I won’t try to speak for any “objective” standard here, I’m just saying the way I see it. Having a viewpoint about the Gaza flotilla protestors that is, to me, just objectively wrong, is okay. Telling another Lemmy commenter that they, the Lemmy commenter, should kill themselves is not. I can see how there could be debate about the first thing, but the second one is forbidden in practically every place on Lemmy that I know of.
Because once you start laying down the rules for what people are and are not allowed to say about some particular world situation, it’s hard to know when to stop.
I just used the same logic of you to prove that your argument is so dumb
Having a viewpoint about the Gaza flotilla protestors that is, to me, just objectively wrong, is okay.
You can think the idea of those Flotilla is wrong but you can justify their members to be mistreated by Israel. Why are you ok with people blaming the victim? Why are you allowing things that civilized people and international laws don’t accept?
I just used the same logic of you to prove that your argument is so dumb
Fair enough, I guess. My point was that personally I don’t feel comfortable saying that people can only say viewpoints about world events that I’m comfortable with or that I think are right.
It’s fine to reply to the wrong person and say “WTF, that is victim blaming, you are wrong.” To me, the evils that arise when a moderator steps in and says “That is victim blaming, not permitted,” and deletes the comment, far outweigh the harm of just having to pick through some wrong comments every now and then while you are reading your comments sections.
You can think the idea of those Flotilla is wrong but you can justify their members to be mistreated by Israel. Why are you ok with people blaming the victim?
You need to direct these questions at the person that made the comment, not at me.
If you think that any comment I “oppose” is going to be one I remove, you’re in the wrong community. There are plenty that do operate that way, I will kindly recommend that you go try them instead, if that’s the Lemmy experience you are looking for. There are a lot. Trying to browbeat me into deleting the bad opinions from this community is not going to work, though, although I’m happy to spend at least a little time explaining to you why I operate that way (up to a point I guess).
Again human right abuses is not a matter of opinions, as a civilized and responsible admin you should remove comments justifying human right abuses.
I don’t expect you to remove any comments you oppose , i expect you to remove comments that justify human right abuses.
If you don’t think beating someone , interrupt their sleeps, deny them water for over 24h hours is not human right abuses please explain how they are not
i expect you to remove comments that justify human right abuses.
Why?
I have enough faith in Lemmy readers to be able to read a comment that justifies human rights abuses and manage to avoid thinking to themselves, “You know what, he’s got a point. It does make perfect sense to beat someone, interrupt their sleeps, deny them water for over 24 hours.” And, if there is someone out there who’s stupid enough to just believe and absorb anything they read in any random Lemmy comment, then I think having a variety of viewpoints good and bad, and also seeing some counterpoints, and over time coming to the realization that they shouldn’t just believe everything, and instead develop some tools for critical interpretation of what they read (and a viewpoint that’s been exposed to a lot of different things including some very bad ones), I think that’s probably the best way to educate that person out of it.
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/slippery-slope-fallacy/
I won’t try to speak for any “objective” standard here, I’m just saying the way I see it. Having a viewpoint about the Gaza flotilla protestors that is, to me, just objectively wrong, is okay. Telling another Lemmy commenter that they, the Lemmy commenter, should kill themselves is not. I can see how there could be debate about the first thing, but the second one is forbidden in practically every place on Lemmy that I know of.
Lol it is you who started using that fallacy
I just used the same logic of you to prove that your argument is so dumb
You can think the idea of those Flotilla is wrong but you can justify their members to be mistreated by Israel. Why are you ok with people blaming the victim? Why are you allowing things that civilized people and international laws don’t accept?
Fair enough, I guess. My point was that personally I don’t feel comfortable saying that people can only say viewpoints about world events that I’m comfortable with or that I think are right.
It’s fine to reply to the wrong person and say “WTF, that is victim blaming, you are wrong.” To me, the evils that arise when a moderator steps in and says “That is victim blaming, not permitted,” and deletes the comment, far outweigh the harm of just having to pick through some wrong comments every now and then while you are reading your comments sections.
You need to direct these questions at the person that made the comment, not at me.
No, i expect a responsible admin to oppose justifying human right abuses and do their job of removing those victim blaming comments
If you think that any comment I “oppose” is going to be one I remove, you’re in the wrong community. There are plenty that do operate that way, I will kindly recommend that you go try them instead, if that’s the Lemmy experience you are looking for. There are a lot. Trying to browbeat me into deleting the bad opinions from this community is not going to work, though, although I’m happy to spend at least a little time explaining to you why I operate that way (up to a point I guess).
Again human right abuses is not a matter of opinions, as a civilized and responsible admin you should remove comments justifying human right abuses.
I don’t expect you to remove any comments you oppose , i expect you to remove comments that justify human right abuses.
If you don’t think beating someone , interrupt their sleeps, deny them water for over 24h hours is not human right abuses please explain how they are not
Why?
I have enough faith in Lemmy readers to be able to read a comment that justifies human rights abuses and manage to avoid thinking to themselves, “You know what, he’s got a point. It does make perfect sense to beat someone, interrupt their sleeps, deny them water for over 24 hours.” And, if there is someone out there who’s stupid enough to just believe and absorb anything they read in any random Lemmy comment, then I think having a variety of viewpoints good and bad, and also seeing some counterpoints, and over time coming to the realization that they shouldn’t just believe everything, and instead develop some tools for critical interpretation of what they read (and a viewpoint that’s been exposed to a lot of different things including some very bad ones), I think that’s probably the best way to educate that person out of it.
I can’t believe that i found an admin that is even dumber than jordanlund