you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.

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

But he didn't do it repeatedly.

And now that I look at your own definition in this thread "calling for the physical injury or death of another person or group of people" he didn't actually do this. He just said that he personally supports violence but he didn't call for anyone to do anything.

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

Yep. I often reflect that our civilization was built broken, on foundations of false premises, false promises, trauma, and fear. Nothing for it really but to reflect and rebuild better.

So easily said...but "whole species [may be] exterminated in the process." -Gregory Bateson, Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity

[–]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.