@ernest how do I report a Magazin on kbin.social ? There is a usere called “ps” who is posting to his own “antiwoke” Magazin on kbin.social. Please remove this and dont give them a chance to etablish them self on kbin.social. When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin? Seems like a problem. Screenshot of the “antiwoke” Magazin /sub on kbin.social. 4 Headlines are visible, 2 exampels: “Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society” “How to end wokeness” #Moderation #kbin #kbin.social 📎

edit: dont feed the troll, im shure ernest will delet them all when he sees this. report and move on.

Edit 2 : Ernest responded:
“I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author.”

  • deelightful@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately I don’t know how to report magazines/users so I can’t help you there but I just want to add my support to what you’re asking because this sort of thing is against the kbin terms of service:

    We expect all users to treat each other with respect and kindness. Harassment, hate speech, or any other form of harmful behavior will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to remove any content or user that violates these guidelines.

    • 10A@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      The communist far-left calls all disagreement “hate speech”. It is not hateful to speak the truth.

      • jalda@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        62
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are longing for the times when “Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp”. Isn’t this hateful?

        • 10A@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It would be if that’s what I said, but I never said I was longing for anything, and I never threatened to harm anyone.

            • 10A@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, actually I say what I mean. You might try taking the context of the entire comment into account. It was about the purpose of freedom.

              • ElleChaise@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                31
                ·
                1 year ago

                The tolerance of intolerance leads to the loss of all freedom. You’d have to be either a fraud or a fool to try and sell the opposite as truth. So which are you?

                • 10A@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you are intolerant of intolerance, then you are intolerant. Full stop. If those are my only two available options, I must be a fool.

                  • webghost0101@lemmy.fmhy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Thats why its called the paradox of intolerance:

                    “The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.”

                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

                    To be fair, i have no problems with the existence off a far-right or even a pro-pedo separate Lemmy instance as long as the harm is limited to just written words on said instance. If we don’t allow those opinions anywhere then they will just be had in secret and spiral even more out of control. Instances that want to fully protect themselves to intolerant sickos can do so by defederating.

          • jalda@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            1 year ago

            Whatever, I copied your whole paragraph in another comment, and the context is pretty clear for anyone who cares to read it. I didn’t claim that you personally were threatening to do the beating, only that you thought that the beating was desiderable for the “program of western civilization”. If you really don’t want homosexual people to be beaten to a pulp, then you should seriously reconsider how you express your ideas.

            • 10A@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Even taking that paragraph out of context is misleading. The whole comment was about the purpose of freedom.

              • jalda@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                18
                ·
                1 year ago

                You still haven’t addressed my point. Do you think it is desiderable that homosexual people are beaten to a pulp? Is a YES/NO question, it shouldn’t be difficult to answer.

                • 10A@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, I do not advocate for violence (except in self-defense situations where there’s no other option).

                  • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago
                    It made sense back when everyone was, more or less, on board with the program of western civilization. We may not all have been Christian back then, but almost all of us were, and everyone supported Judeo-Christian values without question. Homosexuals were regularly taken outside and beaten to a pulp, so it was extremely rare for anyone to think such behavior was acceptable.
                    
                    At this point we need to ask ourselves what the purpose of freedom is. Are we a free people so we can exercise perverted pleasures of the flesh, the slaughter of innocent babies, and genital mutilation of children without their parents knowledge? If you answer "yes", you just might be repeating the whisper of a demon.
                    
                    The purpose of our freedom is to worship God as we see fit, and to do His will. In the past we never needed to spell that out, because it went without saying. Different people have different views and belief systems, and they're all valid provided they all worship God.
                    
                    As secular society grows, we lose the underlying reason for our freedom. Freedom is still a valid concept for anyone who knows how to use it correctly, and who understands that the ultimate freedom is the freedom from sin, which is achieved by accepting Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior.
                    
                    But for those who think the purpose of freedom is to follow Satan, to abuse themselves and others, to commit endless sins, and then, most evil of all, to celebrate pride in their sin (as if they don't even understand that pride itself is a sin), no, I no longer agree that people are entitled to live their lives in the way that they want. They're entitled to repent, and once they do that we can discuss freedom.
                    
                    

                    Here is your exact quote, there is no “misrepresentation” here. You are firstly suggesting that the gays are worshiping (indirectly or directly) Satan and have no right to “freedom” because your fictionally sky daddy said so. Lets take a step backwards, so you are suggesting your all loving god, basically has doomed 3/5s (if not more until the white people came) of the world because he decided to only care about Europe and part of the middle east for hundreds to thousands of years because this all knowing being somehow couldn’t have stable and growing amount of worshipers in Asia, the Americas, Australia, the pacific, etc dooming them all to hell (or purgatory depending on your denomination) because they as you say can’t be able to accept “Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior.”

                    You yearn for a day when everyone (in your neighborhood) had your stupid sky daddy’s beliefs and if they didn’t you wouldn’t pull the trigger or what not but you aren’t opposed because now we live in a world of sin and whatnot and you want them to repent because they decide to have their freedom that is instill upon them because they are born a fucking human not because a fucking fictional sky daddy said you have it.

                    It god damn hilarious you are also reiterating god damn fanfic, the cardinal 7 sins weren’t a major concept until they were first enumerated by Pope Gregory I in the 6th century and further expanded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Then to top it all off, we as a modern society mostly know the configuration of hell by a god damn self insert fanfic by Dante Alighieri in “Divine Comedy” or to be more specific Dante’s Inferno.

                    Also seems you aren’t very godly if you aren’t even following Jesus’ own words

                    “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:39),

                    Your love seems very conditional on the concept that they have to worship your god before they deserve any love. Its honestly disgusting and you are the posterchild of why people hate religious nuts. People can worship what they want if they aren’t hurting people but holy shit the shit you are willfully allowing by decree people deserve no freedom if they don’t have Judeo-Christians.

          • Bizarroland@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s called masturpraying.

            You’re not hurting anyone (in the physical sense) but you’re getting off on the idea that bad things should happen to other people, people you consider to not be in your “in group”, and this is usually done in the name of and for the glory of God.

            It’s a fancy sin that preachers don’t tell people about because they’re usually guilty of it themselves.

            Masturpraying is direct service to and worship of Satan, and he really enjoys it because the people who do it do it in God’s name as they commit spiritual violence against the kingdom of God and its occupants while thinking that they are doing good.

      • RadicalHomosapien@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is no disagreement when it comes to gender identity. You don’t get to disagree with how someone lives their life when it doesn’t effect you. It is not a “communist” ideology to support trans folks and you’re exposing how little you actually understand about politics with these types of assertions.

        • 10A@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s off-topic to debate that here, so I’ll refrain. But suppose you’re right, and I understand nothing. And suppose the antiwoke mod knows nothing either. Would that be suitable grounds to ban a magazine and/or ban us as users?

          • kestrel7@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            28
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Unequivocally yes. You are clearly not engaging in good faith and tolerance of malicious disinfo is basically the main problem currently facing our culture.

            • 10A@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I heartily disagree, and that’s mighty authoritarian of you. Your personal values and opinions might happen to align well with the majority of kbin users, but that doesn’t make them any more valid than anyone else’s personal values and opinions.

          • GizmoLion@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well that depends, you’ve been pretty thoroughly educated in this post, so now what will you do about it? I fully expect you’ll return to your far right anti-woke hatemongering, in which case yes you should be blocked.

            Or you can retract it, and maybe there’s hope for you yet.

          • Jo@readit.buzz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            When they’re seeking to have people beaten to a pulp? Yes, obviously. Freedom for a few fascist bullies is unfreedom for everyone else. They can fuck off to Gab or Truth Social or somewhere else they’d be welcome. Not here.

      • Naich@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you genuinely can’t see that it’s hate speech, then you need to be blocked and not debated because you are immune to reasoning.

        • 10A@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Amusing. If I can’t accept your obviously incorrect position, then you must shut down conversation because I’m immune to reasoning? Take a look in the mirror.

      • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        “We need to reopen the asylums yesterday” isn’t the truth, it’s your opinion.

        In my opinion, words like this are propaganda intended for radicalisation, and dehumanize people that don’t fit into rigid definitions of acceptable lifestyle. Your opinion states that these people should be deprived of liberty and free movement, and deprived of autonomy over their own bodies.

        In my opinion, I don’t need to tolerate you in my social circles, and Ernest doesn’t need to use his own computing resources to enable your shit take on what freedom is.

        Kindly go and have your “free speech” using resources that come out of your own pocket, not an unwilling person’s.

        • 10A@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I respect most of what you wrote. Yes, that one sentence you quoted at the top is nothing more than my opinion. Yes, you could consider it propaganda. But I didn’t intend it to be for radicalization, and I wouldn’t hope that to be its effect.

          I don’t mean to dehumanize anyone, no matter what. But I do agree that I have advocated for a somewhat rigid definition of acceptable lifestyle.

          With regard to depriving anyone of liberty, free movement, and autonomy, that’s specifically for those who need mental help. For many years we used asylums to contain such people. Many of our current social ills began when we closed the asylums down, and changed the DSM to redefine conditions formerly considered types of insanity to now be considered perfectly healthy. This too is just my opinion, but I’m trying to clarify that it only addresses people who need mental help.

          You most certainly don’t need to tolerate me in your social circles, and I won’t be offended if you choose to block me.

          Ernest doesn’t need to do anything at all, and I think we can all agree we’re grateful for what he’s done. Personally I hope he establishes a free speech policy, but in any case we’ll see what happens.

          With regard to money, I’ve bought Ernest coffee and I hope you have too! That doesn’t entitle me to anything, of course. But it’s just to say that yes, I have contributed.

          • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            and changed the DSM

            Side note, that’s more an indictment of the DSM and the rigor of psychology than anything else. Whether something is a disorder or not depends on how popular it is, the whole thing reeks of quackery