4 ms·
Eh, from what I know, it was very much ideological, at least that's what I heard from people I knew working with it. To quote the dev on this himself: >And pu
by esyir 5y ago
Eh, from what I know, it was very much ideological, at least that's what I heard from people I knew working with it.
To quote the dev on this himself:
>And putting it in a DB table means someone could very easily remove it by deleting every row of that table, which isn't good. I want to make it very difficult for racist trolls to use the most updated version of Lemmy.
- throwaway894345 5y ago[flagged]
- true_religion 5y agoI don’t think so. It’s hard to believe someone becomes racists merely from hearing that racism is banned. The issue of hating billions of people is too serious to develop as a form of devil’s advocacy. As for the issue of identity politics, I think that’s another discussion entirely.
- throwaway894345 5y ago> It’s hard to believe someone becomes racists merely from hearing that racism is banned. Narrowly, I agree, but we all know that there's a lot of ideological baggage associated with "racism" as a term and specifically how it's brandied about and by whom. At this point, how you talk about racism signals a side in a culture war in which "both sides" are illiberal--and of course the inconvenient liberal center whose existence threatens both sides' dichotomous narratives ("yeah we're illiberal, but those guys are even more illiberal"). > The issue of hating billions of people is too serious to develop as a form of devil’s advocacy. Not in America where racism is incessantly used as a political football by the left and the right (for example, left wing Twitter has been doing its best to racialize the Rittenhouse saga despite that all parties were white; similarly right). > As for the issue of identity politics, I think that’s another discussion entirely. As previously mentioned, it's deeply intertwined with how we talk about "racism".