• Wenjarich
    +1

    Sure the terms racist and misogynist etc can be misused but when people are not being hateful, but you are also essentially doing the same thing by assuming everyone who points out racism and misogyny to be wrong. My point is when those legitimate cases arise it is also our right to not want to listen to them. No one is saying they don't have the right to say that stuff, we are saying we don't want to listen to them say it. The next question is how you decide what is legitimate and what isn't.

    That in my opinion is part of what is being consider within the discussions around changing the downvote button to a report button or rather change it's symbol so it is not considered the opposite of upvote along with the requirement of giving a reason. That way people are more likely to stop and think as to whether this is occurring due to simply not liking the point or because it is hateful and doesn't actually contribute to the conversation.

    As far as disallowing the forming of tribes and such goes, that's a little more difficult to define. But when you have the word hate with regard to a group of people in the name of your tribe, you are essentially announcing that you are practicing hate speech.

    I feel I should also say though, seeing as Snapzu never did claim to be a champion of free speech and that they are always going to be against discrimination and such, it's kind of just up to us to then say, "well do we want to be part of that community. " It's like walking into a chess club then getting angry if they no longer want you there when all you to do is talk about is football. They have defined who they "as a club" are and we have to decide if that's what we want to be part of. The reason it is more important to enforce free speech in a country but not as important on a site is that people have a choice as to whether they are on a particular site or not. Very few people have a choice as to whether they are in the country they are in.

    • shiranaihito
      +2

      Of course there are real racists and real misogynists out there, but that doesn't make it alright for people to use those words as bludgeons with which to silence people who are making them uncomfortable (by making sense and pointing out things they don't want to accept).

      I haven't claimed that "everyone who points out racism" is wrong, and I don't think that way (because there are legitimate cases and I'm not an idiot).

      What would you change the downvote button to? Is there a symbol for "I think you're wrong"? :P Because that's how most people use it.

      But did you notice how you used the word "hateful" as if it was a common thing for a comment to be so "hateful" that it needs to be downvoted? Think about what it means to be "hateful"? There is no clear definition. Anyone can deem anything hateful in their opinion.

      Do you hate something? -Will your comment on it be hateful and therefore objectively worthy of disdain? Or do you just hate something because there's a legitimate reason for hating it? What if you just hate something for no particular reason, kind of like having a favourite colour? Are you hateful then, and what does it mean with regard to the world around you?

      What is "hateful" besides a hand-wavy, negative characterization that's used for shaming people into shutting up?

      seeing as Snapzu never did claim to be a champion of free speech

      The thing is, it's not alright to silence people who are objectively telling people things they need to hear. It doesn't matter whether a site has declared itself a champion of free speech - they're either detrimental to humanity's future/development, or they're not.

      The reason it is more important to enforce free speech in a country

      Freedom of speech is only ever violated by rulers and their thugs. It's only meaningful in that context, but it's meaningless in the sense that it doesn't matter to the rulers who would violate it, and it certainly doesn't prevent anything.

      Considering freedom of speech only applies as long as no one intervenes in speech, the only way you could enforce it would be to somehow magically prevent the government from intervening.

      Fundamentally, it's just an idea that's meant to make us more comfortable with being enslaved. In other words, it's a propaganda tool.