this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
94 points (98.0% liked)
Fedibridge
553 readers
6 users here now
A community to organize and discuss the growth of the fediverse as a whole
Related communities
Megathreads
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I fundamentally disagree. Just because you or I may not like someones opinions doesn't mean I don't think they shouldn't be allowed to have them.
You can't stop people from thinking what they think. If you silence them or shut them out they arent going to suddenly change their opinions on things. If anything that will just cause most people to double down. The only way change happens is if they are constantly running up against other opinions and they realize that maybe their own stance doesn't line up with what they think anymore.
I'm sure we all had opinions as kids and then we learned something at school that changed our opinions on something. Had we been shut out of the conversation or learning that new thing because of our initial opinions we never would have heard the other perspective or info that ultimately caused us to reevaluate our own stances.
I believe being able to have conversations with someone you disagree with is a fundamental requirement for a functional society.
your position is one that inevitably lets nazis and wreckers infest queer safe spaces. can't you agree a zero tolerance policy is needed for certain "opinions" (i.e. nazis, homophobes, transphobes, racists, misogynists etc.) or are you genuinely a free speech warrior shithead? because that's pee pee poo poo reddit debate lord shit. it's concerning the way you dodged my initial question. you will probably dodge this question too to avoid showing your ass.
I think it's pretty clear from my first comment that I am a free speech absolutionist. So no I don't believe shutting off certain opinions even I find them abhorrent.
Like I said before. We appear to fundamentally disagree so I don't really see any point in going down this road. You think I am a "free speech warrior shithead" already and I think your way of thinking is short sighted.
Let's go out separate ways and perhaps we will bump into each other at a later date with slightly different perspectives on everything. You never know.
What about when that "abhorrent" opinion is just couching violence in innuendo and insinuation? Often facist rhetoric such as Neo-Nazis (in the most literal sense) have recognized that they'll often get defended up until they outright call for violence and have adapted tactics to continue sustained harrassment campaigns until they manage to inflict psychological harm that can accomplish the same goals of their physical harm.
Unfortunately that is one of the downsides. People will abuse the rules and dance all along the line for nefarious reasons. Can't plug that hole without potentially stripping others of their ability to speak up in certain ways and situations.
I actually had a long conversation with friends about that yesterday. We were talking about how someone wasn't outright saying to kill anyone but they were playing propaganda videos of someone else that was saying those things. Do we hold them responsible for the words of the video they were playing on stream for everyone or is that a clear separation?
So we have the classic conundrum. Do we want a system where innocent people might accidentally go to prison or do we want a system where people who should go to prison sometimes don't because we would rather never put innocent people behind bars.