I just got banned from /r/scarysigns for posting CDC stats about covid

submitted by magnora7 from self.MeanwhileOnReddit

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]IridescentAnaconda 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I find the "crazy racists" off-putting but you can't have free speech without that component. No crazy racists, no free speech.

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

But some people get it confused and think the more of that there is, the freer the site is. Which isn't necessarily the case. Voat is 99% racism and it's very hard to find real information in such a garbage heap. So there's a balance, you can't really have free speech if extremists hijack the platform. But you can't have it by removing all of them either. There's a happy middle-ground that can be hard to hit, and everyone also kind of disagrees where it is appropriate to draw the line exactly, so it's impossible to satisfy everyone in this regard.

[–]IridescentAnaconda 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I do not mean to imply that more is better. It's just a fact of life with free-speech zones. The antidote is either (1) ignoring and not validating [my usual approach] or (2) pushing back with facts, etc. I still emphatically believe they have a right to express their views (as much as I have a right to ignore and/or oppose the same views).

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

That's all well and good, as long as they're actual people pushing viewpoints they actually believe. But when it's one person pretending to be 50 people, with the intent of poisoning the quality of discussion on the whole website and driving away new users (which does happen), we cannot allow that anymore than we should allow people to falsely yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. And it can be difficult to distinguish which is happening.

So it requires careful attention, and we have the saidit rules like they are because it helps prevent against this sort of cultural website hijacking that voat and many other sites experienced. Allowing one person's speech to drown out everyone else's, isn't really free speech for those being drowned out. So there's a balance that has to be had because of this cultural forum hijacking phenomenon that every social media site now has to deal with.

[–]ChillyChili 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I do as well and appreciate your reply. I'm just saying that, that is the narrative.

I believe that we should be able to talk about stats within races without being called racist or even that being racist isnt even a crime in itself. I think that folks can dislike a group of folks for whatever their reasoning.

Even if they are "protected classes" under legal bs, should not infringe on first amendment rights EVER.

Why is it ok for rape victims to have an aversion to males but not males of a race that raped them without being racist?