Pure curiosity:

If you left reddit or another corporate platform under the banner of not being censored by their views or beliefs, what was that?

Wait. Before we open this can of worms, I’m not at all curious about an in-depth explanation of unpopular views or opinions that are generally extremist or that most reasonable people consider extreme. More of:

  • I left reddit or some other because they censor…?
  • The lemmy community is more for me because?
  • I reasons my instance policies or moderators are better than the other platform is?
  • The other platform restricted opinions or views regarding…?

If you feel like sharing, just summarize the general idea, please no indoctrination speeches.

Oh boy…

  • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
    211·
    10 months ago

    I find this super interesting.

    Firstly, I don’t support their views in your example.

    I don’t like that they get to spread them. The same thing could be said about people who are anti religion against people talking about their religion. Both parties might say they don’t like the other spreading their views.

    • If someone moched a cancer patient, we’d loose our minds.
    • When someone mocks supremacists, we enjoy it. They don’t. The difference is our perspective.
    • If the mocked or bullied cancer patient contacted mods, the offending account would get banned.
    • If we mock one group and get banned and other mock another group and don’t, isn’t that being hypocritical?

    Again, I have no sympathy for some hater crying about their feeling getting hurt when they post garbage, more pathetic than anything.

      • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
        2·
        10 months ago

        Yeah, no doubt. I’m picturing the same person saying hateful stuff turning around saying how unfair it is to get called out, using a super whiny voice. Irony.

    • Wolf Link 🐺@lemmy.world
      10·
      10 months ago

      If we mock one group and get banned and other mock another group and don’t, isn’t that being hypocritical?

      The cancer patient didn’t chose to have cancer, and doesn’t deliberately make the lives of other people worse. The supremacist chose to BE cancer on society, actively and deliberately making the lives of a lot of people worse, and feeling entitled to do so.

      If someone acts like an asshole, they shouldn’t be surprised about being treated like an asshole.

    • Sneezycat@sopuli.xyz
      1·
      10 months ago

      If you don’t see a difference between mocking people for their illness and mocking them for their anti-humanitarian views, I don’t know how to explain it to you.

      Cancer patients don’t decide to have cancer. White supremacists decide to be pieces of shit. Not the same.

      Also, cancer patients are not trying to eradicate human rights for everyone but themselves.

      • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
        12·
        10 months ago

        You’re missing the point. It’s the same thing.
        Mocking either is the same.

        Which one you side with is your own bias. If you can’t see how they’re the same, spend some time thing about it. Put yourself in both positions. Use other less extreme examples.

        I get, we all dislike the hater in the scenario. We likely don’t find the outcome of the above post fair or just.

        What should have happened instead?

        Probably the original poster liking Hitler posts gets banned, the poster of those comments got banned before that. No need to call someone out and mock them, thus not putting yourself against the site conduct rules. Right?