Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1

closed wrote

Dissenting opinions.

4

amongstclouds wrote

It happens all the time.

-5

closed wrote

It would happen a lot more if you all weren't so ban-happy. But I know that's basically the whole point of this place...

4

ziq wrote

IOW 'More bigotry pls'

-4

closed wrote

Just my opinion.

The 'bigotry' is ill-defined and everywhere. Trying to forcefully ban it all means you exclude sincere people who make an effort to communicate with you. The way you've treated users in the past makes it clear that you see no worth in their viewpoints, but I do.

5

ziq wrote (edited )

exclude sincere people who make an effort to communicate with you

That's never happened. Anarchist_critic was gleefully trolling for literally months before they finally got banned (for making forums to attack users using weird photoshopped pornographic photos according to an admin) And they immediately came back with another account and started throwing slurs around.

People get SO much leeway before they're finally removed for stomping all over the ToS and repeatedly refusing to stop doing it after being warned.

-3

closed wrote

I'm not referring to Anarchist_critic. The way you personally treated a much worse user, a blatantly racist, but respectful and sincere visitor from Voat a long time ago showed me how little interest you have in talking to those with differing opinions.

The whole site is a manifestation of that insular attitude, and I suppose that's exactly why active users like it so much. I appreciate some of the content that gets posted, but I'll never be a real part of the website, and wouldn't be surprised if you banned me right now.

7

amongstclouds wrote

Go coddle racists somewhere else.

-3

closed wrote

The racists on Voat don't need my help coddling themselves, just as you seem to be doing quite well enthusiastically hiding from reality around here.

It's sad that you have so much to say about one another, but don't talk at all.

I prefer other websites were people are more free to speak their minds, and in turn learn to deal with the unpleasant thoughts of others.

7

ziq wrote (edited )

Racism is a lot more than a differing opinion. When you don't shut that shit down, everyone that isn't a racist fuck feels unsafe and unwelcome in the space.

Making PoC feel welcome and not dehumanized is a lot more important than coddling some reactionary in the interest of open debate.

No platform for fascism.

-5

closed wrote

I suggest you spend a little time chatting with people on similar websites that cater to racists - I could suggest one or two. You're safe behind an anonymous user account and you might learn more about how they think.

3

ergdj5 wrote

I've actually read a lot of colonial and fascist writings, really don't wanna have to directly interact with them to figure that much out.

4

bloodrose wrote

Trying to forcefully ban it all means you exclude sincere people who make an effort to communicate with you.

There really are non-biggoted ways to have a sincere conversation.

-4

closed wrote

When you're talking to someone you have judged to be bigot, there probably isn't a "non-biggoted" way to converse.

3

bloodrose wrote

That was a weirdly vague thing to say. I mean, one won't be judged as a bigot if they don't act like a bigot, right? So what are you trying to say?

-3

closed wrote

The Oxford definition of bigot is:

A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

Does that help?

2

ziq wrote

So literally "disagreeing with a bigot makes you the real bigot" huh?

2

bloodrose wrote

No, it doesn't. You appear to be arguing in bad faith. You and I both know what people on raddle mean by bigot: people who are racist against non-whites, people who are transphobic, people who are homophobic. Pulling out a dictionary definition in an argument is literally attempting to derail the question being asked and put the person you are in the conversation with into either defensive mode or to make them agree with you in principle so you can then piggy-back off of that into a nonsensical argument.

1

MichaelPemulis wrote

The way you've pulled out a dictionary definition to respond to someone posing a question/challenging you on your beliefs... it really doesn't make you look good:

A) It's condescending in at least two ways. There's an implication that the person you're replying to doesn't know the definition of the word they're talking about. You're slyly trying to imply they're stupid or ill-equipped to be responding to you. In addition, the definition of a word is something that can be Googled in 5 seconds so there's also an implication that the person you're replying to is lazy or incapable of having done a minute amount of research on the topic they're discussing/the words they're using.

B) You haven't replied in a way that fosters constructive dialogue. You linked a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary and asked "does that help?" which comes off as a smarmy appeal to authority. You instead could've said something like "The Oxford English Dictionary defines bigot as [definition]. You replied to my message saying [quote] which I disagree with because..."

If you're not interested in putting the time in to encourage healthy, non-hostile interactions with people, you're not contributing anything productive to the conversation. You could've chosen to not reply instead. Thus the question becomes, what are you trying to do here? Foment conflict?

I'm not trying to back you into a corner, but I do think you should reflect on the way that you interact with people here.