Asklemmy

55716 readers

162 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

Should I join "free speech" alternatives? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 years ago by sinewyshadow@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hello! I've been searching for a reddit alternative, and yes, I've picked Lemmy and Raddle, but here's the thing. My morbid curiosity is perked up, and a part of me wants to join the "free speech" alternatives, like Saidit, Poal, etc. What's wrong with me that I want to join toxic places? I mean, yes I'll find a whole new perspective (albeit wrong), on political topics, but a part of me wants to be the antagonist, and post lefty memes, and music with a left-leaning message (bands from r/rabm) I know that's like kicking the hornet's nest, so you don't need to start in with "that's a bad idea" I know it is. My main point/question is, is it wrong to join a site with potential hate speech? Does it make someone a bad person?

all 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It potentially opens you up to radicalization in the wrong direction.

[–] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Generally radicalization in any direction is bad.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why? Shouldn't the measure of good and bad be with respect to how correct it is, not how closely the position aligns with the status quo?

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The word implies an unhealthy and incorrect degree. Otherwise you're not radicalized, just representing an opinion.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

They’re not looking for freedom of speech but freedom from consequences.

You’ll get banned there real quick.

[–] moreeni@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

wtf is freedom of speech if not a freedom of consequences from what you say?

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There is a distinct difference.

Freedom of speach means that the government can't punnish you for talking shit, except in limited circumstances.

Freedom of consequences from what you say, means that no one should be allowed to let what your say affect them in any way, this means that no one would be allowed to be offended by what you might say, nor that they would be allowed to act on such offence.

In a functional society you want to have freedom of speach, but not freedom of consequences from what you say. This allows you to express opposing views in mostly resonable ways.

[–] pmk@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

As long as the consequences are words and non-violent actions. Advocating violence as a consequence for someone expressing an idea is imho dangerous and should be avoided.