Hey,
I just did a quick browse through the blocked instances list for infosec.pub and have a few questions about it.
Seems like we are blocking sh.itjust.works which at first glance just looks like one of the bigger general purpose instances. Meanwhile more overtly problematic instances like lemmygrad (tankie instance) or exploding heads ("free speech extremists") are federated with. Generally the block list seems fairly small compared to a lot of other instances.
So are these intentional choices or is it more a matter of the admins not (having the time to be) bothering with it? If it's not intentional, maybe checking some other instances blocklists to weed out the biggest trolls/offenders could be useful.
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).
@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 the latter part 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 mean 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 @[email protected] usage of it. The amphibious one at least attempts to provide a rubric for the definition of bigotry.
Meriam-Webster - bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Saying black people deserve to be eslaved and murdered was bigoted 200 years ago, is bigoted now and will be bigoted in 200 years. The fact that it was once widely condoned by parts of society doesn't make it any less intolerant or hateful. And obviously it was always just parts condoning it. Black people certainly didn't think it was okay. And that's also why these "it was considered good hundreds of years ago" arguments don't even add up. Because even back then it was only considered "good" if you exclude the opinions of those who were oppressed, which obviously is an incomplete picture.
Also, just go back a couple hundred years more and suddenly even people considered "learned" would say the earth is flat. It's still objectively not. Because whether people think something is one way or another and whether that changed over time is simply no way to determine whether something is objective or not. I already made that point last post.Those things simply don't have anything to do with another, so I don't understand why you keep making the same logical mistake.
I think that's the issue. 100 years ago, this would have described people fighting against racism, segregation and what we would describe today as bigotry in most of the Western world. You forget that the science and academia of the era backed racism. You would be the obstinate one fighting what today we'd call bigotry.
You wouldn't have said this had you grown up 200 years ago.
That is unfortunately a niave and disappointing assumption. Look up "Blue Vein" clubs from approximately 1920 or so.
In your mind, what is something that is subjective vs. objective?
That makes zero sense. Were the people fighting against slavery also trying to enslave the people arguing for it and deny their status as free people?
Only one of these groups was championing and enacting deeds of maximum intolerance and harm for another racial group. So the very best argument you could make here is that maybe the anti-racism people were also sometimes bigoted, depending on how they went about it. But there's definitely zero point to be made that the racists were not bigoted.
The rest I'm not going to go into. I've made the point several times that what people, scientists, me might have though during any time period has absolutely zero bearing on whether something is objectively the case or not. So I'm genuinely lost in regards to what point you're trying to make here.
And if you want a definition for objectivity just check wiki: Something is objective if it can be confirmed independent of a mind (its biases, perception, emotions, opinions, or imagination). If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true
100 years ago social sciences supported segregation as a matter of science. So support for integration was a position of obstination. It would be anti-science.
"Your honor I'm not going to address it because it's devastating to my case." 😆
Bigotry cannot be confirmed absent of a mind.
You're a fucking child. I've made my point why your positions do nothing to assess any potential objectivity seveal times, you completely refuse to even go into that point.or acknowledge it in any way and when I say I'm not gonna engage with that any more because you don't muster any kind of response you proceed to wear that as a badge of honor. There's no point in arguing with people like you.
Like, I don't even understand what point you think you are making in the first part. A position being endorsed by Academia at the time, or people saying they are using science as a reason, doesn't suddenly make discriminatory or hateful behaviour not that. (Especially when we are talking about social sciences where both the basis for it at that time was shoddy as fuck and where the goals you want to implent with that knowledge obviously are highly subjective).