@freemo @jeffalyanak @XanIndigo @f0x reckon the three of you would have to think hard about whether child pornography meets the standards of consitutionally-protected free speech?

@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing @freemo @XanIndigo @f0x
It does not. There are some things that can be safely banned without needing to discuss.

@jeffalyanak @freemo @XanIndigo @f0x well, you see, that really depends on whether or not one's advocacy for free speech absolutism is tacit laundering of beliefs that are problematic in every circumstance except absolute amoral individualist autonomism. If they *are*, one will be inclined to insist on the appropriateness of prolonged discussion at every opportunity.

@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing

Nope, no hard thinking needed, my vote woukd be easy, i suspect so woukd the others. We just never faced the issue before.

Also the constitution has nothibg to do with this.

@jeffalyanak @XanIndigo @f0x

@freemo @jeffalyanak @XanIndigo @f0x
interesting. essentialist free speech rather than constitutional free speech?

@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing

We basically use freespeech to meann "You cann talk about things without being scared you will get in trouble so long as your making a reasonable effort to be respectful and kind"

It is intended to be a counter to toxic environments where they constantly hear "dog whistles" that dont actually exist and ban you for things you never did but people assumed you would do anyway.

Basically, unless you truely and obviously are a piece of shit you will be welcome... Inn some ways it might be better to just say "non-toxic" but that doesnt really work as well.

@jeffalyanak @XanIndigo @f0x

@freemo @jeffalyanak @XanIndigo @f0x a noble and admirable sentiment. In practice, though, i've observed that the criteria qualifying one as a true and obvious piece of shit are entirely subjective. if it weren't this discussion would not be occurring.

@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing

There is no doubt it is a subjective process. I dont claim to have an objective solution and its one reason there is some room for interpritationn. In the end the only way to know where we stannd is tto see our timeline and moderation practices and judge for yourself ifg it is good or bad.

@jeffalyanak @XanIndigo @f0x

@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing

I do find it more than a little telling that of all the people complaining not a single one has reported an actual post of concern however...

@jeffalyanak @XanIndigo @f0x

@freemo they would have no motivation to do so. Their position appears to be that they do not want to associate with the community. their practice of not then participating in said community and contributing to some sort of perceived rehabilitation seems telling of little beyond a degree of predictable ethical consistency.

@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing

One would hope that their claim of being againstt the "hate" (which doesnt really exist but they seem to think it does) would be their motivator. They may not want to be part of the community, but they also claim to not want to see hate thrive, so... yes

@freemo again, their position is that their perception of the community position of indifference toward those of it actively cultivating hate leads them to consider it as tacit endorsement.

@freemo They don't appear to me to be engaged in a missionary project of redeeming the actively hateful (a position to which they ascribe the community as fitting by default by virtue of their above perception), merely to avoid having those they see as invested in the thriving of hate work toward its thriving in the spaces they inhabit.

@freemo (withhold your response please, i haven't finished but an offline task requires my attention)

@freemo It seems quite efficient to do so by exercising their choice of association. while it's reasonable to disagree entirely with their position, i feel it less so to be censurious toward them for freely acting as they choose based on a perception you have of them without at least a commensurate commitment to modify your behaviour to accomodate whatever theirs may be of you.

@freemo That is, however, only my opinion, which likely holds as much weight to you as yours to them, theirs to you, or either of yours to me; to wit, none.

(there, i've concluded that thought at least, thank you for your patience)

@freemo @jeffalyanak @XanIndigo @f0x an excellent idea.

@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing

Great, if you see anything objectionable please feel free to report it.

@jeffalyanak @XanIndigo @f0x

@jeffalyanak

Its usually considered polite to ask a person before screenshotting private conversations. That said its perfectly fine and its welcome to be public. There were just some important context details you left out (such as the vote being only among moderators)

@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing @XanIndigo @f0x