Lemdro.id

1 point

1 year ago

It’s not authoritarianism if your participation is voluntary, bud. Your opinion, as horrific as I can only imagine it is, might not be allowed on Beehaw, but Beehaw moderators can’t make you go there and post, either. If you invite someone over to your house and then they start telling you in the middle of dinner they think “[insert group here] deserves the gas chambers,” that might be “just an opinion” to them, but you’d be well within your rights to ask them to leave. You’re not an “authoritarian” for not tolerating their “difference of opinion,” because they have no real right to be there without your consent in the first place. Same deal with any lemmy instance. I’m sorry your feelings are hurt that other people aren’t obligated to listen to whatever odious beliefs you have, but I think this XKCD sums it up best.

report

[ - ]

CorruptBuddha@lemmy.ca

1 point

1 year ago

It’s not authoritarianism if your participation is voluntary, bud.

I’m voluntarily having this conversation, but that doesn’t make you any less authoritarian.

Being well within your right to do something doesn’t make it not authoritatian.

If you invited me over for a party, and then kicked me out for a political opinion, yes that’s authoritianism.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

Okay, so, first of all, thank you. I’m really glad you made this comment because it basically just proves by pure example that you literally just don’t know what the definition of the word “authoritarian” is.

It’s ironic, really, because your own definition of authoritarianism (which is pretty much just people creating and enforcing rules for how you interact with them) implies that what you really don’t like is the fact that you lack the ability to force your own will on others. Beehaw’s administrators and moderators don’t want you there because you insist on being able to voice beliefs that they find offensive or dangerous, but the implication of your criticism of them as “authoritarian” is that you think they shouldn’t have the power to keep you out, and that you should have the power to come and go as you please and to say whatever you want without consequence or censure. In other words, you want the authority to force others to cater to your desires and to run the website in a way that benefits you, at the cost of what others may want. If others don’t want to be around you or interact with you because they find the way you act to be harmful or offensive, but you think they should be forced to tolerate your presence and be forced to interact with you regardless, then you’re saying you think you should be able to impose your own will over theirs.

Does this…remind you of anything?

report

[ - ]

CorruptBuddha@lemmy.ca

1 point

1 year ago

Dude you project a LOT of convulted shit.

In other words, you want the authority to force others to cater to your desires and to run the website in a way that benefits you, at the cost of what others may want.

I’m a fucking anarchist 😂 Please quote me exactly where I said I want authority to force others to cater to my desires. The exact sentence.

Also just a heads up, when you start spewing a bunch of bullshit like “it’s not authoritianism because you have no valid claim to rights.” I don’t see the point in arguing. If fudging details makes you feel happy, that’s your choice.

And your xkcd comic was shit. I’ve seen it, and it makes me fucking sad Randall Munroe could produce such ignorant drivel. Freedom of speech exists beyond it’s legal representations. Like holy fuck, that is a BAD argument.

For fun, want to go into some of the implications of what you’re saying? For example, in a hypothetical would you be okay with beehaw refusing to serve gay members? You’d be okay with that?

And McDonald’s could do the same eh? Or XYX cake company. Or a fucking private hospital. Where’s your line? Do you have one?

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

I’m a fucking anarchist 😂

Being an ancap doesn’t count. That’s not a real ideology.

Please quote me exactly where I said I want authority to force others to cater to my desires. The exact sentence.

There’s text and then there’s subtext. You want access to a private space that can serve as a platform for you to voice your opinions, even when the people already in that private space don’t want you there or to have to listen to you. Your desire for authority over that space is a foundational component of that.

Also just a heads up, when you start spewing a bunch of bullshit like “it’s not authoritianism because you have no valid claim to rights.” I don’t see the point in arguing. If fudging details makes you feel happy, that’s your choice.

It’s not bullshit, though, because that’s the underlying premise of an authoritarian regime, particularly in a governmental sense: you have an authority that ignores the collective will of the people of a nation state. Those people have a valid claim to rights by virtue of their relationship to that nation as its citizens. You claiming that it’s authoritarian to bar your entrance into a private online community is like saying it’s authoritarian for someone to lock their doors to keep you out of their house. You don’t have some inalienable right to access EVERY single space that exists in the physical or virtual world.

Freedom of speech exists beyond it’s legal representations. Like holy fuck, that is a BAD argument.

Except, it really doesn’t. Private individuals don’t owe you a platform. And that’s what you’re demanding. You seem to be conflating those two things: freedom of speech and a platform. They’re different things. You can’t be compelled to express opinions that you don’t hold by the threat of state violence. That’s freedom of speech. But you’re also not owed a mechanism by which to broadcast those things. In America, for example, you can put a sign in your yard calling for virtually any kind of political policy change, ideological position, or political candidate that you want. But you don’t have the inalienable right to stick the same sign in your neighbor’s yard. Your argument is, basically, that, yes, you actually do, and no one should be able to stop you.

Also, it’s “its legal representation” not “it’s legal representation.” “Its” indicates possession. “It’s” is a contraction of “it” and “is.” Just a heads up, since you don’t seem to know the difference.

For example, in a hypothetical would you be okay with beehaw refusing to serve gay members? You’d be okay with that?

I’m sure you think this is some big “gotcha,” but it isn’t. If you recall, I said, “Beehaw’s administrators and moderators don’t want you there because you insist on being able to voice beliefs that they find offensive or dangerous.” The implication is that they aren’t responding to your identity (such as being LGBT), they’re responding to behavior (what you say and do). These are different things, and your hypothetical actively and transparently misrepresents Beehaw’s moderators in that regard. That said, there are plenty of privately hosted websites out there that are deeply reactionary. Stormfront is a famous one. Places like this are ran by people who hold beliefs that I find absolutely despicable, and I’m sure they would actively ban anyone who was LGBT, leftist, anti-racist, etc., but I do believe they should have the freedom to host their own terrible little corner of the internet without a government shutting them down or compelling them to conform to some arbitrary standard of behavior. Suggesting otherwise would obviously open the door for a government to do the same to progressive spaces with impunity. Which, historically, most Western governments have already done…a lot. But it seems ill advised to try and make that any easier than it already is.

Your other examples are just terrible to the point of not even being worth individual acknowledgment. Businesses, hospitals, educational institutions, and other, similar organizations are typically subject to anti-discriminatory regulation on the basis of federal funding and some kind of critical material relationship with the populace as a whole. In other words, banning someone from a hospital or from employment on the basis of their identity is a material detriment to the collective public good. Banning someone from a private internet forum, however, is not, because labor, commerce, medical care, and internet forums are all different things that should probably be governed and regulated in different ways. This is, of course, how it is in the USA, but other places have similar statutes. Additionally, if you get money from the government, you automatically play by its rules. Places like Beehaw are private. Totally private. They receive no financial support from any government in any way. Whether you feel any of this is justifiable or not ultimately boils down to your perspective on the concept of freedom of association. You clearly don’t believe individuals should be allowed freedom of association, seemingly in any capacity, and I clearly do.

report

[ - ]

CorruptBuddha@lemmy.ca

1 point

1 year ago

Being an ancap doesn’t count. That’s not a real ideology.

🥱

There’s text and then there’s subtext. You want access to a private space that can serve as a platform for you to voice your opinions

Dude where did I even say I want access to beehaw? You are completely full of shit. Subtext in this instance is just you making things up.

It’s not bullshit, though, because that’s the underlying premise of an authoritarian regime

In your mind yes, we’ve established your narrow view. In reality, no.

You don’t have some inalienable right to access EVERY single space that exists in the physical or virtual world.

Dude, drop the damn strawman arguments. I can judge beehaw without demanding access to it, which is exactly what I’ve done.

Stormfront is a famous one. Places like this are ran by people who hold beliefs that I find absolutely despicable, and I’m sure they would actively ban anyone who was LGBT, leftist, anti-racist, etc.,

And you wouldn’t see this as authoritatianism? Like you are so dense you’re unable to see distinction between communities?

In other words, banning someone from a hospital or from employment on the basis of their identity is a material detriment to the collective public good.

… I’m not a collectivist.

So just to be clear, you don’t believe in civil rights on an individual level? You see civil rights as contingent on government funding, and social norms? I see civil rights an an extension of personal autonomy.

So what about pre-civil war when legally blacks weren’t seen as people by law or social norms?

What happens when say… Abortions are determined to be against the collective good by a population? Body rights just stop being a thing?

Anyways I specifically talking about hypotheticals. Government funding and social norms aren’t relevant to whether you’d personally be okay with McDonald’s discriminating against gays, and whether you could understand that to be authoritarian. To make this easier we can pretend it’s a small business under 15 employees with no government funding.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

where did I even say I want access to beehaw?

If you don’t want access to Beehaw and don’t think you’re entitled to it, then you must be admitting that you think it was totally okay for them to ban you, then.

In reality, no.

This is just pure contradiction. You’re not even trying to make an argument anymore.

I can judge beehaw without demanding access to it, which is exactly what I’ve done.

So you agree that you have no right to any kind of access to that website and that your complaints are purely superficial? Great, that’s progress.

So just to be clear, you don’t believe in civil rights on an individual level? You see civil rights as contingent on government funding, and social norms? I see civil rights an an extension of personal autonomy.

I can guarantee I privately believe in civil rights as an ideal more than you do. That includes the rights of the owners and administrators of a website like Beehaw to dictate admission and participation guidelines for their private website. I believe in freedom of association, and you don’t. We’ve already established that much.

I specifically talking about hypotheticals.

You specifically talk in whataboutisms. They’re hypotheticals that are irrelevant to the discussion because we’re talking about a privately held website, not labor, not healthcare, and not commerce, and we’re talking about instances of behavior being policed, not discrimination on the basis of identity. These are fundamentally different things which you merely perceive, wrongly, to be equivalent. Someone banning you for expressing a horrible opinion is not the same thing as someone refusing to provide you with medical care on the basis of being gay. In spite of what you seem to believe, you are not being persecuted for your beliefs. You have merely experienced the “find out” part of “fucking around.” These are, once again, different things.

In fact, let’s examine what happened: you went on Beehaw and the first comment you made was, essentially, “wow, fuck Beehaw, this place sucks lol, I don’t want to EVER see any content from this instance - this place is a stupid fucking echo chamber” and the second one is “I want to be able to talk about how gay people are grooming kids on this website that very explicitly bills itself as a safe space for LGBT persons and other minority groups” and then a mod did you a favor and banned you before you had the opportunity to embarrass yourself further. Seriously, I really don’t understand why you’re upset that you told the moderators you didn’t want anything to do with their website and then they did you the favor of keeping you from ever accidentally posting something there ever again. You very literally did everything in your power to get banned short of explicitly requesting one in writing. And as the first mod that replied to you in your first comment told you, “you don’t have to come here if you don’t want to.” Maybe you should have, I dunno…listened to them?

report