Hello! I’ve been searching for a reddit alternative, and yes, I’ve picked Lemmy and Raddle, but here’s the thing. My morbid curiosity is perked up, and a part of me wants to join the “free speech” alternatives, like Saidit, Poal, etc. What’s wrong with me that I want to join toxic places? I mean, yes I’ll find a whole new perspective (albeit wrong), on political topics, but a part of me wants to be the antagonist, and post lefty memes, and music with a left-leaning message (bands from r/rabm) I know that’s like kicking the hornet’s nest, so you don’t need to start in with “that’s a bad idea” I know it is. My main point/question is, is it wrong to join a site with potential hate speech? Does it make someone a bad person?

  • moreeni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    wtf is freedom of speech if not a freedom of consequences from what you say?

    • stoy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      There is a distinct difference.

      Freedom of speach means that the government can’t punnish you for talking shit, except in limited circumstances.

      Freedom of consequences from what you say, means that no one should be allowed to let what your say affect them in any way, this means that no one would be allowed to be offended by what you might say, nor that they would be allowed to act on such offence.

      In a functional society you want to have freedom of speach, but not freedom of consequences from what you say. This allows you to express opposing views in mostly resonable ways.

      • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        As long as the consequences are words and non-violent actions. Advocating violence as a consequence for someone expressing an idea is imho dangerous and should be avoided.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      People telling you you’re and arsehole and treating you like what arsehole is then expressing their freedom of speech.

      It’s also a consequence of your speech.

      • moreeni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s fair but I don’t think there’s much freedom of speech if someone will murder you for what you’ve said

          • moreeni@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s a possible outcome that I subconciously included in the list of consequences

              • moreeni@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                No reason? Being murdered is still a consequence, isn’t it? Why wouldn’t I include it?

                • Zagorath@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Because “a consequence” doesn’t mean “any and every possible consequence anyone could think up”.

                  • moreeni@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    So a consequence isn’t a term to describe consequences, according to you. OK, I seem to get it now.