The main issue comes from people not actually debating in good faith or their arguments boiling down to “I just don’t think people that are different from me should exist.”
Echo chambers aren’t good sure, just look at the .ml instances, but allowing “free speech” and bigotry isn’t good as well.
Echo chambers aren’t good sure, just look at the .ml instances, but allowing “free speech” and bigotry isn’t good as well.
The problem with this is that sites like Reddit, Lemmy, old Twitter, and old (and possibly current) facebook, is that anything that goes against the echo chamber is called “bigotry” or any of the “phobic”'s and is censored, further cementing the echo chamber.
Care to cite an example of an opinion that was rejected? And make sure it’s not something pro-Zionist, pro-ICE, anti-trans, anti-Medicare, or pro-any person who holds those viewpoints. Those stances reject sanctity of human life.
I’ll grant that trans people in sports is one issue that has some nuance to it.
The core problem I’d like to solve there is deciding where trans people can compete. The lawmakers that have fought to “protect women’s sports” generally only care about one faction, and have offered no solution for where these people could compete; denying them an entire life opportunity for no reason other than not finding a space for them. That’s why it’s called anti-trans.
What’s more, when the issue comes up, it’s at a State or even Federal level regarding one singular person in one school in that state. That’s a haunting level of personal focus on one’s life, especially in a lack of harmful actions to deserve it. We’ve had far smaller legislative responses to mass shootings.
Trans women, especially, don’t want anything other than to compete against women - this was evident by world swimming creating a trans category alongside the men’s and women’s and then not a single trans athlete registering, so they scrapped it.
Trans women can compete with the men since they are the male sex, and sport is separated by sex, not gender. Gender doesn’t make the average male significantly bigger/stronger/faster than the average woman - sex does.
Trans men can compete with women provided their testosterone levels fall in the accepted levels. If they choose to take lots of testosterone - a performance enhancing drug - then like any other woman they can’t compete.
The only real issue is that trans women want to compete against women because they can dominate.
Wanting men to stay out of women’s sports and other spaces is not “anti-trans”. I, as a male, shouldn’t be going to women’s gyms, saunas, doctors, etc. It’s not hate or fear of trans women, it’s simply understanding why those womens only places exist in the first place.
Yes, that is a problem when it comes to having discussions with others, especially if political tribalism is heavily involved.
Echo chambers aren’t good sure, just look at the .ml instances,
It seems . ML has an echo chamber problem then.
allowing “free speech” and bigotry isn’t good as well.
It is free speech and our first amendment right; privately owned platforms do like to hinder and censor dissidents, with help from the government.
It has to be consistent because it is always used for one side first, then it is used against the other later on.
I think we have found out that many free speech absolutists are hypocrites and were using it as an excuse to help their profits.
I think Glenn Greenwald is an excellent example of someone with consistency when he shares his views and critiques, especially when you see his background:
Glenn Edward Greenwald is an American journalist, author, and former lawyer. In 1996, Greenwald founded a law firm concentrating on First Amendment litigation.
This goes back to tribalism within politics and what propaganda apparatus we each prefer to consume on the daily.
I am always going to be highly critical of all governments, oligarchy-controlled media, and politicians.
The status quo is what is fed to the working class, but new media and the internet have helped fight the echo chambers and censorship we are born in; being pro-war and believing everything our governments tell us to believe will be much harder when there are multiple sources of information.
The far right is fucking allergic to answering yes or no questions with a yes or no. It’s a good sign of how they operate in bad faith; there’s no interest in locating a point of discussion where we agree.
The main issue comes from people not actually debating in good faith or their arguments boiling down to “I just don’t think people that are different from me should exist.”
Echo chambers aren’t good sure, just look at the .ml instances, but allowing “free speech” and bigotry isn’t good as well.
The problem with this is that sites like Reddit, Lemmy, old Twitter, and old (and possibly current) facebook, is that anything that goes against the echo chamber is called “bigotry” or any of the “phobic”'s and is censored, further cementing the echo chamber.
Care to cite an example of an opinion that was rejected? And make sure it’s not something pro-Zionist, pro-ICE, anti-trans, anti-Medicare, or pro-any person who holds those viewpoints. Those stances reject sanctity of human life.
I’d like to own a couple people but the government won’t let me and I keep on getting censored when I say in online.
You guys label “women’s sports is for women” as “anti-trans” though.
I’ll grant that trans people in sports is one issue that has some nuance to it.
The core problem I’d like to solve there is deciding where trans people can compete. The lawmakers that have fought to “protect women’s sports” generally only care about one faction, and have offered no solution for where these people could compete; denying them an entire life opportunity for no reason other than not finding a space for them. That’s why it’s called anti-trans.
What’s more, when the issue comes up, it’s at a State or even Federal level regarding one singular person in one school in that state. That’s a haunting level of personal focus on one’s life, especially in a lack of harmful actions to deserve it. We’ve had far smaller legislative responses to mass shootings.
Trans women, especially, don’t want anything other than to compete against women - this was evident by world swimming creating a trans category alongside the men’s and women’s and then not a single trans athlete registering, so they scrapped it.
Trans women can compete with the men since they are the male sex, and sport is separated by sex, not gender. Gender doesn’t make the average male significantly bigger/stronger/faster than the average woman - sex does.
Trans men can compete with women provided their testosterone levels fall in the accepted levels. If they choose to take lots of testosterone - a performance enhancing drug - then like any other woman they can’t compete.
The only real issue is that trans women want to compete against women because they can dominate.
Wanting men to stay out of women’s sports and other spaces is not “anti-trans”. I, as a male, shouldn’t be going to women’s gyms, saunas, doctors, etc. It’s not hate or fear of trans women, it’s simply understanding why those womens only places exist in the first place.
Yes, that is a problem when it comes to having discussions with others, especially if political tribalism is heavily involved.
It seems . ML has an echo chamber problem then.
It is free speech and our first amendment right; privately owned platforms do like to hinder and censor dissidents, with help from the government.
It has to be consistent because it is always used for one side first, then it is used against the other later on.
I think we have found out that many free speech absolutists are hypocrites and were using it as an excuse to help their profits.
I think Glenn Greenwald is an excellent example of someone with consistency when he shares his views and critiques, especially when you see his background:
Glen Greenward is extremely pro-Russia and continues to repeat debunked lies about Ukrainian biolabs.
This goes back to tribalism within politics and what propaganda apparatus we each prefer to consume on the daily.
I am always going to be highly critical of all governments, oligarchy-controlled media, and politicians.
The status quo is what is fed to the working class, but new media and the internet have helped fight the echo chambers and censorship we are born in; being pro-war and believing everything our governments tell us to believe will be much harder when there are multiple sources of information.
So do you think Putin’s corruption and oligarchy is bad?
This include the Russian and the United States government.
It’d be so much easier to talk to you if you stopped dog whistling and pussyfooting around what you’re trying to say.
The far right is fucking allergic to answering yes or no questions with a yes or no. It’s a good sign of how they operate in bad faith; there’s no interest in locating a point of discussion where we agree.
You are correct.
It is difficult to have discussions with people that do not share our views or way of thinking.
It takes a lot of time and effort IRL and on forums.
It’s the dog whistles that make it hard to tell what you are saying.