why are kill and violence censored?
My mum might see it and take away my Xbox.
understandable, have a nice day 🫂
What the frick?!
It’s a thing that has started to appear because of mainstream social media deleting post with “bad vibes”. Kill, suicide, and such vocabulary are actively repressed to “ensure happiness”
That makes sense. Avoiding censorship is reasonable. I was thinking some people did it to avoid triggers, as if seeing ‘r*pe’ or ‘k!ll’ isn’t the exact same thing as seeing the words spelled out.
It’s more of a demonetization thing. I see it all over the YouTube videos of homicide investigation police interviews, which makes no sense.
Yea YouTube and TikToks automated demonetization is definitely a big part to blame for this stupid trend. It also annoys me as an enjoyer of YouTube murder porn.
It’s especially dumb because there is some extremely heinous stuff on YouTube that is still monetized, and when a video is demonetized for a channel they still play ads all over it, too.
Yeah that would be a pretty poor trigger warning.
Yeah they don’t like when people talk about mental health issues. Go kill yourself in private and stop getting your bad vibes all over my nice, clean website.
Oh shit, it’s the thought police!
bruh was planning on posting this on roblox or some shit
I don’t know, but watch out for anybody wearing a red asterisk.
I litterally frowned at that
Good thing you censored those naughty words, everyone on the internet are children and it’s not appropriate for them to know such no-no words.
I’m glad no child knows the word “kill”. Phew.
My business website has “kill” in it, and the business bankers at my bank can not view it on their work computers. Its blocked because of that string in the URL.
S****ed trades? 🚨
Unacceptable.
Same reason why the game I worked on censored users talking about our Assassin boss… especially on a Saturday.
I feel bad for Therapists nowadays.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
the algorithms like to censor certain words and symbols
Solved simply by treating tolerance as a social contract instead of an absolute moral doctrine.
Break the contract, lose the protections.
Well put.
It really is just as simple as “don’t do mental gymnastics”, there’s only a paradox here if you make one
Human rights should always be universal and immutable, we can’t go around deciding who does or doesn’t have basic human rights. Antifa has to be the better people because unfortunately we have to be the adults in the room and show the children what it means to be a decent human being. But, having your human rights respected doesn’t mean that you’re immune to the consequences of your actions like getting the shit kicked out of you for being a Nazi prick, or getting locked up in prison for the rest of your life.
We do decide who doesn’t get all their rights all the time. It’s called jail.
Those aren’t Human Rights, those are Freedoms. Freedoms are often included as part of Human Rights decrees but they are usually merely subsections of Human Rights decrees and can be restricted by governments if there is just cause, but never or rarely removed outright.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies a few key things like the Right to Life including protections from slavery and torture. The Freedom of Movement is one that can be restricted if you prove dangerous. The big one that most people are referring to when they mention Human Rights is all of the “constitutional liberties”, here’s a quote from the article I linked about that:
the so-called “constitutional liberties” and spiritual, public, and political freedoms, such as freedom of thought, opinion, expression, religion and conscience, word, peaceful association of the individual, and receiving and imparting information and ideas through any media.
The above linked declaration hasn’t been ratified in every country, and it’s sort of a basic boilerplate that countries may use to form their own Human Rights decrees. But again the big one that is quite universal is the constitutional liberties which are basically the freedom from discrimination and oppression.
My point being, restricting a person’s Freedoms isn’t necessarily the same as violating their Human Rights.
I mean, there is the right to bear arms, people in jail and felons don’t have that right. Felons can’t even vote.
Human rights are bigger than just the United States. What happens there is a pretty atrocious infringement on the rights of inmates. It’s not surprising though, considering the US prison system is essentially just modern slavery and that there are corporations who have a vested interest in dehumanizing the inmates so they can exploit them as slave labor without anyone objecting.
Article 20 Right of Peaceful Assembly and Association
People in jail can’t do that.
Article 13 Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country
They can’t do that either.
Article 14 Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution
I mean, how do you define persecution? Because we help find people sometimes, which seems like the opposite.
No, there are real adults with these opinions. Real adults that perform real actions based on their opinions. If they can’t stop themselves from being uncivilized animals based on bigotry and discrimination then we need to protect the rest of our society that is peaceful and tolerant. The only way to be decent to absolute villains is to relinquish them of their ability to take action. Otherwise everything we’ve built since Babylon comes tumbling down.
tfw they are ushering you into a gas chamber but you don’t fight back because you don’t want to infringe on their human rights.
Let’s walk through an example. Please note that I absolutely do not mean anything of what I’m about to say. Imagine someone were to say the following things.
I’m going to kill you. I don’t think you have a right to exist. I’m going to torture, dismember, and end you because I personally believe this is morally right. You do not deserve life. I will come to your home. I will take you in the night. I will make you watch as your family screams in terror while I take them all away. I will do this to everyone like you. I will destroy you because I believe it is the right thing to do. I will experiment on you. You will be like cattle for my whims because I do not believe you are human like me. You are just a meat sack. I will abuse you simply for my enjoyment because you hold no value beyond the value I give you. You are worthless, and I will dispose of you.
If someone legitimately said these things to you, if they really meant it, would you want the government to just be like, “hey man, they can say whatever they want. Human rights?” This is a Nazi’s inner monologue.
Uttering death threats is a crime in most nations. So they would hopefully be put in jail long before they acted upon those thoughts. If someone is that disturbed then there’s something wrong with them on a fundamental level – be that nature or nurture. What I would hope for that person is that they’re locked away from society, but treated as well as they can be considering some safety measures need to be in place for even prison guards to interact with someone like that.
I’m not arguing at all that we never lock anyone up, that’s absurd and anyone who thinks that is probably intentionally misunderstanding my meaning. I just think that treating people with as much dignity and respect as we can is the right thing to do in all circumstances. Dehumanizing and othering people is what fascists do, if we want to call ourselves the good guys, we can’t act like fascists. It’s just plain wrong, and it’s evil.
The paradox of tolerance can only apply to actions though, otherwise you just become the intolerant one that should be ostracized.
No
Saying shitty things doesn’t get you a free pass just because “it’s just words”
Saying shitty things is an action, and demands appropriate counter action
But speaking is an action. Thinking isn’t
Think what you want, but if you say or do shitty things, expect people to treat you like shit
Yeah - that’s what I meant…
And the appropriate counter action is also words.
We have to be tolerant to the intolerant, otherwise, who defines what tolerance is?
Removed by mod
Tolerating the intolerant is the price we have to pay to live in a just society.
Removed by mod
That sounds pretty intolerant to me. Can you find the door by yourself?
Removed by mod
Why should they leave? They haven’t said anything intolerant. You are being an asshole.
I’m a hypocrite myself so I don’t mind much, but why should your rules apply to me if they don’t apply to you?
And also, great explanation. You could make a Ted talk, I’m sure.
[Citation needed]
You really should read the article that Dadifer@lemmy.world posted (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,or%20destroyed%20by%20the%20intolerant.)
The TL;DR is that in order to create a tolerant society, ironically, the only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance. The paradox comes from the idea that if intolerance is tolerated and allowed to gain any kind of a foothold then the society is no longer tolerant, but if we stamp it out and nip it at the bud then that’s also intolerant.
However, the paradox obviously has one preferred outcome which is that intolerance of intolerance is the only way to maintain a (mostly) tolerant society. The other option is letting the Nazis win.
This isn’t an axiom. It’s just Karl Popper’s opinion. One of the few times the paradox of intolerance was actually invoked in a legal setting was in Communist Party of Germany v. the Federal Republic of Germany
The German federal government had petitioned for the Communist Party to be banned in 1952 on the basis that the party’s revolutionary practice means “the impairment or the abolition of the fundamental liberal democratic order in the Federal Republic”. Following hearings, the Federal Constitutional Court ordered in 1956 that the party be dissolved and its assets confiscated, and banned the creation of substitute organizations.
Is this… is this satire?
It’s blatant troll bait is what it is.
Why don’t mods delete this stuff?
Why is the meme censored?
To get around automated censors I imagine
Are there automated censors on Lemmy?
Last I heard it’s only being tested for AI-generated CSAM, not political stuff.
I hope no one ever uses it for political shit.
There is no such thing as generated CSAM.
That is the entire god-danged point of calling it “CSAM.”
You can’t abuse children who do not exist.
Do you suggest we keep calling the AI generated stuff “child porn” or something else? I just want to use whichever term results in clarity and fewer people correcting me.
Edit: or is there an umbrella term that applies to both?
No
I guess the weird censorship shows that op or whoever the hell made this are litteral children.
It’s to get around auto-censorship on social media sites.
What are these awful web sites?
So far as I know Facebook and Instagram.
You can’t say “kill” or “violence” on Facebook and Instagram? That’s some pretty heavy-handed censorship.
If it gets reported it can get taken down, yes.
TikTok.
But this is Lemmy so why are they still posting them?
It’s called a repost. People are allowed to repost stuff they find on other sites.
Doesn’t mean they should repost censored content. Respect that this is a different, freer format and go find the uncensored version.
Such a version may not exist if the meme was originally posted to Facebook.
That’s troubling.
Make your own. Become god.
So, you can’t use the word “kill” or “violence”? Or show a swastika? Even if it’s anti-Nazi?
Sounds like the solution is to just not use that social network.
People don’t have a problem with tankies because they want to use violence against fascists. Violence against fascists is fine.People dislike tankies because they’re reactionary assholes. They dislike them for cheer-leading unjustifiable abuses and failures because they believe we’re in some zero-sum game that excuses it. Because they’re extremists, oppressive authoritarians, and want to use violence against all of their ideological enemies, including the “wrong kinds” of communist.The good things they believe in and do aren’t what people have an issue with: it’s the inexcusably bad parts of their ideology people don’t like, and the fact they’re obnoxious about it.Edit: I stand by what I said, but apparently its easier to recognize flags when you expand the image … and my rant had nothing to do with the post.
Are you saying Antifa are tankies?
Not at all.
Who is the tanky in the picture?
My bad eyes totally didn’t see that was the antifa flag.
So nothing I said applies to this post … whoops.
To be fair everything you said still holds true if you replace tankie with antifa
Except not, because tankies love oppression as long as its their specific flavor of oppression.
Kay I need to ask, how does Lemmy use tankie? I’ve always thought it meant people who are willing to use violence against capitalist. I have a feeling I’m wrong.
Tankie is someone who thinks that Mao (and modern CCP) and Stalin were super alright people who did nothing wrong.
AFAIK a tankie is someone who is a fan of authoritarian communism or socialism… I forget which but the key part is the authoritarianism part, I think.
Yeah, they’re fans of the so-called “communism” of authoritarian countries like China and the USSR, which are about as communist as the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea is democratic or a republic.
Okay, gotcha. Tankie == historical communist. Tankie =/= neosocialist.
Not necessarily, Leninists and OG Marxists usually don’t get lumped in with Tankies - while Trotskists definitely should be. Tankies accept blatant authoritarianism as an acceptable cost to achieve socialism, non-Tankies reject authoritarian regimes.
… and super-Tankies are Pol Pot apologists.
Thank you! It’s all about that authoritarianism.
Its not even their ideology, its the fact they defend murderous tyranical regimes and try to be apologetic, defensive or straight up deny that shit.
Yeah like most of the time you ever see them recorded in public they’re just breaking shit and hitting random people accusing them of being a Nazi.
Do you have a link? Are any of these people westerners? I don’t think I’ve actually seen this. I am starting to think I’m not really sure what a tankie is.
It’s been a while since I have seen the video but i do remember the context behind it. It was during the 2020 BLM protests in the United States and many were identifying themselves as antifa (take it with a grain of salt, antifa is merely an ideology with no real leader or representative).
Some of those identifying as antifa were starting fights with others and making accusations. This was in addition to general arson ranging from property theft, destruction of property and starting fires. There are some even lighting up fireworks in the streets but it’s hard to tell if they are “apart” of antifa.
A Tankie is a hardcore communist usually with an affinity for authoritarianism. They are named “tankies” because during the cold war communists in western countries were defending the USSR’s use of tanks to crush anti government/communist protest, thus the name Tankie.
While one doesn’t mean the other they often have a prominent overlap with many of antifa being Tankies and vice versa.
Edit: the confusion was the original comment mistook the antifa logo as a communist symbol and referred to them as such and my comment was referring to antifa specifically .
Understood. Yea I know tons of people that consider themselves anti fascist and never met anyone like this, so I’d say definitely not the same lol. Generally antifa is against any authoritarianism from my experience.
Someone shoot the guy on the right.
And the nazi.
pam.jpg
Agreed, he can’t spell “literally.”
Guys what does the censored word say? I can’t tell. Can one of you tell me?
Violins
Lot of enlightened centrists showing up to comment on this like
Man, the Diaspora project has really gone to a weird place.
And again, that’s enough internet for today. I’ll see you tomorrow, with hopefully better content
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
The real version is the first guy says he won’t bake a cake for a gay couple, which is shitty, but his right. Then the second guy comes along and says he wants to kill the first guy because nazis also wouldn’t bake cakes for gay people, so the first guy must also be a nazi, and nazis all deserve to die, so this guy does too.
Then a rational person comes along and points out that both of them are being shitty and everyone loses their goddamned mind over it.
I’m no historian, but I have a feeling there isn’t a lot of scholarship on Nazi bakers.
I dunno about you, my dude, but the only people I’ve seen fucked up by antifascists were not saying that they didn’t want to bake a gay cake.
But I’ve seen the people who didn’t want to bake a gay cake be called pieces of shit who should do better. And I think that’s just called social consequences.
