So I mean, most of us knew this beforehand and being on the fediverse we probably do not really care, but what was always on the horizon has no happened, the owner of Squabblr finally had enough having to be a decent person and has decided that his site is now “free speech purism”, so he gets to continue to insult LGBTQ people like he always does.
Seems from the comments that some other admins disagreed with the decision (so there were some decent people on that site!) and either left or were removed.
Not entirely surprising the whole thing, granted.
(edit)
Also, apologies as this isn’t truly reddit news but Squabblr was one of the sites frequently brought up in /r/redditalternatives so I figured this might still be relevant?
Since “free speech” is a dogwhistle, what should a hypothetical place actually interested in free speech as more than just a bigotry shield call what they’re trying to do? Some place interested in allowing discussion of objectionable topics without bigotry?
Yes, whatever, those don’t exist anywhere, you don’t need to respond with that tidbit. Humor the hypothetical here.
Frankly I’m just wondering how we let “free speech” become a dogwhistle. Is water in a bottle a dogwhistle because trump drank one one time on video (with two hands, remember that scandal?) Is coffee a dogwhistle because racist people also drink coffee? Not everything is a “dogwhistle” nor should it be considered as such simply because the words “free speech platform” are used instead of “non-censorious communication service.” Tipper Gore and her Moral Majority have been fighting free speech since Jello Biafra used an H. R. Geiger painting on a record insert she bought her kid, I’ve been complaining about censorship since she got “Parental Advisory” slapped on CDs limiting my ability to sneak music past my overbearing mother as a child (mostly seditious music, anto-religious music, or music by POC, mind you, which is racism), I’ve been bitching about radio beeps and edits since I can remember, free speech has always been a highly regarded value of mine and I’m not going to let those people steal it or their enemies bully me out of supporting it.
It’s because shit-heads love to hide behind objectively good ideals. They want to deflect criticism of what they’re saying or doing into criticism of the ideal. “Oh, you hate free speech!?”
It’s coded language in the right context – “free speech platform” with a wink and a nod.
See also: “Patriot”, “protecting children”, “thugs”, etc.
One can “not hate free speech” while also “hating what you are saying.” These are two separate things, it’s like saying “I like soda, but I don’t like pepsi.” There are other sodas, and there are other “things to say” besides racism. In this instance, tell the hypothetical person you’re talking to who said “oh you hate free speech,” “No, I’m all for free speech, and I’m also for freedom of association. I don’t like what you speak about, so I choose not to associate with you.”
Sure, in this context maybe it is a wink and a nod, but saying “free speech is a dogwhistle” and insinuating every free speech activist since Jello “Nazi Punks Fuck Off” Biafra is actually a secret right winger is patently ridiculous and it is a trend I’ve been noticing recently, and I will exercise my right to free speech to criticize the practice as you are free to ironically exercise your right to free speech by asserting that free speech is actually a dogwhistle.
To your see alsos:
“Patriot” and “Thug” I’ll give you, but “Protecting children” isn’t a “dogwhistle,” it is a manipulation tactic and it is used by all sides everywhere. Every time I hear it for any reason I am immediately suspicious of one’s motives. It is unsurprisingly effective on parents too, but since I’m not one and don’t want kids I have a pretty good immunity to it.
It’s not complicated. Today if someone uses the term “Free Speech” the vast vast majority of the time they are talking about being able to say shitty things without consequences. The remainder are mostly people who misconstrue Free Speech as something that applies to non-governmental entities and finally actual real cases that get settled in court.
It’s hard to find a name because nowadays people often use terms like ‘bigotry’, ‘hate speech’ and ‘bad faith’ to refer to anything they don’t like so they can shut down discussions.
Call it “Open Discussion”. Make it clear that the purpose of the site is to allow for discussion from all walks of life and perspectives, but that it has to be actual civil discussion. Outright hatred and bigotry, as well as arguing in bad faith, aren’t helpful or productive in an open discussion, and as such would be shunned and banned. This way, you can still have opinions that aren’t “mainstream”, but you won’t be removed as long as you’re civil and respectful about it. Doing this will attract people who are really interested in hearing other perspectives and sharing their own, instead of alt-right shitheads looking for another place to infest.
deleted by creator
You don’t need to label it. The vast majority of the internet will allow anyone acting in good faith to discuss their ideas. Every single time someone complains about being muted/silences/shadow-banned etc you can bet they subscribe to right-wing ideology using dog whistles or other hateful rhetoric. I was never banned anywhere for being Pro-Hillary instead of Pro-Bernie. I was downvoted sure, but that’s everyone elses prerogative. I wasn’t silences because some of my posts were hidden due to it. It’s asinine to claim that, and that’s what these people are whining about.