freeatlantis.com is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.

Administered by:

Server stats:

183
active users

You can block problematic users/instances yourself if they bother you. I just blocked all of exploding-heads and haven’t seen any of their shit since.

IMO it’s not a good solution to just say “just block the bigots”. The problem is that for new users, they are going to see those bigoted posts. They’re going to either think that’s what kind of site Lemmy is and potentially leave, or they’ll potentially get pulled in by the bigots. Both are bad situations.

Especially for blatant bigotry, it makes perfect sense to take measures to ensure that the site is safe for everyone by default, without every individual person having to take action (especially those without accounts or not signed in).

melmc ✝️🇺🇲⚖️⚓💊

@CoderKat

I guess you define “safe” as “never being exposed to an opinion that offends you”. Good luck with that standard. It seems entirely subjective.

cc: @jonne @fr0g

You’re strawmanning so hard here, it’s an actual fire hazard.

They are correct though, it is subjective and it will shift over time as the “acceptable” political lines change over time.

Bigotry, blatant bigotry especially is hardly subjective. It’s more subtle forms might be harder to indentify without making some biased judgements, but that doesn’t make it inherently subjective.

I don’t know how you can say that given that less than 100 years ago in all of the Western world (save maybe France). Bigotry was the default governmental, societal and scientific position. And opposition to it was seen as distasteful as bigotry is today.

I don’t understand what point you think you are making here. Me saying bigotry can be objectively indentified and is objectvely bad (although I didn’t even argue for that yet) isn’t invalidated by pointing out society used to think (what we today identify as) bigotry was good. Because past people thinking X was good might just have been a subjective judgement, unless you can provide the reasoning people used to argue for X being good and it objectively holds up. And people subjectively deciding X is good, has asolutely zero bearing on whether X is objectively good or not. People mistakenly thinking the Earth is flat doesn’t meam that we can’t objectively determine that it isn’t.

Bigotry is inherently a thing whose definition changes over time based on the society/person making the decision. As opposed to the flatness or roundness of the earth.

You in 1923, 2023 and 2123 will all decide with the same set of facts that the earth is not flat. That’s objectivity.

You in 1923, 2023 and 2123 will all have different decisions on what is and is not bigotry given the same set of facts. That’s subjectivity.

@mwguy @fr0g Now, many apply the term bigot to anyone who makes moral judgments concerning behavior that are different than the moral judgments they make. In that context the term is entirely subjective. It's no more than name-calling.

Oh yes the colloquial usage of the term is even more subjective than @fr0g@infosec.pub usage of it. The amphibious one at least attempts to provide a rubric for the definition of bigotry.

infosec.pub@fr0g - Infosec.Pub