@ernest how do I report a Magazin on kbin.social ? There is a usere called “ps” who is posting to his own “antiwoke” Magazin on kbin.social. Please remove this and dont give them a chance to etablish them self on kbin.social. When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin? Seems like a problem. Screenshot of the “antiwoke” Magazin /sub on kbin.social. 4 Headlines are visible, 2 exampels: “Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society” “How to end wokeness” #Moderation #kbin #kbin.social 📎

edit: dont feed the troll, im shure ernest will delet them all when he sees this. report and move on.

Edit 2 : Ernest responded:
“I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author.”

  • jalda@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You are longing for the times when “Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp”. Isn’t this hateful?

    • 10A@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It would be if that’s what I said, but I never said I was longing for anything, and I never threatened to harm anyone.

        • 10A@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, actually I say what I mean. You might try taking the context of the entire comment into account. It was about the purpose of freedom.

          • ElleChaise@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            31
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The tolerance of intolerance leads to the loss of all freedom. You’d have to be either a fraud or a fool to try and sell the opposite as truth. So which are you?

            • 10A@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you are intolerant of intolerance, then you are intolerant. Full stop. If those are my only two available options, I must be a fool.

              • webghost0101@lemmy.fmhy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Thats why its called the paradox of intolerance:

                “The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.”

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

                To be fair, i have no problems with the existence off a far-right or even a pro-pedo separate Lemmy instance as long as the harm is limited to just written words on said instance. If we don’t allow those opinions anywhere then they will just be had in secret and spiral even more out of control. Instances that want to fully protect themselves to intolerant sickos can do so by defederating.

                • 10A@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You may be unfamiliar with the work of Daryl Davis, who has convinced over 200 KKK members to leave the KKK. He’s achieved this through talking with them. When people are isolated in echo chambers, their numbers grow. It is only through open dialog that we can overcome irrational intolerance. There is no paradox.

                  • webghost0101@lemmy.fmhy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That’s exactly what i meant with my second paragraph. We should provide safe spaces for all kinds of people, fascist included. And those people should be able to interact with other places on the federation (they will anyway, with multiple accounts if they so want) but by allowing their own instance were they enjoy proper free speech we can see who they are, study their rhetoric and engage ourselves to convince them otherwise.

                    But we still cant allow the toxicity in public where they can cause real harm. So these communities should be their own instance so other instances that might be targeted by hate can defederate.

                    A quick search reveals Daryl Davis befriended them, spoke privately, invite them to his home (his own instance) Spoke on their rallys (their own instances), he didn’t take them to a local event (public comment thread) while they are donning a swastika on their shirt.

      • jalda@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whatever, I copied your whole paragraph in another comment, and the context is pretty clear for anyone who cares to read it. I didn’t claim that you personally were threatening to do the beating, only that you thought that the beating was desiderable for the “program of western civilization”. If you really don’t want homosexual people to be beaten to a pulp, then you should seriously reconsider how you express your ideas.

        • 10A@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even taking that paragraph out of context is misleading. The whole comment was about the purpose of freedom.

          • jalda@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            You still haven’t addressed my point. Do you think it is desiderable that homosexual people are beaten to a pulp? Is a YES/NO question, it shouldn’t be difficult to answer.

            • 10A@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, I do not advocate for violence (except in self-defense situations where there’s no other option).

              • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago
                It made sense back when everyone was, more or less, on board with the program of western civilization. We may not all have been Christian back then, but almost all of us were, and everyone supported Judeo-Christian values without question. Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp, so it was extremely rare for anyone to think such behavior was acceptable.
                
                At this point we need to ask ourselves what the purpose of freedom is. Are we a free people so we can exercise perverted pleasures of the flesh, the slaughter of innocent babies, and genital mutilation of children without their parents knowledge? If you answer "yes", you just might be repeating the whisper of a demon.
                
                The purpose of our freedom is to worship God as we see fit, and to do His will. In the past we never needed to spell that out, because it went without saying. Different people have different views and belief systems, and they're all valid provided they all worship God.
                
                As secular society grows, we lose the underlying reason for our freedom. Freedom is still a valid concept for anyone who knows how to use it correctly, and who understands that the ultimate freedom is the freedom from sin, which is achieved by accepting Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior.
                
                But for those who think the purpose of freedom is to follow Satan, to abuse themselves and others, to commit endless sins, and then, most evil of all, to celebrate pride in their sin (as if they don't even understand that pride itself is a sin), no, I no longer agree that people are entitled to live their lives in the way that they want. They're entitled to repent, and once they do that we can discuss freedom.
                
                

                Here is your exact quote, there is no “misrepresentation” here. You are firstly suggesting that the gays are worshiping (indirectly or directly) Satan and have no right to “freedom” because your fictionally sky daddy said so. Lets take a step backwards, so you are suggesting your all loving god, basically has doomed 3/5s (if not more until the white people came) of the world because he decided to only care about Europe and part of the middle east for hundreds to thousands of years because this all knowing being somehow couldn’t have stable and growing amount of worshipers in Asia, the Americas, Australia, the pacific, etc dooming them all to hell (or purgatory depending on your denomination) because they as you say can’t be able to accept “Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior.”

                You yearn for a day when everyone (in your neighborhood) had your stupid sky daddy’s beliefs and if they didn’t you wouldn’t pull the trigger or what not but you aren’t opposed because now we live in a world of sin and whatnot and you want them to repent because they decide to have their freedom that is instill upon them because they are born a fucking human not because a fucking fictional sky daddy said you have it.

                It god damn hilarious you are also reiterating god damn fanfic, the cardinal 7 sins weren’t a major concept until they were first enumerated by Pope Gregory I in the 6th century and further expanded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Then to top it all off, we as a modern society mostly know the configuration of hell by a god damn self insert fanfic by Dante Alighieri in “Divine Comedy” or to be more specific Dante’s Inferno.

                Also seems you aren’t very godly if you aren’t even following Jesus’ own words

                “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:39),

                Your love seems very conditional on the concept that they have to worship your god before they deserve any love. Its honestly disgusting and you are the posterchild of why people hate religious nuts. People can worship what they want if they aren’t hurting people but holy shit the shit you are willfully allowing by decree people deserve no freedom if they don’t have Judeo-Christians.

      • Bizarroland@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s called masturpraying.

        You’re not hurting anyone (in the physical sense) but you’re getting off on the idea that bad things should happen to other people, people you consider to not be in your “in group”, and this is usually done in the name of and for the glory of God.

        It’s a fancy sin that preachers don’t tell people about because they’re usually guilty of it themselves.

        Masturpraying is direct service to and worship of Satan, and he really enjoys it because the people who do it do it in God’s name as they commit spiritual violence against the kingdom of God and its occupants while thinking that they are doing good.