This is hands down the most unhinged thing I’ve read in a long while. You really ought to go to touch grass or something my guy. I’ve never even seen someone say shit like this on 4chan, thats how absolutely unhinged you are dude,

It’s irrelevant, the message was never going to be let in.

Removed by mod

Exactly you’re not debating my point at all, or at least it didn’t feel to me like you did but rather that you talked through me and went with something else that’s not really what I’m talking about in my original comment.

My point is not moderation is not required or wanted or needed, but rather that in this particular situation, Jay (Bluesky CEO) is overtly stating that she’s not going to allow people to be banned based on opinions that are not breaking the rules. There already is moderation, but they are not gonna crack down on people because they said something (and this is a hypothetical scenario though I think it’s also relevant; to be honest I don’t know the original comments that started the controversy) that some might consider transphobic based on their narrow interpretation of what is or isn’t an acceptable view point about transgender topics. This is the example I gave about myself, I’ve been called transphobic simply because I’ve suggested that it might, in some cases, have a neurological cause. And Ive read a few studies about the subject hence why I bring it up in the first place. I in fact was banned from a board here because of it, this is what Jay says she will not allow to happen. Which is healthy, and honestly the paradox of intolerance is not apodictic truth, and I’m becoming more and more convinced that it is actually more harmful through mechanics similar to the Streisand effect. But that’s neither here nor there.

If it seems to you that Im uninformed it’s more about me not wanting to put a lot of effort into comments and English actually being a second language. Most of my views are informed, if I’m not informed about something I usually don’t have a view until I become acquainted with the subject.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/645704/slim-majority-adults-say-changing-gender-morally-wrong.aspx

Accepting that people can live as they wish is not the same thing as transphobia not being a common view.

I think the bit about cancel culture is a bit of a straw man argument because that’s not what we’re talking about here.

Look at my comment, again. Maybe someone is in favor of strong immigration laws, which I think is a totally valid opinion. If you define as Nazi anyone who agrees on any point with MAGA, you would probably call for that persons banning from the site under your paradox of free speech. But that’s only because your interpretation of Nazi is so loose that it doesn’t mean anything anymore. And with my example of being called transphobic, like you and someone else took it in entirely different directions than I even implied. I simply said that I believe it needs to be understood if it has a neurological cause or not in the sense of: is there a tangible neurological difference? Answering that question might help with understanding how to better help the population that suffers from gender dysphoria. I never implied or alluded to that if it was neurological it invalidated anything, much like I don’t think that ADHDs neurological nature means anything different other than we learned how to better treat the condition.

I know it’s not the same thing hence why I didn’t call it socialism and added the “national” to it.

I’ve never said the opposite. It’s just a matter of, seeking knowledge which could result in finding ways to ease suffering. That’s exactly my position 100%.

You’re misrepresenting the situation a little I think. She’s saying that if you want a super duper safe space where no one challenges your agenda in any way, you can use the protocol to build your safe space but that they will not alllow people into banning anyone just because they disagree with their views if they are not breaking the rules.

Nazi is super overused these days so it is a meaningless label: I have been called a nazi despite the fact that I’m not white, I do not believe in national socialism and do not approve of the methods and ways of the MAGA movement all because I say that not all MAGA says is incorrect. I’ve also been called a transphobe because I think transgender identity in some cases might have a neurological cause due to a significant amount of evidence for it and that it is important to research it but trans activist think its an excuse for ErASuRe.

This idea that there is knowledge we should not obtain because it could be dangerous (all knowledge is dangerous! It’s literally one of the oldest tropes in mythology), or that we need to protect people from ideas is so absurd and irrational that it really makes it hard to have discourse with people who generally speaking are on your same page. It feels as though there is a small very vocal online group of people who want to turn the world into a Fisher Price paternalistic dystopia.

I don’t think there’s a lot of bad people in the world as in people with bad intentions. I’d say they are ignorant and selfish.

Yes, that’s how systems perfect themselves. Once more Hegel is proven correct.

What if the people never agree with you? What if you can never convince them that for example transgender women should be able to use the women’s bathroom? What if people elect officials that pass laws to make sure they can’t? Would you accept that outcome peacefully as part of the democratic process? Would you be content with what the people have chosen? Democracy can be as tyrannical as any other system, for progressives there is a moral imperative to not accept outcomes that hurt people even if it is done through the democratic process.

If the best course of action is the only choice then there isn’t a choice at all.

For example we might know that universal healthcare is better for society in almost every aspect, however people might feel that they prefer lower taxes regardless of the benefits that universal healthcare might provide and so they vote against a measure to establish universal healthcare. This is the people choosing out of their own free will to vote against their best interests, democracy is ok with bad outcomes that result out of collective choice. The progressive movement is not ok with negative outcomes, and as such will always choose the best course of action.

The “progressive” movement in the US is without a doubt 100% the unaware foot soldiers of the elites. Every single thing the movement supports only helps to further entrench capital into power. The file and rank of the progressives are well intentioned, no doubt, and the goals are nobles. But because the idea is to solve problems from the top down instead of the bottom up, all it serves is to further create methods for capitalism to solve the internal contradictions that would otherwise result in its collapse. Furthermore it is not a democratic movement nor interested in democracy in any shape or form and saying so is as much newspeak as fascist saying the same thing. It is a technocratic movement that dismisses the wisdom of the masses for the wisdom of the experts, and I do not think that’s necessarily a problem in practice, the problem is that people, as stupid as they are, are smart enough to realize that either you believe in democracy or you believe in doing whatever is scientifically, statistically or mathematically is proven to be better but both things cannot be true at the same time. Honestly I feel like progressives would fare better if they actually had a mask off moment and actively campaigned on that.

I find that it’s pretty much the same if not worse on here on certain topics. Like you might agree on the problem but if you disagree on the solution as generally accepted by whoever sets the agenda you are the enemy. I’m banned from some political instances because I have dared question the progressive’s positions/solutions on certain topics. Like apparently because your goal is morally “right” that justifies using stupid ass solutions instead of attempting to fix deeper rooted issues.

Oh I’m also generally allowed to say retarded on here, but we’ll see if that’s true.

I immediately thought about sovereign citizens too. They are what happens when basedness meets with absolute idiocy.

Only in political systems that were not designed with partisanship in mind and thus became the worse partisan shithole to be conceived.

It gave them the excuse to build their own platforms in which their ideas could spread uncontested and at the same time made them more alluring to the masses because “forbidden” knowledge is so alluring to humans that perhaps the most famous myth in history is about how our species lost the perfect existence because of it.

You cannot make anything forbidden and expect that by doing so it won’t spread because it is forbidden. As long as there is a demand for it it will continue to spread and if the Streisand effect holds it will spread exponentially. This applies to ideas, drugs, guns, and pretty much everything. If the people want it they will get it. Alcohol is the perfect example: we tried to make it illegal and all it did was increase crime, violence and people kept drinking as much if not more than before. Fast forward to today people drink less than ever because they have learned the health effects of it. Give people the tools to tell right from wrong, correct from incorrect instead of trying to bubble wrap their world and then act surprised when they feel betrayed because someone told them there is another point of view (false as it may be). Let them see both point of views and let the very absurdity of the opposite view discredit itself.

If we cannot trust that people can make the correct decisions why then would we insist on democracy?

It’s not about the factuality of the information though, it’s about the subjectivity of the label. Harmful, hateful, etc are not objective measurable labels and so they can be used to shut down any sort of speech. The paternalistic position that we need to protect people from falsehoods or harmful ideas is frankly condescending. Like I said elsewhere if I cannot believe that people are capable of separating truth from fact, then I must also believe that they are fundamentally incapable of making decisions and therefore I need to take away any ability for them to make any kind of significant decision. I will not follow this line of thought in my life or politics, because then who gets to decide who is capable of making decisions? The experts in their ivory towers? The only experts with apodictic knowledge are physicists and mathematicians, everyone else operates on degrees of certainty, they can be wrong. And furthermore who decides who are the experts? This is a return to aristocracy or monarchy, but instead of divine authority it is credentialist.

If we want to stop people from believing stupid shit the solution is not to attempt to bubble wrap their world as it were, but rather to give them the tools to discern good information from bad information.

If I’m to believe that I need to protect people from “bad” ideas and that they are not capable of discerning right from wrong, false from truth, them I will also have to believe that democracy itself is wrong because clearly we cannot allow these monkeys to make any decisions. Now while my heart of hearts might believe this to be true, I do not have apodictic certainty in that and instead I truly believe that education can make people take better decisions and help them discern right from wrong. As such I can never believe in labeling speech as allowed or not allowed, rather I would like to invest my energies into fostering curiosity, truth seeking and knowledge as perhaps the highest human virtues. So instead of burying speech we should be educating kids.

Also X kind of proves my point, the platform is alive but much less relevant than before. This is the bad ideas discrediting themselves in action.