10 ms·

yeah, and the audacity of using a MLK quote to justify shitposting on a news aggregator isn't helping for me. a funny consequence of this is that the more redd

by dt2m 4y ago

yeah, and the audacity of using a MLK quote to justify shitposting on a news aggregator isn't helping for me. a funny consequence of this is that the more reddit/twitter bans content that doesn't align with their advertisers' interests, the more incentive there is to fragmentize the internet yet again. them creating a new website is exactly what every community should be doing - it makes the internet more diverse, even if the content is literal dogshit.

xupybd 4y ago
Literal dogshit is not far from the early days. The aesthetic reminds me of Geocities.
Traubenfuchs 4y ago
- rosndo 4y ago
  Well, that works as long as the … is some fairly unobjectionable group of people. It doesn’t work if you substitute it with “drunk drivers” for example. Not sure we should be too worried about “them” coming for a cyberbullying subreddit.
  - soundnote 4y ago
    I don't know if being unobjectionable is necessary. It helps, but: > The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H. L. Mencken
- FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
  - happymellon 4y ago
    I think thats really the point, the quote is supposed to be along the lines of "First they came for the <relatively unobjectionable group but which I wasn't a part of> so I remained silent". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... First they came for the Communists Then they came for the Socialists Then they came for the trade unionists There is nothing inherently wrong with any of the groups, you may or may not agree with any of them but wanting Communist ideals isn't inherently bad. Capitalists normally use the phrase that it all sounds good until it meets humans. Same with the socialists, who all they want is socially derived benefits from community owned services, and trade unionists just realise that the only way to gather any strength is through numbers. None of these ideals are bad. Saying things like "first they came for the neo-Nazis..." completely misses the point.
    - notreallyserio 4y ago
      > Saying things like "first they came for the neo-Nazis..." completely misses the point. I think the folks using this form understand the history of the saying but are deliberately changing it to show they are OK with the bans as long as they are limited to neo-nazis and the like. Once it moves past these neo-nazi recruitment forums we can start worrying about whether or not it is a slippery slope.
      - happymellon 4y ago
        Well the slope is simply, is this a group that you object to? If not then you should defend them in the same way that you would want to be defended. If you object to basement dwelling troll groups then the saying will also have no impact on them.
        notreallyserio 4y ago
        I object to the idea that they must be platformed by reddit and the like, but they can go ahead and create their own company to host their hateful content. I am in favor of network neutrality. I don't really care if the saying will have an impact on them. As far as I'm concerned they're unreachable -- at least I have zero chance of convincing them of anything, especially if I can only talk with them in a hate forum.

by dt2m 4y ago

xupybd 4y ago

Literal dogshit is not far from the early days. The aesthetic reminds me of Geocities.

Traubenfuchs 4y ago

rosndo 4y ago
Well, that works as long as the … is some fairly unobjectionable group of people. It doesn’t work if you substitute it with “drunk drivers” for example. Not sure we should be too worried about “them” coming for a cyberbullying subreddit.
- soundnote 4y ago
  I don't know if being unobjectionable is necessary. It helps, but: > The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H. L. Mencken
FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
- happymellon 4y ago
  I think thats really the point, the quote is supposed to be along the lines of "First they came for the <relatively unobjectionable group but which I wasn't a part of> so I remained silent". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... First they came for the Communists Then they came for the Socialists Then they came for the trade unionists There is nothing inherently wrong with any of the groups, you may or may not agree with any of them but wanting Communist ideals isn't inherently bad. Capitalists normally use the phrase that it all sounds good until it meets humans. Same with the socialists, who all they want is socially derived benefits from community owned services, and trade unionists just realise that the only way to gather any strength is through numbers. None of these ideals are bad. Saying things like "first they came for the neo-Nazis..." completely misses the point.
  - notreallyserio 4y ago
    > Saying things like "first they came for the neo-Nazis..." completely misses the point. I think the folks using this form understand the history of the saying but are deliberately changing it to show they are OK with the bans as long as they are limited to neo-nazis and the like. Once it moves past these neo-nazi recruitment forums we can start worrying about whether or not it is a slippery slope.
    - happymellon 4y ago
      Well the slope is simply, is this a group that you object to? If not then you should defend them in the same way that you would want to be defended. If you object to basement dwelling troll groups then the saying will also have no impact on them.
      - notreallyserio 4y ago
        I object to the idea that they must be platformed by reddit and the like, but they can go ahead and create their own company to host their hateful content. I am in favor of network neutrality. I don't really care if the saying will have an impact on them. As far as I'm concerned they're unreachable -- at least I have zero chance of convincing them of anything, especially if I can only talk with them in a hate forum.