The far left are coordinating on Lemmy. At the end of the day as long as they aren't committing a crime you can't and shouldn't do anything about it.
Racism is still free speech which sucks but the alternative is high censorship and fear
this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
346 points (94.1% liked)
Technology
59359 readers
5155 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Racism is still free speech which sucks but the alternative is high censorship and fear
This is incorrect, and only serves those who target marginalized groups.
I wanna make it very clear that the conclusion that restriction of hate speech is a slippery slope for freedom of speech is not a given or universally held position
You can absolutely introduce laws prohibiting hate speech without introducing high censorship or fear. Many countries have laws prohibiting hate speech, including most European countries and a majority of, what Wikipedia calls, developed democracies.
Even countries that don't have limits for hate inducing speech towards marginalized groups, with reference to the importance of freedom of speech, rarely have complete freedom of speech.
As an example, the US limits to freedom of speech include "fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising."
The claim that intolerance to intolerance is dangerous, only serves the spread of intolerance.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.
Rosenfeld contrasts the approach to hate speech between Western European democracies and the United States, pointing out that among Western European nations, extremely intolerant or fringe political materials (e.g. Holocaust denial) are characterized as inherently socially disruptive, and are subject to legal constraints on their circulation as such,[13] while the US has ruled that such materials are protected by the principle of freedom of speech and cannot be restricted, except when endorsements of violence or other illegal activities are made explicit.
Facebook is not the government though?
And why is it always "we have to respect other people calling for the erasure of the rights of minorities"? Do you have any idea how frustrating and tiresome that is, as a minority?
100%
Neutrality is the side of the aggressor.
Racism is free speech, unless it's deemed antisemitic, then you're in trouble!
There is no law that says you can't been antisemitic. There are a bunch of antisemitic people here on Lemmy.
It's only a bad thing when it's people I don't agree with.
I just think today's media tends be more cult like than anything else. You either agree with the only right way to think or you are the enemy
That’s horrible… what can I do to help them get off facebook?
Not condoning it, but all I can think is how terrible Facebook is for "coordinating" stuff like this. I mean, if FB or the feds wanted to find out who these people are, track them down or something, they can do that pretty easily. People who do stuff like this aren't too bright, though. So not surprised, I guess.
It's not even "tracking down". It's public information that is easily searchable. It should be easy to stay 2 steps ahead of these groups planning things out in the open.
I think free speech is really important. As soon as you start on the path of censorship you can't stop.
It starts with censorship of the extreme and ends with only a handful of allowed beliefs.
If you tolerate the intolerant, it will eventually bite you. Free speech should be protected, but not tolerated.
But having the right to say whatever the fuck you want and face no consequence isn't that good .
Its called democracy (mostly)
By that logic you would have no issue with a person calling black people the n-word in the street right ? But no most of the time they tend to get hit on the face and there are laws against those kind of people .
Makes them easy to find. Dumbasses.
Waco 2 time
I only worry that FaceBook might actually cover for them and facilitate them. It's not exactly a company known for outcomes of Peace and Respect for Human Rights.
Well, at least in Brazil Meta has been very okay with following judicial orders and prevent anything that could get them in trouble. Telegram is the one recently covering up Nazi groups and school shooters here.
Yeah, something like Reddit or lemmy would be way better. Make a relatively obscure community with a dog whistle as a name. Anonymous, minimal moderation, and an amount of control to keep the group think in.
But please, use Facebook.
Just for my info... any moderate militias out there? Purely informative of course.
The National Guard, The Pentagon, the majority of Police Departments. They might be more authoritarian than your average US Leftist, but at least they don't want to start all over to establish their Rule of Law. Even Trump's generals looked down on him. If you want to do your part in a potential US Civil War then owning a gun to protect your homestead might help but the best thing you can do is report the right wing extremists as you see them. If you even hear word of any sort of encampment or compound, submit an anonymous tip to the FBI, you can expect a specialized task force to deal with it pretty quickly.
I don’t want to be in this timeline. Plus 6 months from now when Trump wins and orders assassinations with SCOTUS immunity.
I feel that.
Does everyone already have their guns, boots, and beans?
Nows the time, get a couple guns (a long one and a short one) and learn how to use them. Learn some basic first aid, you really just need to know how to stabilize someone. Start networking with like-minded people in your community. The police will not protect us, they'll happily club a senior citizen to the ground and shoot you in the face with a rubber bullet.
If a MAGAt caravan comes rolling through your (or your friends) neighborhood with bad intentions you don't want to be caught lacking.
https://www.redneckrevolt.org/
https://www.john-brown-gun-club.org/
I don't think multiple guns per person are necessary tbh. Increases risk of them falling into the wrong hands and other accidents.
Each person should assess their needs and prepare appropriately. Maybe a person wants one general purpose gun. Someone else might want a very long range rifle with a small sidearm as backup.
Frankly getting bogged down in the minutiae immediately (and talking gun control of all things) is being unable to see the forest for the trees and really emblematic of why "the left" can't get anything done. You don't want two guns that's great don't get two it's not a difficult concept. In case you missed the point your protection is on you so prepare accordingly.
Yeah that sidearm totally necessary for in case the enemy is exactly 25 inches away which is a shorter distance than your 26 inch rifle. /sarcasm
It's like you've never actually fired a gun. Do you think shooting something 100 yards away is the same as shooting something 4 foot away?
I can see you don't like guns and that's fine, that means my comment was clearly not meant for you but for people who are willing to defend themselves when the worst case scenario becomes reality. Maybe you'd feel differently if you had a family to protect, but maybe you'd just equivocate and "ackshually" while they carted your trans kid off. I don't know and don't really care tbh, the post was for those paying attention. Have a nice day.
Bro thinks a 10-18 lbs rifle is too difficult to point around, want us to buy a magnum. Good riddance, NRA shill.
I feel like you can't read, that would explain why that's what you took from my comment, good riddance, dork.
On Facebook... So there's a clear trail of who is planning what and who is agreeing to go along. People with long histories of posting far right content, so when they inevitably cry "but a leftist plant orchestrated all this" there is evidence to the contrary.
Care saying "far right." On Lemmy some of the users will tell you that the Democratic party is "far right."
You don't need to agree with what they post but it should be protected under free speech. This isn't China
I also think people these days can't stand seeing anything they don't agree with. All people see is the stuff tailored to them and there is no discomfort
Only if FB wants there to be.
(And they don't. They've actively courted extremists since leaving campus.)
Nah, they'd give them up when the government shows up with cash.
Even though these people are more that to anyone, including society at large, Capital Hill and the feds themselves, they leave them alone, still thinking they are in control of these groups: compare and contrast how they are treated and then how BLM, antifa, and college students protesting genocide are treated.
Isn't that a good thing? If facebook bans them they may actually learn what opsec means.
view more: next ›