Asklemmy

43941 readers

568 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Should I join "free speech" alternatives? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 6 months ago by sinewyshadow@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

96 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hello! I've been searching for a reddit alternative, and yes, I've picked Lemmy and Raddle, but here's the thing. My morbid curiosity is perked up, and a part of me wants to join the "free speech" alternatives, like Saidit, Poal, etc. What's wrong with me that I want to join toxic places? I mean, yes I'll find a whole new perspective (albeit wrong), on political topics, but a part of me wants to be the antagonist, and post lefty memes, and music with a left-leaning message (bands from r/rabm) I know that's like kicking the hornet's nest, so you don't need to start in with "that's a bad idea" I know it is. My main point/question is, is it wrong to join a site with potential hate speech? Does it make someone a bad person?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pmk@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

As long as the consequences are words and non-violent actions. Advocating violence as a consequence for someone expressing an idea is imho dangerous and should be avoided.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

yes, but words that incite violence are also very dangerous. there is a line to thread here.

case in point: i don't think goebbels actually directly harmed anyone, but his speech caused quite a lot of suffering, violence and death. his speech should absolutely not be rebutted with 'just words', there must be actual consequences to what he did.

on top of it we live in a world where his propaganda techniques are still used for harm.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

it is dangerous, but so is speech that incites violence even if the perpetrator himself isn't directly doing it. its a fine line to tread.

case in point: i don't think goebbels ever directly killed or harmed anyone, but his speech caused a lot of death and suffering, and someone like him should absolutely not be dealt with just words. keep in mind his propaganda techniques are still alive today.

[–] pmk@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 months ago

I agree that speech that incites violence is dangerous too. In theory I can imagine a net benefit if we could silence some voices in various places. The big question then is, who do we trust to decide which people should be silenced? I think governments have historically shown that they can't be trusted. Then private people? Lots of people across the political spectrum feel that their version of truth is so important that they deem it moral to silence others, so what it comes down to is just who does it better. The image of an angry mob is no fun if the mob has decided that you should be silenced, even though you feel like you're on the good side. They probably think they are the good ones. Who then?