woah! octodon.social blocks fosstodon.org? (and blob.cat apparently)
That's kind of depressing, that was the first mastodon instance I joined.
🇳🇱
@swiley Its pretty absurd the levels blocking has gotten. Usually its done under threat as many people demand you block a laundry list of instances lest be blocked.. it snowballs quick where instances wind up blocking instances just not to get blocked by what few instances can still see them. Its why we are so resistance to going down that very slippery slope here.
It seems to be a pretty big portion, and sadly there are very few instances that have local moderation rules and a polite environment but themselves are not block happy. Its so rare in fact that its been the main attractive feature QOTO presents to new users in my expiernce.
bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@freemo
> Its so rare in fact that its been the main attractive feature QOTO presents to new users in my expiernce.
it was one of the main reasons i've joined here. i have some years ago created an account at another server but never used it really.
when deciding to really invest some time into the fediverse, i looked at their block list, half of the blocks were because of "free speech". unsurprisingly, unsavory posts about right-wing people or the police were no problem on that instance. while any instance is free to block whomever they want to, it's a shame that so many people fall for the doublethink.
i get why people want a "safe haven" where they don't have to deal with ugly real life shit. a closed web forum might be better than a federated microblogging protocol for that though.
@bonifartius I am happy that you've found a home at QOTO. I think that there are always interesting perspectives there. But the only way to think that blocking "free speech" (and I'm reading that as racist/misogynist/homophobic) and allowing critiques of Nazis and police is doublethink is if you think silencing oppressors and oppressed is the same thing. And if so, that's a pretty sad and myopic world view.
@pants @bonifartius @freemo @mathlover Most people would prefer *stopping* oppressors to silencing them.
Kicking a Nazi off twitter is something you do to look good.
@swiley
Agreed. Nazis exult in being martyrs. They actively seek it in fact. Kicking them off a platform and making a spectacle of doing so gives them an ego boost and pushes them to places that they can't be removed from.
@pants @bonifartius @freemo
@mathlover But I think it also helps dismantle the idea of the 'alt-right' as something mainstream. It won't sway the hardcore racists, but if you've just got a toe in the water and then have to go to a Nazi-only site to continue, it might make you reflect a moment. @swiley @bonifartius @freemo
The real consequence is it makes people think the idea, and the nazis are themselves oppressed and that maybe there is something to it if people are going to so much trouble to oppress it. Afterall, if it were just some nonsense idea with no truth to it then there would be no fear of the information being available..
We always see the same pattern when we analyze censorship.. censoring the thing usually increases support and interest in the thing.
@freemo But they're the ones framing it as censorship and we're letting them! Most folks don't think people with mental health issues are being censored when they're asked to leave a restaurant for ranting loudly about their delusions.
@mathlover @swiley @bonifartius
@pants
There's a difference between a restaurant asking a mentally ill person to leave and asking restaurants to remove people you think are mentally ill, especially if you are not a psychiatrist. The latter is closer to what we were talking about. Freemo removing an asshat from Qoto is different from if Freemo asked other server admind to remove said person under threat of block.
@freemo @swiley @bonifartius
@freemo I for sure agree. And I didn't mean to hijack this thread, because I agree with it's origin. What I'm saying is that when @bonifartius said that silencing Nazis while allowing anti-cop rhetoric involved holding two contradictory ideas in one's head at the same time (doublethink), that that statement was wrong because there was no contradiction. @mathlover @swiley
Fair, we are about half a dozen tangents away from the original target at this point :)
@pants
I don't think @bonifartius was talking about Nazis. If I recall correctly he just said "unsavory posts about right wing people or the police." Most people right of center or right wing aren't Nazis, just as most people left of center or left wing aren't Marxist-Leninis who praise Stalin.
There's also a difference between people saying ACAB or calling out police misconduct in colorful terms and people talking about normalizing murdering police on the spot. I have seen the latter be given a pass from a user on a server that was very block happy at the server level.
@freemo @bonifartius @swiley
@mathlover Thank you for setting me straight.
@bonifartius I'm sorry if I jumped on you. I've spent too much time lately around real dog-whistle-y types IRL and it's made me edgy. I read right as far-right and police as, well, police. :)
Thats the danger of the dog-whistle spotter.. as real as dog-whistles may be they are designed (as the name implies) to be easily mistaken for innocent comments as well. So best to try not to assume when you hear one (as I'm sure you usually do)... in a way its a bit insidious on their part, part of the point of a dog whistle is to get you to question who is or is not using it as such and as such get well meaning people to start accusing each other.
We really have to do our best to not follow those tendencies.
@freemo I disagree (as always). We all kept level heads, talked through it, and I learned something. Maybe others did too. And if someone wanted it to be a dog whistle now they know it wasn't. I think it's better to always challenge what you hear, as long as you're not 100% committed to the idea of being right. @mathlover @bonifartius @swiley
Doesnt sound like your disagreeing at all.. if your challenging what you hear and not assuming it to be a dog whistle (in other words asking the intent explicitly) then you are doing exactly what I suggested, that is, not assuming a dog-whistle is a dog-whistle
@undefined @pants @freemo @swiley @bonifartius @mathlover And why are we only talking about the extreme right, not the extrem left? As if nazism is the sole evil and repression of speech according to the alleged anti-fascist is therefore justified.
We often see the reference of the paradox of tolerance from people who try rationalize the suppression of speech, they claim that nazism is the sole intolerant ideology, therefore a free society shouldn’t tolerate their speech. This in fact is a dishonest misrepresentation of what Karl Popper was saying. Very often, these people would invoke the first sentences from Karl Popper the argument, stating,
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. “
So far so good, until you read continuing part,
“In this formulation, | do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.”
See? for all their close-mindness and toxicity, Karl Popper isn’t suggesting we should shut down such intolerant speech as long we can counter them with rational argument.
“But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. (This is exactly what the postmodern social justice theorists are doing)We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
Karl Popper here isn’t saying nazism bad leftism good, therefore we should ban free speech for the nazists(especially when the word is misused to such a extent), he is saying all intolerant ideologies are threats to a free society, and that includes communism as well as the postmodern social justice theories. But even though such intolerant ideologies could undermine our freedom, we shouldn’t counter them with illiberalism and suppress free speech. We should criminalize them, however, when intolerant speeches turns into intolerant actions(mob violence, harassment, as the leftist students and scholar activists often do) and punish them with law.
@Vectorfield
Thanks for the interesting perspective on this!
@pants @freemo @swiley @bonifartius
To be fair I did bring up some of that earlier, that these communities often seem to censor the extreme right, but then cause the same harm internally in their own communities by oppressing those in the community who are moderator or otherwise call out the anti-ethical position of its own members, not surprisingly being called nazis and exiled.
So yea I agree these are problems that go with extremism on either end of the spectrum really.
@Vectorfield It's really bad form to include your own commentary in a direct quote. It's misleading, whether intentional or otherwise. @freemo @swiley @bonifartius @mathlover
That rule is new to me, as long as the person makes it clear what part is the quote and what part is his own words I'm not sure I see the problem and never heard that objection before.
@freemo Because no one can be quoted who uses parentheses? I had to look up the quote to make sure Mr. Popper didn't address 'postmodern social justice theorists.' That's why I brought it up. Of _course_ that's a rule! You break up the quote when you want to comment on it. @Vectorfield @swiley @bonifartius @mathlover
@pants @Vectorfield @swiley @bonifartius @mathlover Sorry I didnt understand this:
Because no one can be quoted who uses parentheses?
@freemo If parentheses exist in the actual quote as an aside to the reader, how would one discern them from the brilliant social commentary @Vectorfield is offering up? We do this by leaving the commentary outside the quotation marks because it's not part of the quotation.
Ahh I see what your saying now. I actually didnt even realize that the parenthesis were his comments and not part of the quote either. I thought you were complaining about how he added his commentary after each quote.
@Vectorfield Also, look at the examples he cites- murder, kidnapping, slavery. To that I personally would add rape. These are crimes that rob people of their agency, of their humanity. That's the kind of intolerance I think, in good faith, he's addressing. People can be intolerant to other people's ideas. What threatens free society is being intolerant to their humanity. And _that's_ the paradox. Do you dehumanize those that dehumanize? @freemo @swiley @bonifartius @mathlover
@mathlover
Agreed, and to be clear when I say we shouldnt censor people (including nazis).. what I mean is, if one of our users wants to go read what some piece of shit nazi is posting for some reason (could be research for a paper, could be a personal motive to understand how a person can turn into someone like that, whatever), they have that right.. it doesnt mean I have to give that user the resources of my server and a seat at the table to use my server as a soapbox either.. I am talking about censorship in terms of a good persons right to be able to consume any information they wish, not that they have a right to use my private resources to broadcast shitty unethical information.
@pants @swiley @bonifartius