watch the movie, but my partner says that I’m too sick and clumsy to get out of bed right now. I don’t know where I’d be if they weren’t around to keep me straight, always reminding me of things I’ve said and done when I have moments of brain fog.

      • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t necessarily agree with the use of the term in this context, but I took it to mean that it’s gaslighting in the sense that when you call it out as a dog whistle meaning “you can now be a POS on our platform”, people can respond with stuff like “Wow, so you’re anti-free speech? Do you hate America? Why do you want to censor people?” And shit like that, which is gaslighting IMO

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Everything is gaslighting when you don’t actually know what gaslighting means but just want to use the latest term all your liberal friends use.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t understand what I’m looking at here? Some reddit-ish place is declaring free-speech then they immediately backpedal and say racist stuff doesn’t count, and also some admins left? So what is the material difference between a “free speech platform*” and lemmy which also doesn’t allow racist stuff?

    • SirElliott@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It sounds like they’re going to be allowing anti-LGBT hate speech, which was formerly a ban-worthy offense on their platform. Reddit and most Lemmy instances have rules against this, so I imagine Squabblr is going to attract the same sort of people that like using Truth Social.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      In my experience forums that allow everything else will basically attract all the trans-, queer- and homophobes, misogynists and sexists.

  • Jeena@jemmy.jeena.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder why of all bad things they make an exception specifically for racism and not something else like pedophilia for example.

  • Madbrad200@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m really confused by this direction? The admin seemed… nice, and all of the users were “let’s all be friends and be postivive x!” type people. Not exactly the place for “free speech” dog wistle folks. He’s just going to alienate his entire userbase, I don’t understand the point.

  • imgprojts@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hope people know that us all having instances would always be better than anything centralized elsewhere. 1) I can delete all my posts if I want. 2) anyone can make a better app to talk to it. 3) we got so many different ways of sharing our free speech here, it’s not even funny. 4) you can backup your stuff. I’m not, but you can do that if you serve your own server. 5) you can establish your own rules or land on someone else’s server that you trust.

    At this point you gotta be a lower form of life to conclude that going centralized is good for anyone.