4 ms·
Some of the examples in the article seem like a completely acceptable reason for a ban. There's never truth nor value in saying "<all members of (gender|race)>
by seattle_spring 6y ago
Some of the examples in the article seem like a completely acceptable reason for a ban. There's never truth nor value in saying "<all members of (gender|race)> exhibit <extremely bad trait>". Saying that sort of thing does nothing but increase divisiveness.
- belorn 6y agoWhat is social accepted violence and social unacceptable violence depend on who the aggressor is and who the victim is. It is one of the reason why i suspect the far-right and far-left seems to use similar wording and aggressive speech when describing the other side. The more extremely culturally aligned they are to either side, the less they see the violence for what it is. What is worse, I often also see rationalization of that violence by perpetrator that their own violence is justified if it challenge status quo, if it stands up for a principle, if the other side is perceived by them as being more violent, with little regard to if the violence was needed compared to a non violent response.
- retox 6y agoWhere is the violence here? These are words in a screen.
- ttt0 6y agoI don't think anyone should be banned from saying stuff like that, but what they're essentially saying here is "it's okay when we do it". Free speech for me, but not for thee.
- airbreather 6y agoExactly, I don't care if you are left wing or right wing, if you are extreme one or the other then it seems to usually be similar (often objectionable and not inclusive) behaviours with different view points. A meme I like but never saw until recently, "But what if I told you a bird needs both wings to fly?"