https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ31YDPm_Es

Because it’s usually only incels that think this is the type of conversation anyone wants to have. Touch grass.

I assume from the vagueness that the point is that this applies in any situation because the key factor is “your values”. Which are personal to you and only you can know them.

You realize the OP is doing a melodramatic bit, right? It’s funny, at least to me.

You say that they are full of false assumptions but your arguments against them hinge on the assumption that they have been asking for banning for words. Can you point to a single instance where he says this?

Dude.

You are literally arguing for the right to be mean to others without consequences.

If they don’t have meaningful power, then neither do people who would abuse any space they’re in, rendering moderating wholly pointless. But people sure don’t like that idea.

I don’t think OP is suggesting we sympathize with the ideology or the harm it causes. There is a vital distinction between empathy as an alignment and empathy as a diagnostic tool.

Understanding the cognitive or mental health mechanics that lead to radicalization isn’t about giving someone a ‘pass.’ It’s about having the clarity to see the situation for what it is. If we don’t understand the ‘why’ behind how people are manipulated, we can’t effectively dismantle the systems that recruit them.

True compassion in a political sense isn’t about being ‘nice’ to someone spouting hate; it’s about having the clarity to address the root cause of the behavior rather than just reacting to the symptoms with more hate. It’s possible to hold a boundary against someone’s actions while still being mindful of the human vulnerabilities that landed them there.

The fact that they still exist in an authoritarian system hardly argues in favor of them.

No hard feelings :)

Not sure what theme you’re using but at least for me the default one makes it a bit hard to separate replies. I still like it most of all for just lurking.

You’re making quite a lot of frankly weird assumptions.

Find a single line from me where I’m saying that people who don’t engage in rational discourse shouldn’t be kicked out.

In fact, have a honest think. How much of your response is based on a knee jerk reaction instead of actually looking at what I’ve been saying in this thread?

I think it’s fine to look at general biological markers and categorize people for healthcare reasons. Most of the time being in the ballpark works for most people. Maybe in the future we can have some full body scan thing that picks up the optimal healthcare setup for each individual but in the meanwhile, we’ll go with what we got.

But that doesn’t have to have shit to do with their internal experience of themselves, or how the social environment should react to them. And I reiterate: “most people”. Meaning there’s going to be outliers and that’s okay, and they’ll need more individualized care. Being abnormal is normal.

Start building what works now, where you are.

Every reform you like started as people organizing. The second the state touches it, it turns care into control. Prisons, cops, “rehab”, all began as community ideas. Now they’re cages.

Anarchy isn’t “no system.” It’s systems we control. Local, adaptable, replaceable. The state just standardizes failure.

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/24695927

Responded to someone else.

You personally don’t have to. Always plenty of people out there willing to do it for you.

You mean the direct quote of Popper that you yourself referred to? You didn’t read the very piece of text you told me to read?

Then be clear about the rules. I have 0 problems with people creating communities with very clear rules on what is allowed and what isn’t. I wholeheartedly welcome that. What I take issue with is when people claim to have open discussion, or the space is for “rational discourse”, or “anarchist” discourse etc. but then ban everything that doesn’t very exactly align with the mod ideology.

If most people waving the anarchist flag would admit they’re just doing it because it’s cool but actually, they just want to be the authoritarians in place of the authoritarians, that would be fine. I’d happily avoid them. Problem is that when they don’t admit it, they drag down the whole anarchist ideology because they are misrepresenting it.

People like to refer to the paradox of tolerance but always skip out on the inconvenient bit:

""Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

— In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.“”

If you are not able to rationally argue why we shouldn’t be bigoted, I don’t know what to tell you.

Schrödinger Anarchist: both has and hasn’t rules.

Again, as long as you’re very explicit about it. But don’t call it an anarchist space. It’s then a space, run by an anarchist, that doesn’t follow the rules of anarchism.