Asklemmy

43803 readers

760 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Should I join "free speech" alternatives? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 6 months ago by sinewyshadow@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

96 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I mean sure, if you leap all the way from 0 to 1,000 for no reason.

[–] moreeni@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Because "a consequence" doesn't mean "any and every possible consequence anyone could think up".

[–] moreeni@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 6 months ago

Go back and reread your first comment, and the comment you were replying to. It's pretty clear why your comment was nonsensical in context to anyone interested in engaging in sensible good-faith conversation.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

Murder is illegal, and thus covered by other areas of the law.

Freedom of speech doesn't give others freedom to do whatever they want in respect to speech. You're incorrectly extrapolating.