@dojima5071 @PaulaToThePeople No. If a person or organisation keeps making the same "mistake" without changing things to prevent it from happening again, it is no longer a mistake: it's a choice. That's not an act of generalising people within groups, it's a matter of observing and judging people/organisations for their action.

@tudiv @PaulaToThePeople That's not what I'm talking about. Like my algebra I teacher said in my freshmen year, "If you do something once, it's a mistake, but if you keep doing it, it's intentional." What I mean is the idea of assuming a political party is nazi because most of it's members are nazis, calling an instance a nazi instance because of most of its instances, etc. If you end up banning hate speech, you're technically banning free speech.

The whole point of free speech is to allow everyone's beliefs, even the ones that you absolutely loathe, such as nazism and eugenicism. If you ban certain beliefs on your instance, then does free speech really exist? Plus, what would be considered worth banning next after that? I could go on and discuss this.

@dojima5071 @PaulaToThePeople You can't have tolerance while tolerating intolerance. And if most of a party's members are nazis, that makes it a nazi party because those members have power within the party.

Let's say you organise a party. You satay everyone is welcome: both gay people and homophobes, for example. Then you get homophobes, because gay people aren't safe at a party with homophobes and they know that.

@tudiv @PaulaToThePeople By your logic, society is actually more intolerant if it doesn't tolerate intolerant ideas, even the most disliked ones.

The example you gave where you say both gay people and homophobes are allowed in a party I organized needs some context. What would you consider that makes such people homophobic? Would this group be like nazis? Another concern that myself, and a lot of people in the GRSM community have is the watering down of buzzwords like racist, ableist, etc.

@dojima5071 @PaulaToThePeople watering down? Are you disabled or a person of colour?

When I say your invitation was extended to anyone, I mean all homophobic people were welcome. So the moderate ones and the very worst ones.

No, by my logic a society is more intolerant when intolerance is accepted.

@tudiv @PaulaToThePeople The problem with letting only BIPOC determine racism, people with disabilities determine ableism, and variations of those, is that it leaves people out of the conversation. It's important to have all perspectives on an issue, otherwise you don't have the true picture. The kind of stuff I worry about is people that are like "YoU dOn'T lIkE X, Y, oR Z? YoU'rE a RaCiSt!" and similar things. Those kind of individuals are why people don't take systemic racism as seriously as

@tudiv @PaulaToThePeople -they should.

@dojima5071 @PaulaToThePeople I understand your point. In my experience, bigoted people don't become bigoted or refuse to take discrimination seriously because of being told about it too often. People choose to be bigoted and then will use anything as an excuse for their bigotry.

@tudiv @PaulaToThePeople "Bigoted people don't become bigoted or refuse to take discrimination seriously because of being told about it too often." That's exactly what I'm talking about and I'm scared will happen. I think society needs to be more careful with when they use buzzwords so people will take bigotry more seriously when it actually does happen.

@dojima5071 @PaulaToThePeople pampering to bigots will not stop them from thinking serious conversations about oppressive issues are "buzzwords"

@tudiv @PaulaToThePeople I'm not doubting that. I'm just saying that if we give these words more power, then people would understand and support movements like #MeToo and BLM a lot more because the issues of sexism and systemic racism of the Black community will be seen as more serious than if we accuse every minor thing of being bigoted, whether it's intentional, a joke, or neither.

@dojima5071 @PaulaToThePeople

It's important to see the smaller normalised expressions of discrimination, because we have to fix the problems at their roots. It's silly to only look at the worst bits and disregard the rest.

@tudiv @PaulaToThePeople Yes, there are some issues that don't even make it to the media, or even word by mouth, so I can see where you're going.

@tudiv @PaulaToThePeople Yeah, but since intolerant people are those who aren't tolerant of others, wouldn't that technically make a society intolerant if it doesn't tolerant the more radical ideas out there?

@dojima5071 @PaulaToThePeople a society can either be tolerant towards all people being humans and enforce their safety, or tolerant of all idea's - including those that paint some humans of unworthy - and therefore allow people to be in danger.

@tudiv @PaulaToThePeople I would say it's somewhat of a risk that we allow all ideas, both left and right-wing, but you have to get that there will always be f**ked up people in this world, regardless of whether society is intolerant of certain ideas or not.

@dojima5071 @PaulaToThePeople See, here we fundamentally disagree. I know there will always be bad people in this world, but I refuse to just accept that. "That's just how the world is." is a very unhealthy way of going through life. Maybe this is my autism, but I will not sit by and watch. By talking about things and standing up and gains intolerance we can make a difference, no matter how small.

@tudiv @PaulaToThePeople There are some things you cannot change in this world, but while you can't change them, you have the right to criticize and hate that they are unchangeable.

I used to have autism, so I understand where you're going.

@dojima5071 @PaulaToThePeople

"Nobody has ever changed someone else's mind: people change their own minds."

Yes, there are things we cannot change. But we can make others aware of them and cast those bad things out. Like with COVID-19. In the countries where even the smallest symptoms and the first infections were taken seriously, like Australia, it's not an issue anymore.

@dojima5071 also of course it's sometimes fine to generalze things.
If I say "I like pizza" I'm generalizing.

@dojima5071 @PaulaToThePeople Paula, you generalized!

Val, you're welcome to explain what's wrong with "generalizing"

@kete @PaulaToThePeople

The thing with generalizing is that it doesn't benefit anyone. Generalization of groups of people puts all of them in the same category. It's also technically a form of slander or dehumanizing.

@dojima5071 Thanks, in this case, how can one talk about a system without generalization? Yesterday, I saw a tweet about a cop arresting another cop for something like beating someone who's handcuffed, but normally, that doesn't happen. Normally, cops don't just look the other way, but even the chief makes up a fictionalized account that excuses an officer.

@kete The police is built to enforce systemic racism, so therefore I don't care when people say ACAB. What I mean is when you generalize races and sexualities and whatnot.

@dojima5071 @PaulaToThePeople things being repeated in a kind of scheme isn't generalizing.

You can not generalize the fact that all cops are okay with working for a system that opresses communities. Even if they want to change the inside of it.

You can not generalize the fact that someone often sharing nazi content is in fact a nazi themselves.

Things are what they are.

@Defectivetrxgedy @PaulaToThePeople

I'm just saying it's ridiculous to say that just because most people in an instance, subreddit, etc. are neo-nazis mean the platforms themselves are neo-nazi. It's especially ridiculous when the platforms weren't founded to support them.

An example would be 4chan. Yes, 4chan is full of fucked up people, but was it founded to support the alt-right? Nope. So it's slander to say it's a neo-nazi site.

@dojima5071 @PaulaToThePeople don't make me say what I didn't say. Please, re-read my comment. What you're saying is not what I said. 🙂

@dojima5071 @PaulaToThePeople white cis folks often generalize the fact that all black folks are criminals or murderers and I don't know what false else.

When a black person murders someone, all black folks are murderers.

These generalization hurt communities and are wrong. But they go along with the system we've all grown in.

You can not say the same for the opposite considering privileged folks.

That's where we should draw the line.

@Defectivetrxgedy @PaulaToThePeople

So you're saying it's okay to generalize and hate on white and cis people but not okay to do those things towards POC and trans people? I don't think double standards will help your cause. If you truly do care about equality for all, then you need to fight for everyone, even white and cis people. If you don't do that, you ain't fighting for equality, you're fighting for privilege.

@dojima5071 @PaulaToThePeople calling out white and cis people is not hate. It's calling out.

Please, stop mixing these two when they are two completely different things.

Again, and as I've said before, when people should be called out, they must be. It's not hate toward them as long as they think twice about their behavior and educate themselves when necessary.

@x41kla I never said that surveillance by authoritarian regimes isn't bad too, but I'm no expert on how to circumvent that, so I didn't write an article about it. The only tips I have for those in that situation are: Use Tor and use encryption.

@PaulaToThePeople

Ok point taken about the article and yes you never said that.

But it don't have nothing to do with capitalism. Is just surveillance, fix the tag please. People living in a communist country have the same issue and even worse your are killed.