Asklemmy

43941 readers

577 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

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Why? Shouldn't the measure of good and bad be with respect to how correct it is, not how closely the position aligns with the status quo?

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The word implies an unhealthy and incorrect degree. Otherwise you're not radicalized, just representing an opinion.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

the word radical means "from or going to a root or source."

it simply implies wanting to deal with the root cause of issues. the word you are looking for is probably "extremism"

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

radical means arising from or going for the root.

it implies fixing things at the perceived root cause, the word you are actually looking for here is probably "extremism"

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago

Not necessarily, it implies conviction and separation from the norm.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

Yes, hence they reveal that they think the staus quo is the correct way of doing things... Though to be fair, being a little reactionary is hard wired in human brains and is especially prone to surface for those politically illiterate (or idiots in Greek).

[–] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

To be fair I think my definition of radicalize is wrong given the other comments. Ive always used it as a synonym for extremism.