You must log in or register to comment.
Depends on the context.
Bad joke? Yes.
Racial slurs? No.
Bad joke with racial slurs? No.
This is unintentionally revealing of the West’s changing linguistic taboos.
As I understand it, a thousand years ago the worst linguistic transgressions were religious, involving words like “God”, “Jesus” and “devil”. Then, in the premodern period, that became pretty innocuous and the taboo shifted to words concerning disgusting bodily functions, “shit”, “piss” and so on. And then in Victorian era it was sex, female virtue, prostitution, all of which remains at the heart of the slang action in the Romance languages. To protect sensitive souls, I will not spell them out.
And in today’s post-modern Anglosphere, all of that stuff is now utterly anodyne. The most terrifying words are now all about group identity. And of course here the taboo is now so absolute that the context doesn’t even matter, I would be banned for even typing the letters.
Interesting.
The context doesn’t matter because the literal only reason to use the words is to cause harm.
Just the idea that words, alone, can cause harm is a modern notion.
No it isn’t. You’ve already acknowledged that many more words were historically viewed as damaging.
Acknowledging the harm of hate is more modern, but the evidence behind it is pretty much indisputable.
To invoke a deity, or bodily fluids, or sexual impropriety, was to sully oneself and society as a whole.
The idea that words are somehow as dangerous as physical weapons is peculiarly modern. As is the idea that it is worse to denigrate a group than an individual.
No, they literally believed that using the name of gods could get you struck down, cursed, etc. by those gods.
And nobody is claiming words are physical weapons.
Both sides of your argument are wild mischaracterizations of reality and neither could plausibly be done in good faith.
I must admit that I never get this recourse to the “bad faith” argument. I’m telling you how I see things. Why would I bother inventing something that I don’t even believe? Mystifying. If you see things differently, fine. I don’t believe I’ve said anything factually incorrect (again: why would I bother playing games?). None of this is hard science anyway, so others can judge the arguments on their merits through the prism of their own values.
And now I see that you’ve been downvoting my comments systematically. Personally I consider that to be the virtual equivalent of shouting someone down in a debate. So that’s enough for today. Good night.
Kinda like the idea of incrementally longer bans for each offense.
That’s MUCH BETTER actually. 3 warnings, then 1 day, and increase the amount of days for each offense.
But “increase” must be something like 3x the last one, or 10x. Otherwise there would be too much room for damage.
Mostly yes: In a sense, doing anything “permanently and forever” is a big deal. People can change and grow, and a full permanent ban without any opportunity for appeal seems harsh. Very few things should warrant a permaban: one example that comes to mind is willfully attempting to circumvent a temporary ban. Posting spam, too.
Also no: Lemmy isn’t and shouldn’t be a critical part of anyone’s life. If you were forever banned from it, maybe it’s okay.
Just salty about an askr*ddit ban lol
I always want to spite them by evading but they catch me each time
I got banned permanently because of a horrible mental health episode like really I’m not like that 24/7 and my normal post history showed that. Now if I was brand new and said that stuff I think a warning or one week ban is better
banned permanently because of a horrible mental health episode
You do not get banned because of your health.
You get banned because of the stuff you posted.
(Maybe it’s a good idea to not post stuff while you have that episode)
Yeah but compared to my normal stuff you’d know I wouldn’t primarily post bad stuff. Now if my whole history was trash, then yeah, can me.
I do not understand.
But again: It is only about stuff that you have actually posted.
I suppose they have yo deal with a lot of stuff so after a while they just can’t differentiate anymore and it’s easier to just ban people than. Being considerate takes effort.
Having moderated a number of online spaces over the years, sort of. It’s usually the harshest thing a moderator can do, but it does not have very much real world impact on most people. In many parts of the internet, it isn’t even very effective at keeping the same person from coming back with another account, which isn’t a big deal if they don’t come back with the same behavior.
I’m not particularly shy about reaching for the permanent ban if it seems like someone is being an asshole on purpose. I’m not getting paid for it, and I do not have much patience for dealing with people who don’t want to be respectful toward their fellow humans. There’s usually a way to appeal if it’s a misunderstanding. That’s especially true in systems like Lemmy and unlike traditional web forums where one account and UI provides access to many communities, leading to drive-by comments.
I’m also fond of somewhat ambiguous rules like “be excellent to each other” or “don’t be an asshole”. Without that, if a community gets active enough, someone will show up, act like an asshole, and argue about the rules when they get banned.
No
Permabans are akin to life sentences or death sentences. They should be reserved for serious “crimes” or multiple repeat offenses and not for breaking a rule or two. Something that Reddit mods can’t wrap their heads around.
I was permabanned from r/college for trolling once. Like wtf! I was also permabanned from Reddit as a whole for calling out reverse racism, but that’s another story.
