lvxferre

lvxferre, hace 1 año

Then people who still prefer Reddit to Lemmy could do the same to us and would be totally justified.

There's a big difference: unlike Reddit, Lemmy and Kbin aren't actively pissing off the people who manage the place.

Do not make internet even worse than it is now.

That means not leaving your content in Reddit, where it'll attract more people to drop their content there, only to be erased in the future. Because no matter what we do, Reddit is going down and all info there is going with it.

Also worth noting that most content in Reddit is archived anyway, up to March/23 (when Reddit killed Pushshift access), so the actual loss of info would be next to zero.

lvxferre, hace 1 año

Do you hate Reddit so much as to try to intentionally destroy it?

Yes.

lvxferre, hace 1 año

You can also use this random gibberish generator.

I for one believe that scorched earth is the best approach. Your content is yours, you have moral and legal ownership over it; if you want to replace it in that site with gibberish, it's your right and choice.

lvxferre, hace 1 año

The demographics being pissed are different.

When Voat, and then Ruqqus, were formed, people leaving Reddit were

• a minority of informed people, smelling the bullshit from a distance, and genuinely concerned about freedom of speech; and
• a majority of clowns, who don't really give a damn about free speech - they were pissed that their specific discourse was being banned.

That is not what is happening now. The ones leaving are not doing so due to "I can't say slurs any more! ;_;" like that majority, or "I'm concerned about deeply abstract matters" like the minority. The ones leaving are the most contributive people, who know that the boat is sinking, are seeing it sinking, and want to get away ASAP.

lvxferre, hace 1 año

I get why you're posting this comic and I contextually agree with you. However, the comic itself is bad, and it distorts quite a bit what Popper said.

The quote in the Wikipedia link that you've shared is considerably better:

Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.