• chuckleslord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 hours ago

    An echo chamber where the barriers are “don’t advocate for bigotry” and “don’t be a bigot”? Damn. Mighty big echo chamber ya got here. You can fit all sorts of amicable disagreements in here. Hell, you can even fit nearly uncivil ones too! Boy howdy there sure is a lot of space to disagree when the limits are this far out.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      That’s great if you can trust the moderation/censorship team to use a rational definition of bigotry. But what usually happens is they begin to enforce the standards of an ever-closing Overton window, to the point that mere disagreement with the hive mind is considered bigotry.

      The limits of discourse never stay “this far out”. Moderation distills this enforced consensus into a weird, unhinged fanaticism, one “deviant” at a time.

    • pyrflie@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      I have no respect for the term bigot as I have been called one for being antireligious in a pro-trans thread. But keep pushing a generic narrative that is anti-bigot. I’m sure it will never be used against you. It’s not like that’s a historic authoritarian tool to shut down critical speech.

      Limiting Speech is a peace treaty that should only get invoked when it’s broken.