you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 17 insightful - 11 fun17 insightful - 10 fun18 insightful - 11 fun -  (86 children)

I mean... We have racists, alt righters, and anti-semites. We gonna draw the line at a motherfucker incel?

Edit: He's a pedo and m7 banned him.

[–]magnora7 21 insightful - 4 fun21 insightful - 3 fun22 insightful - 4 fun -  (37 children)

Well he said this:

I'm a reactionary who supports patriarchy and mass murder of feminist scum.

So he was openly advocating violence. As well as sexualizing children in several posts, which is also against saidit rules. So he's out.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Well I ain't shedding any tears.

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I am

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Really? There's not many things I find so distasteful that I do not want to hear them discussed, but pedophilia is one. If the guy was just an incel who wanted to bang his mother I was totally for not banning him. After he started talking about sex with kids... Fuck him. I'm not defending that.

And although it does seem a bit McCarthyistic, people can't help but notice who is siding with the pedo.

[–]AirSeddit88 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

The problem is the contradiction between "free speech" and "saidit rules'.

If anyone can ban any comment for any reason, it's not free speech.

If we cannot trust each other to think independently, to sort out the garbage from the gold, who do we trust to think for us.

[–]magnora7 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

Saidit rules are the rules for saidit. Have been for 3 years. Nothing has changed.

https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/j1/the_saiditnet_terms_and_content_policy/

We're not going to allow stuff on saidit that break federal laws, sorry. Not happening. That's how sites get shut down, and we value actual free speech enough to not let lunatics hijack the actual conversation by putting this site in legal jeopardy, which would shut down everyone's free speech.

[–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

You are quite mentally lazy and refuse to even think about what "advocating violence" really means. As for legal consequences, "advocating violence" is legal.

[–]magnora7 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Making specific threats of violence is actually illegal and will result in this site being taken offline.

I define it a bit more broadly to "advocating violence" (calling for the physical injury or death of another person or group of people) for the purposes of saidit.

There is no reason to start your comment with an insult. Just argue your point.

[–]EVERYBODYPANIC 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

magnor7, you brilliantly handle the ones baiting you. Class act, man. I appreciate how you do what you do and why you do it. There are more monsters in the dark places than just the trolls. We don't have to slay monsters but we must protect ourselves by banishment.

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

Thank you, I appreciate your kind words. I agree we can build something better, so let's build it!

[–]fediverseshill 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

the ones baiting you.

Asking people doing censoring to justify it is not "TROLLING" unless youre literally a nazi reddit mod. 😂😂

[–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Making specific threats of violence is actually illegal and will result in this site being taken offline.

Yes but Caamib did not make a specific threat of violence. And your Pyramid of Debate rule simply doesn't apply here because Caamib's comment was an explanation that did not drag the discussion down. So you have absolutely no legitimate reason to ban Caamib.

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Yes and as I just explained, I define it a bit more broadly to "advocating violence" (calling for the physical injury or death of another person or group of people) for the purposes of saidit.

[–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Maybe you do, but simply "advocating violence" (your definition) doesn't violate your rules. Your rules prohibit "repeatedly dragging discussion in a downward direction on the Pyramid of Debate". Did Caamib do this? No.

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Your rules prohibit "repeatedly dragging discussion in a downward direction on the Pyramid of Debate"

Yes, and the bottom level of that pyramid is advocating violence! https://saidit.net/static/PyramidDebate.jpg

So by advocating violence he is dragging it to the bottom level.

[–]fediverseshill 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The armchair legal students here are funny as fuck, how shortly it took for the higher ups here to let the power go to their head.

The saying is true... you either destroy the jannies or will mod long enough to become one

[–]fediverseshill 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Which fed law did the saidditor in OP break?

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

None, I never said he did. I was speaking more generally to the concept of infinite limitless free speech, which even in theory is not possible in a sustainable way on a website because it will eventually break federal law.

He did however break the saidit rule that advocating violence against individuals or groups is not allowed. So he is banned.

[–]AirSeddit88 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

With great respect for your service to humanity, you appear to concede that "free speech" is in the eye of the beholder, and so some degree of arbitrary censorship is necessary if not desirable, if only in view of the realities of politics today in the context of resurging authoritarianism against which free speech is the only bulwark.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Free speech is great. Hundreds of automated bots spewing controversial nonsense is not great for free speech.

[–]AirSeddit88 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I suppose what I'm getting at is, by what principle(s) may we distinguish between legitimate free speech and illegitimate abuse of that right?

You have grappled with this issue in depth I think, because you built this platform.

Defining and articulating principles for the practice of free speech will minimize frictions and forestall conflicts, IMO.

I believe the principle must be a corollary of "all men are created equal". (Not equal in circumstance certainly, but equal in the soul's standing in the cosmos - before God, if you will. Muslims say "standing before God we are all as even as the teeth on a comb."

We are born fools. Some die marginally wiser. Engaging in contentious free speech with one's peers is essential to the growth of wisdom.

Can you lay out clear ground rules based on clearly articulated principles (or direct me to those already in place)? The Constitution did that for the USA. It's not perfect but it is perfectible. Likewise Saidit.

Thank you for Saidit, magnora7. I find hope here.

PS: I've reviewed the rules. They are good of course. Principles offer greater clarity, precision, and flexibility.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Defining and articulating principles for the practice of free speech will minimize frictions and forestall conflicts, IMO.

Or it just creates the exact boundaries that the trolls then know to exactly avoid, so they can destroy the site without technically breaking the rules.

[–]AirSeddit88 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Maybe. I like principles better than rules precisely because they do not define exact boundaries but standards, not a fence on the landscape that trolls can straddle but a flag, relative to which those who stray into abuse become conspicuous.
Please be assured I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I'm sure you have quite enough of that on your capable hands. I am inclined to trust your hard won experience, in any case. Thank you for Saidit.
Censorship is an obscenity, or should be, to any American. It seems there have always been those who abuse free speech, and those who count on them as an excuse to abuse freedom. It appears to me the problem is that we've all been taught we have rights without the duties necessary to secure them. One of those duties is civility, which is respect for the possibility, the inevitability, that one yet has things to learn from others. Humility is essential. But Americans have been taught entitlement. This fundamental imbalance, between rights and responsibilities, has undermined the foundations of the republic and left us open to the present attack, IMO. We must relearn respect, humility, civility, virtue, if we are to survive to rebuild civilization after the present crisis. Free speech, the unfettered exchange of ideas, is essential. We must find a practical way to protect it. Authority must refrain from censorship, but that's only possible if people learn to refrain from abuse, and to police one another. There is no system so good the people in it don't have to be. The chain breaks at the weakest link. You've chosen a place at the chaotic forefront. What sense will you make of it? What wisdom? I ask only because I am myself buffaloed by the contradictions, but eager for the victory. Freedom, the republic, the Constitution teeters on the brink of free speech.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We must relearn respect, humility, civility, virtue, if we are to survive to rebuild civilization after the present crisis. Free speech, the unfettered exchange of ideas, is essential.

This will only be possible if the present crisis is actually solved, which will make it necessary to rebuild civilization. None of that can happen while our society is overrun by our enemies.

[–]AirSeddit88 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Deleted duplicate post.

[–]No_ 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Thank fuck.

I have no problem with conservatives who aren’t violent or misogynistic or racist.

But pedos? Rapists? People who advocate violence? People who advocate rape? No. And it has nothing to do with your beliefs.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So he was openly advocating violence.

Is it violence itself, or more like illegal violence, which he advocated by choosing the word 'murder'.

It would be hard to clean his statement up with a different word, but what about advocating "our soldiers killing the enemy"? That advocates violence, but it's generally endorsed if not promoted violence. In some cases, it might even be 'illegal' for soldiers to not kill the enemy.

The sexualizing children part makes the question of ejection moot, and I hope the part about him having a daughter is false.

[–]fishbox 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I hope its a troll job.

[–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Noticing at least a couple of the accounts here defending pedophilia are less than a week old. My guess is we're being brigaded by some incel / pedo group, or they've discovered this site and are trying to see if they're welcome here.

Hopefully, the answer to that is no, because I sure as hell wont be using this site if it becomes full of people advocating pedophilia.

[–]RuckFeddit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No loss if he wasn't being ironic with the original quote. Sexualizing children however is unforgivable, I must ask you to leave the premises.

[–]fediverseshill 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

“The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”

His country went through a civil war roughly 20 years ago, he deserves the right to offensive, and even off-putting speech.

And it was censorship that Beat the nazis.

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire.

You cannot advocate for mass murder on saidit.

There are reasonable limits.

[–]madcow-5 13 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

I say we draw the line at requests for jb.

As I understand porn is explicitly forbidden here, which contrary to what this guy supposedly said, will keep us from turning into voat.

Also, incels really don’t have anything to contribute.

[–]Caamib 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Another one who doesn't read anything and doesn't even know what words like porn or incels mean

[–]madcow-5 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Ok, little buddy.

[–]Tarrock 12 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 4 fun -  (24 children)

I'd say draw the line at pedos, which this guy is. I think we have r/incels come here for a while, dunno if they're still around, but they kept to themselves. This guy is a fucking sicko.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Caamib 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

    More lies and nonsense. You really should check yourself into a hospital.

    [–]bobbobbybob 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    11 or 12 year olds, that's what you said is acceptable. so fuck off

    [–]fediverseshill 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Nazis are allowed to talk about their beliefs. Stop moralizing because unless hes actually doing criminal stuff, he's only expressing his speech, dumptard.

    [–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    rule 2 says "fuck off you pedo apologizer"

    [–]madcow-5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    There's no such thing as a pedo apologizer. The guy's an actual pedo.

    That's something you're either down with yourself, or have a primal instinct to kick the shit out of them.

    [–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    [–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    It really should

    [–]wristaction 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    Progressives just need someone in a white lab coat to tell them that it's a Western cultural myth that children are necessarily harmed by 'intimacy' to get on board with decriminalizing pedophilia.

    In time, it will be put to progressives who retain white supremacist notions about "protecting children" that they're on the wrong side of history.

    [–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    This has happened many times over already.

    Michael Foucault did a whole chapter about how child abuse is great way to stick it to The Man and he's the most quoted person in academic literature.

    Ordinary people just have to beat them down over and over again.

    [–]Ash 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Never heard of this Michael Foucault guy and the 'whole chapter' he did. I only know a bit about Michel Foucault and he's not the most quoted person in academic literature, even within the context of the State, Philosophy, Structuralism and Sociology.

    Source: Ordinary person who went to university and have actually read some of his 'chapters'.

    [–]Caamib 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

    I am actually not a real pedophile. I am a limited political pedophile like a political lesbian but am not attracted to actual kids (ACTUAL kids, mind you).

    [–]bobbobbybob 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    except you said "i'd fuck 11 or 12 year olds", so yeah, you are a pedophile. fuck off

    [–]jet199 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Most child abusers aren't specifically attracted to kids. They just go for the most vulnerable people they can find. That's why they're scum.

    [–]wristaction 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Something about this doesn't ring true. There are plenty of vulnerable people a predator could select without the extreme risk that comes with violating minors. To cross that line would require deeper motivation than convenience.

    Sounds like a long orbital path back around to pro-MAP propaganda.

    [–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    And they do attack many different types of vulnerable people. Jimmy Saville attacked disabled people, old people, even corpses. Just watched the Nightstalker case he also abducted kids and attacked adults. Paedophiles are highly likely to torture animals in their youth as well.

    You assume minors are a bigger risk but only if you get found out. Kids are much easier to control and keep quiet, this is also why boys are targeted over girls by priests, because the greater shame keeps them quiet. Obviously the physical risk is much lower than attacking an adult.

    Arguing they have some kind of compulsion and therefore can't help themselves is far more pro-paedo than realising these are nasty sadists who just want to hurt someone who can't fight back.

    [–]fediverseshill 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    What makes it political over real pedophilin?

    [–]trident765 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I'd say draw the line at pedos

    Why?

    [–]fishbox 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    because they are pedos

    [–]fediverseshill 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I'll say draw the line at alt rights, which this guy is. I think we have r/freethinkers come here for a while, dunno if they're still around, but they kept to themselves. This guy is a fucking sicko.

    Being a creepy wierdo isnt a right for deplatforming, idiot. Or I'll grasp at the idiots who are left of you and want you banned for being a nazi.

    [–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    If you consider pedos to be on par with with you disagree with politically in terms of your disgust, that says more about you than the alt right.

    [–]bobbobbybob 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

    we should draw the line at liberals, I reckon. We have actual marxists on here, ffs

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

    "Liberals" and moderates are already attacked constantly on this site, so no worries. I rarely see any of them. Mission accomplished.

    [–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    No they are everywhere spreading disinfo

    [–]Jesus 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    anti-semites: I know we have a lot of people who hate Palestinians here.

    [–]Caamib 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    I am not incel. Not by any definition of it that isn't just "anybody who opposes femifascism". I used to be one but have beaten it. The mother thing is a lie too and he even quoted me denying it years ago.

    5 years ago everyone was an "MRA" and there's a new word that had its meaning twisted for leftist witch hunts

    .

    [–]bobbobbybob 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    i am not an incel

    except mods incel subs, has incel usernames, posts extensively on incels. Why are you even fucking here, just to cause shit?

    /u/magnora7 ban this cunt for promoting CP and fucking children, (11 or 12 year olds), please

    [–]fediverseshill 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    mods incel subs, has incel usernames, posts extensively on incels. Why are you even fucking here

    hey daddy gov plz make speech i dont like illegul kthx bai

    Vapes and dabs

    [–]bobbobbybob 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    you are free to go make a site that can have any kind of content you like. THIS site has clearly defined rules. End of story. Oh, except I can say "fuck off, faggot", or even call you a kike or a nazi, and be free to do so. I can't tell you to harm yourself, and tbh, that's quite refreshing after decades in the raw freedom of the infinite.

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

    Someone unable to carry on an active sex life is one thing. However, suffer not the pedos to live.

    [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    Seems odd that someone at a "free speech" site would attack someone because of some of their previous posts.

    Perhaps I don't know enough about the user in question, but I've read through his and other related posts, and would still argue that any concerns about a user must relate to the latest post, not to a person's post history on other sites. If the user has a habit of getting Saidit posts deleted because of a failure to follow the rules (or advocating rape, violence & murder), perhaps /u/magnora7 should think about suspending and warning the problematic user. Attacking fellow Saiditors because of their histories seems to run counter to the Saidit proposed ethos of free speech &c.

    [–]magnora7 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    I agree, I only take in to account what people have posted from their saidit account because it's easy to steal someone else's name from another site, and I have no way of verifying. I let every person actually break the rules on saidit before being banned, saidit doesn't have a pre-crime division lol

    [–]fediverseshill 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Seems odd that someone at a "free speech" site would attack someone because of some of their previous posts.

    This is the only post I agree with Socks on.

    The increasing censorship is shit, and reddit tier soyhavior.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]fediverseshill 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      So why do you make some post about an internet nobody then? censorshill

      [–]wristaction 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Not to mention queers, libertarians, commies and progressives.