Insult isn’t even a crime :P
edit: Shouldn’t be a crime.
Unpopular Opinion: Adults that can’t handle insults are overgrown children. Most of the time insults are to the detriment of the person insulting anyway.A moderator might disagree.
Moderators are not here to judge crimes, they are here to help create a healthy community.
If you read the classical texts defending freedom of speech (Mill, Spinoza, Kant, et.c.), you’ll see that the point was supposed to be to get as many ideas as possible up on the table, so they can be rationally discussed and considered.
They were quite clear that harassment, shaming and other ways of shutting people up, goes against this purpose - and while they might not want the government to get involved, I don’t think they’d have a big problem with platforms doing content moderation to prevent those sorts of things.
Waaaaaahhhhh! Mod deleted my post and I’m maaaaaad! Waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!
People like you paint a target on your own back. It makes it so easy.
Lemmy having a public moderator log makes it really easy to see who is actually painting a target on their back. And wouldn’t you know it; another user whining about censorship with a modlog full of bans for trolling.
FYI: Censorship is when the government stops you from saying shit; not the owners/operators of a private thing like a store or an internet community.
Not really. Censorship is not only about political opinions. Banning child pornography is a form of censorship, but I doubt anyone sane would dare to argue that that’s a bad thing. (if anyone reading thinks otherwise, please do me a favour and go jump off a bridge, the world would be better place without you)
But even if we focus on political discourse, consider the paradox of tolerance. If we lived in an ideal society, censorship would not be necessary. But we don’t, there are people that are more than happy to take away other’s rights and freedom of opinion. A functional society must be intolerant of the intolerant and not give them a platform.
Edit: I’m not going to pretend that I know exactly where tolerant opinions end and intolerant opinions begin, but I know that both exist, and I believe we must censor the intolerant ones
The paradox of tolerance disappears when you look at it as a social contract. “I agree to tolerate your weirdness, that doesn’t significantly affect me, if you do the same in turn.” Add in “If you back me when someone breaks the contract, and I will back you in turn.” and you get a very good basis to build on. You end up with a few grey areas, but 95% is obvious.
This ignores the case of a private insult issued to the moderator, pre or post censorship.
I’m beginning to suspect this thread is just you having a personal grudge and vagueposting about it.
