@fulltimegeek Supports Free Speech
Free Speech heard of that stuff?
Does Supporting Free Speech Mean You Support Racism?
I'm encouraging discussion because of this trending article by @berniesanders
It is more important to show that what you disagree with. It is usually easy to counter and the education value for others is invaluable. There is no such thing as hate speech. Just like there is no such thing as hate crime. Crime and speech are just that they have always been. Making new definitions just confuses people to the truth be it right or wrong.
BS is certainly a bully.
Posted using Partiko Android
I have to disagree here, Lynds. "Free speech" means you can't be censored or punished by the government, not that you are guaranteed a platform for your bile or that people should be forced to see/hear your hate. It doesn't mean that you can't lose your job or face societal shame.
"Disagreement over rewards" is a legit reason for flagging, and disagreement that a racist should be rewarded for their hate speech is valid. Graying someone out isn't even censorship. If people want to follow that person, they just have to click "show," when the grayed post shows in their feed, like I do when your posts are flagged to gray. They're still in my feed.
Hate speech isn't even covered under free speech laws for a reason. Even if this racist doesn't have a white hood or tiki torch in their closet, seeing such hate speech go unchallenged emboldens those who do, who feel like society agrees with them, who then go out and hurt and terrorize and even kill people. Allowing it to stand without any repercussions is implied consent and tacit agreement. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away, or keep people safe who literally are in danger just for living their lives.
Treating bigotry as simply an "opinion" legitimizes it. Opinions are about if pineapple on pizza is delicious or a monstrosity. Disagreements about if some people should have rights or not aren't opinions, they're legitimate harm.
Think about it in terms of the Palestinians. If you saw a Zionist posting how they thought all Palestinians should die, wouldn't you flag that hurtful, harmful shit? If you saw someone posting that I should be stoned to death or imprisoned for being queer, wouldn't you flag that shit? Because forums that let that shit stand is how you get angry mobs of Nazis who terrorize people, stab them on trains, run them over with cars.
The guy isn't even being banned here. He can post whatever nonsense he likes because there is no censorship on the blockchain. But flagging hate is free speech, too. It's saying, "I don't think your hate should be rewarded."
I'm not saying it shouldn't be flagged. I am not saying it should be rewarded.
I'm asking, does supporting someone's right to say something, mean that we agree with what they are saying?
Letting it go unchallenged is tacit agreement, yes. As I said, he can say what he likes here, as much as he wants - but defending him from flags is tacit agreement. Not calling him out is tacit agreement.
People reading it will see that no one is defending them from hate speech if they are being attacked, and not feel safe. The poster will feel like people "secretly" agree with them but are too "PC" to say so.
PS, no, I'm not saying FT is racist, and yes, I see that Bernie posted what he did about FT because of their current feud. But the example in question here, is a racist's drivel being treated as "free speech" that should be free from flagging.
To answer your question, no. Supporting free speech does not mean you support racism. Upvoting* racism pushes the needle squarely into "support".
Free speech includes your right to upvote it, bernie's right to downvote it, make posts complaining about it, and my right to read it and decide for myself.
Steemit is doing fine on all those counts.
Free speech is worth defending in my estimation yet in the case of the post which you are refering to it seems not as cut and dried as that, @lyndsaybowes.
We have @fulltimegeek, on one hand, supporting a poster's right to throw around derrogatory terms like "spics" yet downvoting @berniesanders for calling the poster out as a racist. It seems like a case of selective free speech defence to me, or worse a bias to @berniesanders because of issues that he and @fulltimegeek are having at the moment. This brings me back to my opinion of most flagging wars being nothing more than glorified pissing contests.
Nope. You have your facts wrong.
This whole dispute between Bernie and FTG started, and continues to be about @fulltimegeek making a stand against Bernie flagging the high heavens out of people who say words to him, that he doesn't like. Words like "no one cares about your project".
Fulltimegeek has always been about that. Even when he was standing against Haejin, the reason why was because of Haejin's blind flagging of users that were just speaking words he didn't like.
This whole latest smear by Bernie about this "racism" is only his latest attempt to skew the facts, and to muddy the waters.
If you want more scoop, just message me.
I'm not asking for you to be involved, just informed.
So then why is Fulltime upvoting derogatory content. If this is really about Bernie and Fulltime then surely fulltime can make his point without propping up blatant racists and ethnicists.
Both of them are free to vote as they wish but I'd like an explanation for upvoting derogatory content.
You have not even tried to inform yourself. Maybe read through the comments here, and my replies, your questions have already been answered @esecholo. But it's easier to just listen to rumours, than to actually read and inform yourself, right?
"listen to rumors"
Looks at chain and sees upvoting racists
I dont get what benefit comes from upvoting such content.
It's over now. Thanks for visiting.
https://steempeak.com/theadventuresoflilbeanie/@lyndsaybowes/the-adventures-of-lil-beanie-book-2
Lol, dodge.
Yep, you missed the show, the "house lights" are on and everyone's gone home lol :)
My comments were meant for only the case in point of the potentially racist post. Using "spics" to denote spanish folks is no difference than using "nigger" to donote a black person in my opinion. Whether the poster is aware of it or not, it is a racist term. On that point @berniesanders is correct in my opinion.
@fulltimegeek has my agreement to support even a racist's right to free speech (as well as my witness support btw), yet such a position should support @berniesanders' right to call him out as a racist. On my visit to the post FTG had flagged Bernie's comments in that regard. This leads me to feel a bias of FTG to Bernie in this instance; be it right or wrong.
FTG is flagging allllll Bernie's comments and has since the beginning of this dispute (like for 2 months now, good grief). It is a tactic he is using to 'win'.
What is he trying to win: Getting Bernie to stop Nuking people's blogs and comments because he didn't like some words they said to him: not even aggressive words, he freaked out over someone telling him: "No one cares about your project" and flagged all of their oldest posts and comments.
It's a worthy cause.
I know I'm sure sick of seeing Steemians being chased off by bullies.
I'm willing to stand my ground on this.
Like I said previously, this racism card is only Bernie's sad attempt to cast our attention away from the true reason of this dispute between himself and @fulltimegeek. Though it is a worthy conversation to have, free speech vs. being a supporter of the speech that was said.
As for why I'm so passionate about this dispute right now, my friend @lozzmon, who I had tried pretty determinedly to get to join our blessed blockchain, finally joins, and on his first day here, has all of his posts flagged by @berniesanders.
Only because the posts by @lozzmon had been resteemed by @fulltimegeek.
Now, thank goodness @lozzmon has balls of steel and is sticking around. Most people would have quit right away.
If you think @berniesanders using "human shields" is cool, we have a difference of opinion @novacadian.
It's exactly the kind of BULLY behaviour I'm trying to stop.
This is my blockchain too. I have a say how this will be.
It's time to stand up to bullying.
It's just that the example cited here under the "free speech" banner IS bullying, and for a much more sinister reason.
I think your point would be better made with a different example.
This example is what is going on right now though.
This 'racism card stuff' started because the #fulltimebots are set to counteract and heal any comment or post that @berniesanders flags, with his accounts, or his bot accounts.
Bernie started flagging the 'racist' user a few days ago, knowing the #fulltimebots would go automatically to upvote.
Then he did his big post on how he busted @fulltimegeek for promoting 'racism'.
Does this make sense? I can elaborate more if not.
Yes, but - if it was just that the bots did it? No one would care (well, except Bernie). But that he saw with his own eyes, and commented on it, that though he disagrees, he will try and counteract flags, that make it worthy of discussion, which is what you asked us to do.
Even IF the timeline suggests that it was a setup for the bots, he made the executive decision to leave those votes in place and defend the guy from flags in the future.
Yes, it started as the bots, then @fulltimegeek decided not to remove his counter votes on bernie's downvotes, because, the 'racist' user, is staying on her own page. She is not attacking others with her racist words on others' posts and comments.
@fulltimegeek stated right in my screenshot in this post, he would be gone in a heartbeat if she does that.
For all we know, fulltimegeek may be the only one who can reach this lost soul. His way, may change hers. She gets hatred back for her hatred, never ... what FT did there in my screenshot.
No, @lyndsaybowes, using human shields is not cool by me; yet that was not the framing of the original issue of the racist's post. It validates my theory that the flagging of Bernie's comment, calling out the racist, was due to a bias to Bernie. That's cool now that we have called it what it is, a flag war between two individuals, and not a free speech issue.
Of course free speech is something we should fight for!
But in my opinion the right for free speech ends when other peoples rights are in danger.
For example hatespeech is a really common thing in uncencored networks and it is inflaming and spuring on the hate in our world.
I am open to flag people for assaulting others.
You got a 100% upvote from @dzentral courtesy of @sanchezpuukko! Earn a solid 0% earning payout by delegating SP to @dzentral.
Visit http://www.pornhub.com for details or take a nap like there´s no tomorrow.
You can make your post more visible with using our resteem service.
Send 100 SBD/STEEM Get Instant Resteem by @dzentral to 8+ Followers and Get Instant 2+ Upvotes.
Automatically NO Refund for Invalid Transactions.
Don't join us on discord, better send 100 STEEM/SBD to @null while making the dzentral war cry: For mother anarchy!
Free Speech may make you a bigot, but it's your beliefs that make you a racist :)
Free speech is one thing, and abusing it is another thing...