3 ms·

https://voat.co/v/Voat/3178819 https://voat.co/v/Voat/3178819 > Gas the kikes Race War Now is not an illegal threat. The supreme court has ruled that a threat

https://voat.co/v/Voat/3178819 https://voat.co/v/Voat/3178819 > Gas the kikes Race War Now is not an illegal threat. The supreme court has ruled that a threat needs a place and a time to be considered actionable or illegal. example: We're gassing the kikes at the Freemont Synagogue on 5th avenue, Tuesday. This is the most upvoted comment. We can say things like "it's a matter of perspective", but sometimes things are simply objectively shit. edit, to those of you who think I'm exaggerating, here is one comment in that thread out of many: "Fucking faggots...meanwhile Antifa gets run of every liberal city in the country while the nigs murder us daily...and we aren't even allowed to talk about clownworld." Pretty much any place on the internet that promotes itself solely on being a "free speech zone/place" is trash. Theoretically they should be fine but in practice they just always attract assholes and people who want to say very edgy things. Someone should coin it, "the law of internet free speech zones" or something. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. Proper places of discussion don't have comments like "gas the kikes isn't technically hate speech so we should be allowed to say it here". You can always go ahead and host such a place if you want, but I'll stick to HN, Tildes, and Reddit instead so I can have reasonable discussion.

matz1 7y ago
Obviously for the people who posting it and maybe many more people, it is not shit. Well, its trash for you but treasure for others. To them you are the assholes for calling it trash or wanting to get rid of it. Its all have to do with agreeing and disagreeing. To them proper places of discussion is the place where you can have comments like that. Its all matter of prespective.
- sagichmal 7y ago
  We do get to say that some perspectives are right and some are wrong. Humans are moral agents, we have that ability. And those are wrong.
  - matz1 7y ago
    Yes human are moral agents and at the same time every human are different. What one called "wrong" might not be wrong for other.
    - freehunter 7y ago
      For example, Ted Bundy thought that murdering people was not wrong. We need to respect his morals and allow him to murder freely, because every human has different morals and although the murder victim thinks it's "wrong", we need to respect the opinion of the murderer too.
      - matz1 7y ago
        No, depends on your morality. If you thought murder was not wrong than it make sense to respect and follow Ted Bundy but if you thought that murder is wrong, its more sense for you to do the opposite.
    - sagichmal 7y ago
      I don't care about what murderers or white supremacists think. Their morality is wrong, and they don't deserve a seat at society's table.
      - matz1 7y ago
        Likewise murderer or white supermacis can say the same thing, that they don't care what you think, your morality is wrong and you don't deserve a seat at society's table
        sagichmal 7y ago
        Yes, and one of us is right, and another one of us is wrong. That's fine.
        matz1 7y ago
- intertextuality 7y ago
  No, it's objectively dumpster trash. Dig deeper in the linked post and you'll see way worse comments. There are subjective things and there are objective things. What you're doing at this moment (trying to justify both sides) is intellectually dishonest. > To them you are the assholes for calling it trash or wanting to get rid of it. A child might call their parents stupid for not letting them eat candy all day. Objectively the parents are not stupid, the child has a mistaken perspective. From the perspective of a hypergiant star, the sun is not that big. This does not change the objective truth that the sun is a large object. I hope you realize you are justifying horrible, vile speech by trying to "see both sides".
  - matz1 7y ago
    I saw the post and i think its interesting. Glad to see different kind of discussion compared to reddit or hn. In the prespective of the child, the parent might be stupid. Even in the perspective of other parent, some parent might not consider it stupid. This just show "large" is relative. I'm not justifying horrible, vile speech because I disagree that the speech is horrible or vile.
  - maximus1983 7y ago
    You obviously didn't read what I said. > There are subjective things and there are objective things. What you're doing at this moment (trying to justify both sides) is intellectually dishonest. Well you didn't really justify anything or understand what I said and then accused me of acting in bad faith. Lovely. > A child might call their parents stupid for not letting them eat candy all day. Objectively the parents are not stupid, the child has a mistaken perspective. Also the nanny state that you are promoting will have the opposite effect of what you want. Most of the places that have draconian rules are normally the places where most of the vice occurs ... it just happens out of sight of the authorities. > I hope you realize you are justifying horrible, vile speech by trying to "see both sides". I believe in freedom of speech. If people cannot say vile things they cannot be corrected by the rest of society, by silencing them you will just force it underground where it will fester. Well done you are making the problem worse.
- tastroder 7y ago
  Sorry but when you justify giving abhorrent statements like that a platform with perspective, please keep in mind that this absolute definition of free speech is not reflected in the whole world. Posting something like that in Germany would likely get you at least some sort of lawsuit and from my "perspective" that's a good thing. We as society can certainly discuss where the specific line is that needs to be crossed but I'm sure we can defend free speech without giving rise to radicals and people that actively advertise killing people because of their race, gender, or religion.
  - matz1 7y ago
    My point is that there are no one correct action that everyone will agree. There are no specific line that everyone will happy with. Its boil down to whoever win on the battle. The winning side get to decide the meaning of free speech, the meaning of radicals, right or wrong or where the line is.
    - tastroder 7y ago
      I guess don't get what you're trying to say then. Yes, society as a whole has a collective opinion that forms the mainstream and defines a) what's outside of that and b) what to do with those outside of it. Do you see a problem in excluding these opinions from mainstream platforms like Facebook and reddit? Even with a pretty open stance towards free speech I see excluding people posting racist death threats from a platform I use to look at cat pictures as a positive.
      - matz1 7y ago
        Yes at least for me it is a problem. I want to see those opinion.
        tastroder 7y ago
        Appreciate the discussion even though I'm sure I won't convince you of my viewpoint. I don't know why you would seek input from these types of people but you can, just not on the mainstream platforms. Your desire to inform yourself just does not outweigh the danger of extremist recruitment when giving these views a platform according to current consensus. I see moderating who can participate in a group as part of the opinion that this thread seems to try and uphold. If reddit (as the more or less democratic whole, not the company or technical system) prefers not to give terrorists, white supremacists or whatever fringe group that is based on hatred a platform you're free to see that as a problem, it's just not one the mainstream agrees with.
- UncleMeat 7y ago
  Will you be saying it is all a matter of perspective when they are executing black people?
  - lopmotr 7y ago
    If you use that standard to judge what speech should be censored, then you need to censor just about everything. Perhaps starting with any talk about international relations because it might lead to war, and violent rap music, and criticism of people for their political views. Even yourself for suggesting that Voat users might start executing black people. What if that belief leads to violent retaliation by someone who reads it? That actually happened with Black Lives Matter - its ideas led at least one person to execute innocent policemen. Before you judge something as morally right or wrong, you have to have a standard that you're judging it by. Otherwise you'll just end up making ad-hoc decisions that depend on your emotions at the moment with no particular meaning or direction. Your morals will wander aimlessly in the space of possible morals, pushed this way and that by peer pressure and the media. They'll also develop internal inconsistencies. What's the use of an aimless moral? You might as well just pick them randomly.
  - matz1 7y ago
    Yes, why it isn't?
maximus1983 7y ago
You do realise that most of this language is from people that are deeply frustrated at the situation they live in and vent on the Internet. Yes they said mean words on the internet? Who cares? I don't. > Pretty much any place on the internet that promotes itself solely on being a "free speech zone/place" is trash. Twitter is equally trash and has plenty of Anti-White, Anti-Jew (mostly in Arabic but nobody talks about it) and Anti-Men rhetoric, Violent threats towards Children and people get a free pass because they have a blue checkmark by their name and the "right" politics. Also the term Hate speech is an ill defined term, which is used when convenient if someone has the wrong politics (e.g. centre-right, libertarian, conservative or religious). The terms is soo badly defined in law that people in the UK are going to prison for posting offensive rap lyrics on facebook. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 > Proper places of discussion don't have comments like "gas the kikes isn't technically hate speech so we should be allowed to say it here". Absolute garbage. This is snobbery and nothing more. I would argue that by just siloing people on the internet it is actually making discussion in general more problematic. In the past, we used IRC, AOL chat room and other things with no moderation. If someone was just being rude all the time, people just ended up ignoring them and they left ... I miss the old internet.

matz1 7y ago

Obviously for the people who posting it and maybe many more people, it is not shit. Well, its trash for you but treasure for others. To them you are the assholes for calling it trash or wanting to get rid of it. Its all have to do with agreeing and disagreeing. To them proper places of discussion is the place where you can have comments like that. Its all matter of prespective.

sagichmal 7y ago
We do get to say that some perspectives are right and some are wrong. Humans are moral agents, we have that ability. And those are wrong.
- matz1 7y ago
  Yes human are moral agents and at the same time every human are different. What one called "wrong" might not be wrong for other.
  - freehunter 7y ago
    For example, Ted Bundy thought that murdering people was not wrong. We need to respect his morals and allow him to murder freely, because every human has different morals and although the murder victim thinks it's "wrong", we need to respect the opinion of the murderer too.
    - matz1 7y ago
      No, depends on your morality. If you thought murder was not wrong than it make sense to respect and follow Ted Bundy but if you thought that murder is wrong, its more sense for you to do the opposite.
  - sagichmal 7y ago
    I don't care about what murderers or white supremacists think. Their morality is wrong, and they don't deserve a seat at society's table.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Likewise murderer or white supermacis can say the same thing, that they don't care what you think, your morality is wrong and you don't deserve a seat at society's table
      - sagichmal 7y ago
        Yes, and one of us is right, and another one of us is wrong. That's fine.
        matz1 7y ago
intertextuality 7y ago
No, it's objectively dumpster trash. Dig deeper in the linked post and you'll see way worse comments. There are subjective things and there are objective things. What you're doing at this moment (trying to justify both sides) is intellectually dishonest. > To them you are the assholes for calling it trash or wanting to get rid of it. A child might call their parents stupid for not letting them eat candy all day. Objectively the parents are not stupid, the child has a mistaken perspective. From the perspective of a hypergiant star, the sun is not that big. This does not change the objective truth that the sun is a large object. I hope you realize you are justifying horrible, vile speech by trying to "see both sides".
- matz1 7y ago
  I saw the post and i think its interesting. Glad to see different kind of discussion compared to reddit or hn. In the prespective of the child, the parent might be stupid. Even in the perspective of other parent, some parent might not consider it stupid. This just show "large" is relative. I'm not justifying horrible, vile speech because I disagree that the speech is horrible or vile.
- maximus1983 7y ago
  You obviously didn't read what I said. > There are subjective things and there are objective things. What you're doing at this moment (trying to justify both sides) is intellectually dishonest. Well you didn't really justify anything or understand what I said and then accused me of acting in bad faith. Lovely. > A child might call their parents stupid for not letting them eat candy all day. Objectively the parents are not stupid, the child has a mistaken perspective. Also the nanny state that you are promoting will have the opposite effect of what you want. Most of the places that have draconian rules are normally the places where most of the vice occurs ... it just happens out of sight of the authorities. > I hope you realize you are justifying horrible, vile speech by trying to "see both sides". I believe in freedom of speech. If people cannot say vile things they cannot be corrected by the rest of society, by silencing them you will just force it underground where it will fester. Well done you are making the problem worse.
tastroder 7y ago
Sorry but when you justify giving abhorrent statements like that a platform with perspective, please keep in mind that this absolute definition of free speech is not reflected in the whole world. Posting something like that in Germany would likely get you at least some sort of lawsuit and from my "perspective" that's a good thing. We as society can certainly discuss where the specific line is that needs to be crossed but I'm sure we can defend free speech without giving rise to radicals and people that actively advertise killing people because of their race, gender, or religion.
- matz1 7y ago
  My point is that there are no one correct action that everyone will agree. There are no specific line that everyone will happy with. Its boil down to whoever win on the battle. The winning side get to decide the meaning of free speech, the meaning of radicals, right or wrong or where the line is.
  - tastroder 7y ago
    I guess don't get what you're trying to say then. Yes, society as a whole has a collective opinion that forms the mainstream and defines a) what's outside of that and b) what to do with those outside of it. Do you see a problem in excluding these opinions from mainstream platforms like Facebook and reddit? Even with a pretty open stance towards free speech I see excluding people posting racist death threats from a platform I use to look at cat pictures as a positive.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Yes at least for me it is a problem. I want to see those opinion.
      - tastroder 7y ago
        Appreciate the discussion even though I'm sure I won't convince you of my viewpoint. I don't know why you would seek input from these types of people but you can, just not on the mainstream platforms. Your desire to inform yourself just does not outweigh the danger of extremist recruitment when giving these views a platform according to current consensus. I see moderating who can participate in a group as part of the opinion that this thread seems to try and uphold. If reddit (as the more or less democratic whole, not the company or technical system) prefers not to give terrorists, white supremacists or whatever fringe group that is based on hatred a platform you're free to see that as a problem, it's just not one the mainstream agrees with.
UncleMeat 7y ago
Will you be saying it is all a matter of perspective when they are executing black people?
- lopmotr 7y ago
  If you use that standard to judge what speech should be censored, then you need to censor just about everything. Perhaps starting with any talk about international relations because it might lead to war, and violent rap music, and criticism of people for their political views. Even yourself for suggesting that Voat users might start executing black people. What if that belief leads to violent retaliation by someone who reads it? That actually happened with Black Lives Matter - its ideas led at least one person to execute innocent policemen. Before you judge something as morally right or wrong, you have to have a standard that you're judging it by. Otherwise you'll just end up making ad-hoc decisions that depend on your emotions at the moment with no particular meaning or direction. Your morals will wander aimlessly in the space of possible morals, pushed this way and that by peer pressure and the media. They'll also develop internal inconsistencies. What's the use of an aimless moral? You might as well just pick them randomly.
- matz1 7y ago
  Yes, why it isn't?

maximus1983 7y ago

You do realise that most of this language is from people that are deeply frustrated at the situation they live in and vent on the Internet. Yes they said mean words on the internet? Who cares? I don't. > Pretty much any place on the internet that promotes itself solely on being a "free speech zone/place" is trash. Twitter is equally trash and has plenty of Anti-White, Anti-Jew (mostly in Arabic but nobody talks about it) and Anti-Men rhetoric, Violent threats towards Children and people get a free pass because they have a blue checkmark by their name and the "right" politics. Also the term Hate speech is an ill defined term, which is used when convenient if someone has the wrong politics (e.g. centre-right, libertarian, conservative or religious). The terms is soo badly defined in law that people in the UK are going to prison for posting offensive rap lyrics on facebook. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 > Proper places of discussion don't have comments like "gas the kikes isn't technically hate speech so we should be allowed to say it here". Absolute garbage. This is snobbery and nothing more. I would argue that by just siloing people on the internet it is actually making discussion in general more problematic. In the past, we used IRC, AOL chat room and other things with no moderation. If someone was just being rude all the time, people just ended up ignoring them and they left ... I miss the old internet.