Lol, most people don’t “just trust the government”… But the thing is, simply hoping that government will just disappear will not in fact make it disappear… And simply voting for the Libertarian party will also not make it disappear either.
What we can somewhat influence though is who has the most control/influence over the government. And I would rather have us, the people, having influence over government than just leaving corporations to do whatever they want with it while we pay their bills…
It depends very much on where you go, which is why I said middle east.
But “middle east” isn’t one place, right? There are plenty of destinations in the middle east that are insanly popular vacation spots for westeners. Many people got rich through oil there and they know that it won’t last for ever, so many places in the middle east have been shifting focus to tourism for decades now. Hell, the world’s most popular international sport event was last held in the middle east, they are spending a lot of money to signal to westeners that they are welcome and will be treated like kings…
And it seems to be working as many westeners, especially Europeans, enjoy traveling to the middle east. I know a lot of people who go to the middle east for vacation and while I personally am not really extremly interested in traveling there, I have not heard anyone feeling afraid of the government there…
And you’ll find that much of the “privilege” you feel is fear of your government.
I don’t find that at all… I’m sure there are places in the middle east, like places in Afganistan for example, where I wouldn’t feel save. But even Afganistan/the taliban are begging for tourists, so I would mainly be afraid of ending up in the crossfire, not that the government will specifically target me for being white… There might be other groups who target me for being white and the government will probably fuck with me if I disregard the rules, but certainly not more so than the government fucks with the local people, who are generally seen as “non-white”.
If they don’t fear reprisal it will go differently as it did for those idiots who were driving across the middle east trying to prove the world was all full of love.
No clue who you are talking about, you are gonna have to provide a few more details.
I never said anything about banning CRT.
But that’s ultimately why politicians rant against “CRT”, right? They want to “ban CRT” and so far, they have been successful in 16 states. And the problem of course is that according to those politicians, “CRT” can mean pretty much anything vaguely related to race, which is great for them because they can use “anti CRT” to ban a relatively wide range of topics.
This is what gets me with many conservatives, you say stuff like “we like free speech, we don’t want to ban free speech”, and then as soon as some politician wants to ban something you don’t like, you support them…
But the talking points here are CRT concepts.
According to politicians, CRT can mean virtually anything even remotely conntected to race…
If you go to the middle east and start dancing around in speedos as a white male you’re not going to feel very privileged.
So if you go to the middle east as a white person, especially a white man, you will feel incredibly privileged… Maybe more so than in the west… Of course there are significant differences depending on where exactly you go, but in a lot of places, there are significant differences of standards that apply to tourists compared to locals. And as a white person, people of course automatically assume that you are a tourist and they will be much much more tolerant towards behaviour that is normally not tolerated.
For example, there are many places where alcohol is completely illegal for locals, but it is completely legal for tourists. And if you wear a speedo, you might get some looks, but if your white, everyone knows you are a western tourist and will most likely tolerate it. If you are a local and/or non-white, chances of it being tolerated will probably be lower. And certainly if you are female, the chances of it being tolerated is virtually 0.
And there are many laws where the police either looks the other way, or it officially does not apply to westeners (anti-LGBT laws, sex outside of marriage laws, etc.)…
There’s nothing CRT can predict that “financial class theory” won’t predict better.
I mean there are a lot of different theories about many different things that might or might not be interesting for certain people. I’m not an academic, so I don’t know if CRT is usefull or not, but at the end of the day, a theory is a theory… It probably has it’s limits of usefulness, but using the state to ban/outlaw a theory seems very questionable to me on principle.
Saying “white people are privileged” isn’t a judgement though, it is a perceived description of reality. And because of “racism” (the idea that humanity can be separated into different “races” based on characteristics such as skin color), if society places you in the “white people” category, you will be treated differently than if you are placed into the “non-white category”.
To name a specific and concrete example, if you happen to get classified as “white”, you will not be racially profiled and searched by police simply because of your racial classification. In this specific case, white people have the privilege of not having to deal with that issue.
Where the idea of white privilege falls short is that it implies that “white people” are always more privileged and/or better off than “black people” in every way, which is obviously not true. In reality, your perceived class identity is much more important when it comes to how you are probably going to be treated by society.
The issue is that oftentimes, race is used to judge someone’s class status. A black person is more likely to be classified as “poor”. However, when you are “white”, but you look like a homeless person, you will probably be treated in a similar way.
I mostly lurk to stay up to date on what the right leaning people are up to. Occasionally I will provide my personal views on things.
And yes, when I see opinions such as “trannyfags should be lined up and shot, no matter the context…” I will shit on their opinions because their opinion is, as far as I’m concerned, shit…
And if you have a problem with that opinion of mine then go ahead and and shit on my opinion, after all, is that not your right? Surely you don’t want to tell me how I’m allowed to voice my opinions.
Me personally? No, I’m not a troll. But obviously there are people who are only here to troll. Doesn’t necessarily make them brigaders though…
You’re only here to shit on exploding heads users
Not true.
Do people even know what “brigading” means anymore? People downvoting and commenting in disagreement are not necessarily brigading. Trolls going to a community they disagree with to troll are not necessarily brigaders.
Brigading is the organised, planned and coordinated effort of a group of people mass downvoting and spamming a community at the same time. 4Chan used to do it to reddit all the time. Subs used to do it to other subs where they made posts linking to other posts with the instruction of downvoting them or spamming them.
I don’t think that’s happening here… Most people on lemmy want nothing to do with you guys, that’s why you got defederated. It’s just what happens when you leave your little save spaces and go to a medium where most don’t share your views, ideas and actions…
But it is a business. Its main purpose of a pub is to sell drinks/food.
I don’t think that matters too much, but we can also use some sort of association, like a book club, a boardgame group, etc. The underlying principle is free association and one of the necessary principles behind free association is that you can freely choose to not associate with somebody.
say things like “we’re a [left/right/center] instance.
Politically charged terms like left/right/center are, in the broader context, very vague. To some on the right, somebody like Joe Biden is a extremist leftist. To some on the center he is center to center left. To some on the left, he is a right winger. Similar story with rules such as “respect everyone regardless of identity, gender, race, etc”. To some on the right, this would be seen as left wing. To some on the left and center, this is not inherantly political.
So for that reason, I prever servers to just explain their rules and let the users themselves classify those rules as “right-wing” or “left-wing” if they want.
vague language like “don’t be an asshole”
Yeah in my view that would be a bad rule because it’s too vague. But something like lemmy.world’s rules is pretty clear without the need of placing it left/right:
“Provide a friendly, safe, and welcoming environment for everyone regardless of gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, nationality, political affiliation, or other similar characteristic.”
Essentially, more instances have a liberal lean and strongly push this.
This is true, with modern social media in general, but especially with lemmy. I think there are multiple reasons for this. One is that lemmy especially is used right now by young western tech enthusiasts, and they tend to be left leaning. I also think another issue is that right-wingers seem to have a very confrontational and uncompromising attitude.
There was a little mini-drama on lemmy.world where some users wanted to create a conservative “free-speech” community. Due to the low numbers of conservatives and due to the stated idea that “everyone should be allowed to participate”, the sub was mostly looking like 5 conservatives vs 200 non-conservatives making fun of them. Within hours, the mod turned around and started removing comments (which is understandable) he didn’t like at random and basically only allowed posts/memes about how “dumb the left is” (which seems to be 95% of what right-wing memes are about). He was informed that personal attacks were not welcome on the lemmy instance, but he just cried about “free speech” and “censorship” and continued to post the same stuff until he was banned.
a higher demographic of liberals get into IT due to colleges tending to be fairly liberal and most formal IT roles requiring a related degree from a college.
This could certainly be one of the reasons. In my country, education is still strongly dependend on non-college education such as apprenticip programs. I work in IT as well, but me and most of my collegues and friends from the field have never been to college. And I do have some right leaning friends, but I would say most are center left to left leaning. But this doesn’t just apply to IT, it is just younger people in general tend to lean left.
I believe this is because of the extreme changes that our society has been going through in the past decades and continues to go through. IT especially is a field that is constantly changing and progressing. This is pure speculation, but maybe people with conservative political leaning also tend to be conservative leaning in terms of profession and don’t prefer fields that constanly require new approaches.
it effectively takes away from free speech on the web as a whole
I don’t see that happening as long as there are still enough spaces for free speech to exist. Your freedom of speech is not a freedom to speak to everyone and anyone. People who don’t want to listen to your speak don’t have to listen.
I remember irl when people would call each other faggot all the time just for the fuck of it.
Well yeah, back in school. But the web isn’t a boy’s lockerroom, this is supposed to be an internationally active forum. Maybe this is also a cultural issue, but I couldn’t imagine hearing a radio talk show or serious TV program where people casually call eachother “faggot”. And I don’t mean to give an online platform more meaning than it has, but I think basic respect for eachother is at the very least something that a platform host/admin should not have to justify enforcing if he chooses to do so.
Thanks for the conversation, I think I will look around from time to time, conversations with right leaning people is one of the few things I miss from the mainstream instances.
Maybe this is a language semantic thing. Would it be better if I called it a ‘privately-owned townhall’? The idea is that, yes, there is private ownership but they are inviting the public at large.
A townhall is a public institution owned publicly. A privately owned townhall is an oxymoron as far as I see it.
But for argument’s sake, I could somewhat see twitter, facebook or the internet overall as a privately owned public townhall to a certain extend.
And maybe lemmy or the fediverse overall could be considered somewhat of a townhall too.
But individual lemmy servers are not townhalls, they are more like privately owned pubs.
It’s not restricted to family members, people who are in a certain line of work, people who have been screened, etc
Well that depends entirely on which lemmy server we are talking about. I’m sure there are lemmy servers that are restricted to family members or people who are in a certain line of work. And there certainly are lemmy servers that only allow people who have been screened.
I don’t think comparing it to a person’s home is accurate either
Fair enough, maybe comparing it to a privately owned bar or pub would be the better analogy. Bars and pubs are privately owned, but in general, anyone who follows the rules can enter them. But if the bar owner feels like you have violated a rule, they can throw you out or even ban you.
However, due to the nature of private ownership, they are allowed to ban/censor as they see fit.
Right, but on a positive note, the code to lemmy is not privately owned, it is public. So while servers can control their own server like a dictator, they don’t have any control over other servers.
that is still censorship, which by definition is restricting free speech.
You can certainly see it like that, yes. But I don’t see a huge issue with it as long as this is openly stated in the rules of the server and as long as alternatives are allowed to exist.
Online, technology changes that to an extent. Not saying all the functionally exists currently or that kicking them out isn’t still an option. But lemmy is open-source and it is certainly within the realm of possibility that for text-based comments/posts/etc, a screening process to disallow words you don’t want could be added.
As far as I see it, the technical aspects seem to be a big obstacle at the moment. I think with better mod tools and block tools, some servers will probably reconsider re-federation. At the moment, the de-federation reflex seems to be chosen more due to practical reasons (they don’t want/can’t deal with the additional moderation).
Just that it is short-sighted and petty to do so if the reasons are political ones.
I personally do see the appeal of a “nice” anti-toxic community, it reminds me of the “good old” internet forum days where your comments were removed for the simplest of reasons, like calling somebody an idiot, or posting in the wrong place, or posting something that has been posted before. Many say people nowadays are too sensitive when it comes to what content is tolerated, which does have some truth to it, but many nowadays are also very sensitive when it comes to moderation where they almost believe that any moderation or censorship is inherently bad.
Now I also enjoy free-speech forums from time to time, but I do see the appeal of a heavily moderated “clean” space if I’m being honest. And I don’t see how there cannot be both existing at the same time.
But considering user controls exist, I think it is a bit of a control freak move myself.
I can certainly understand that, although I also can understand that constantly blocking people can get annoying.
IMO a lot of the so-called “racist” and “transphobic” (the correct term would be “transmisic”) feelings that exist online today are not true hate of minorities but strong annoyance with political correctness and language control.
I think a lot of it is people being overwhelmed with how fast things are changing nowadays. 15 years ago, about 50% of the people in the US believed that homosexuality should not be accepted. This has changed very very rapidly, so it’s natural that a lot of people have issues with that. I also think that equating “racism” and “transphobia” with “hate” is reductive.
During BLM, people are told that in addition to obvious slurs, they can’t say “blacklist” and “whitelist” (despite those terms having nothing to do with race if you study their origins) or “master” and “slave”
That’s just liberals doing liberal things… They don’t want to do actual change, they just want to make PR moves. And I think saying “maybe we shouldn’t use terms like master or slave anymore” is not exactly the same thing as saying “you can’t use the term master or slave”.
There’s also some people that get offended bc you refuse to acknowledge their beliefs (e.g. no injecting hormones and mutilating your body, does NOT make you a woman).
Well yeah, when you are convinced that you are a man born in a woman’s body, you don’t want to constantly be told that you are not a real man. People can disagree if they want, but I understand that people don’t want to have this endless debate that will never ever be resolved because those kind of endless debates inevitably end up becoming toxic.
And you will always end up offending someone.
I think this is where my opinion differs to the opinion of many right wingers. Right wingers always think it’s about offending people. To me, it’s about creating a non-toxic community. In order to do that, you need moderation. This has always been the case, otherwise you end up in a COD MW2 lobby situation where everyone is just screaming insults and slurs into the mic. And I’m not against that because I’m offended by that, I just don’t find it appealing as it hinders constructive conversations.
Your example doesn’t fit bc you are trying to use a private space as an example of a public forum.
But it’s not a public forum, at the end of the day it is a private space… The server is rented by somebody, that somebody is paying for that server and that somebody can choose to do with that server whatever they want… If somebody choose to host a private lemmy server where only they themselves are allowed, that’s their right.
But if you open a place, real or digital, with the express purpose of having freeform or political discussions with large groups of people that you don’t personally know, e.g. a public forum/townhall/etc
But that’s not even remotely what lemmy.world is supposed to be… They choose to allow anyone who follows the rules, but they are very very clear that they are not “a free speech zone.” and the rules are very strict, much stricter than twitter, reddit or most other social media sites, so I seriously don’t understand how you can make the argument that lemmy.world is supposed to be a “townhall”…
I would argue that suppressing that kind of language
Nobody is suppressing your language… You are free to say whatever you want on instances that support it… Nobody is shutting down exploding-heads, but you can’t expect somebody else to host content that they don’t want to host on their servers, just as they cannot force this sites’ admin to host content they don’t want…
You have an argument when it comes to centralized social media, such as twitter, reddit, etc. where you are dependent on the company that runs the site. But with lemmy, you have free access to the code and are free to run your own server however you choose.
How is this about free speech? People on this server can say whatever they want as long as they follow the server rules. If you go to another server, there are other rules.
In the real world, you also have freedom of speech (optimally), but if you go to another man’s house and insult his wife, you don’t have to be suprised if that man tells you to leave…
Right but tourists getting killed because they cycled through regions where ISIS was active does not represent the middle east as a whole… That’s as if tourists were killed in America by a drug cartel and you took that as a representation of all of America.
Those “crazies” are generally politicians who are trying to use the fear of “CRT” to create laws banning the topic from being discussed at schools.
That’s how the politicians try to present it as of course. But the problem is that the way they use and classify “CRT”, it can mean virtually anything connected to race, which makes such laws dangerous.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2021/09/29/critical-race-theory-bans-are-expanding-to-cover-broad-collection-of-issues/