Ledditors griefing over internet "censorship" and muh freeze peach principles that were apparently violated when effective, direct measures were used to combat fascism.

I don’t think we should ever celebrate people being deplatformed...If the content is illegal pursue legal means to punish the posters...But let’s say they win, and they get the domain blocked everywhere. They’ll just launch a new domain, just like all the pirate streaming sites do.

Are you implying you shouldn't try to do anything because the fascists will (deterministically) win? Hence why the people trying to shut them down went straight to the ISPs because they know they can win the ISPs over on moral grounds?

[...] you have to decide if the internet is a human right or not. If it is, it must be for everyone, or it is for no one. As soon as we make exceptions to basic rights, those rights get eroded for everyone. Because people in power will bend the exceptions to political expediency.

Fascists don't deserve basic rights.

    • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
      ·
      1 year ago

      And if you're dealing with some kind of bigot, the best way to make them see the error of their ways is for those people they're bigoted against have civil conversations with them.

      Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

      Frankly, I don't care about convincing them. I care about suppressing them. Whenever possible their voice should be taken away and they should always be afraid of expressing their bigotry out loud. They are worthless scum and generally beyond saving, what matters is protecting the people who they endager.

      • NotErisma
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        deleted by creator

      • D61 [any]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        civil conversation malcolm-checks

      • M68040 [they/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        They say "oh just have civil conversation with them" like that's the easiest thing in the world, but who on earth wants to actually talk to these people? Why would you assume they want to be talked to? What would you even say to them?

        • beef_curds [she/her]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, and the people who suggest having the civil conversations aren't the ones who are volunteering.

          They usually expect the people who are most impacted to put themselves at risk. That's why they love Daryl Davis. They can sit back believing that fairy tale, doing nothing to help, and thinking their worldview fixed everything.

        • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe we can figure out what they want and find a compromise where we only kill half the Jews centrist

      • UlyssesT [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        civil conversations

        At the Hague, maybe, if even there. sus-soviet

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, you let the racists and bigots face the consequences of their actions, including legal ones. If someone wants to say racial slurs, they get arrested. That's how it works in South Africa. If you say the k word, you can expect legal action to be taken against you. And that's how it should be. Hate speech has no value and is not "free speech".

    • 1nt3rd1m3nt10n4l [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Being in favor of free speech means allowing people you hate to talk too. If someone says something that's factually incorrect, prove them wrong.

      Well we don't believe that "free speech" is a "basic right". Now material rights to shelter, food, and productive participation in society are things we consider to be "basic rights". Being a Fascist is not productive participation in society however, therefore in order to fulfill that basic right, they must be corrected.

    • D61 [any]
      ·
      1 year ago

      "Re-manov-ed by mod" kelly

        • D61 [any]
          ·
          1 year ago

          I too missed fun and haven't taken the time to dig through the modlog.