38 ms·
Am I limiting free speech if I kick out some racist, hate spewing bully from my house because I don't want to listen to their nonsense? No. It is just common se
by danols 10y ago
Am I limiting free speech if I kick out some racist, hate spewing bully from my house because I don't want to listen to their nonsense? No. It is just common sense and how the 'real' world works. Why should the online world be any different?
If there are a few destructive people affecting the experience of the majority lets just kick them out and not deal with them anymore. Problem solved. They don't have the right to ruin the experience of the majority in the name of free speech.
- intortus 10y agoFree speech just for white men isn't free speech at all. When you don't kick out the racist bully, they turn your space into one that is exclusionary toward minorities. Do you shut up some idiots who have nothing but purely harmful things to say, or all people of color?
- wyager 10y ago> Free speech just for white men isn't free speech at all. What you're describing here doesn't exist on any mainstream websites. On the other hand, there are plenty of women-only or PoC-only subreddits, for example. So while what you're saying is true, I'm not really sure why it's relevant. > exclusionary You're creating a false equivalence between two different concepts of "exclusion"; one is actual enforced exclusion (like banning people whose opinions you don't like) and the other is when someone gets their feelings hurt because they don't like what's being said on a website. > Do you shut up some idiots who have nothing but purely harmful things to say, or all people of color? You're doing it again. "Shut up" means, in one case, banning people, and in the other case, when they (hypothetically) choose to leave of their own accord because they don't like the community.
- intortus 10y agoThere are a number of subreddits for women or people of color that have been very articulate about precisely this problem. They are assaulted on an ongoing basis in a way that most communities full of white men never have to worry about. That is an affront to free speech. It's not about feelings. People don't tend to swim upstream when searching for community. Why should they? If a platform demonstrates over and over that it lacks both the will and means to protect marginalized communities from personal and private abuse, then its demographics will remain significantly white and male, and they will set the tone for what is normal and permissible rather than the people who are at risk. Choosing to favor no one is not a choice that's available to us, because it's effectively choosing the most exclusionary voice.
- nekohacker 10y agoTwoXChromosomes deals with this a lot.
- gonmf 10y agoI take it you agree with kicking out the minority on websites that prefer racist, hate spewing bullies then? I take it you wouldn't suggest they be forcefully closed down or anything? As long as the majority is happy, you wouldn't oppose a state to kick out their minorities right? Consensus rule is the right way to go right? All of these questions are meant in a sarcastic tone.