Words can get someone involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Words can be used to take away rights. Words can affect national policy. Words were what Adolf Hitler used to send people to the concentration camps, and they’re what Donald Trump is using to do the same thing today. Words are extraordinarily dangerous.

Nah, none of those. All instances of harm require unnecessary action taken by choice. Words can be disregarded. Acting on words is the actor’s choice.

When we legitimise words that dehumanise the mentally ill

They’re not doing that. Moreover, using such words alone doesn’t do what you claim. There are a number of steps between a word you find offensive & adverse action: that argument is a slippery slope. Unless the words incite imminent action, people have an unbounded amount of time to think & arrive to a decision before taking action. Any amount of discussion can occur during that time to influence & inform decisions. Rather than an overgeneralized attack on using a word, a more focused & coherent argument to support human rights could be raised.

Over relying on offense & emotion to steer their judgement discounts people’s capacity to reason & infantilizes them, which is condescending. Offense & emotion are not reliable guides of judgement. Speculation that it would promote better outcomes is not a valid argument. That such an approach would work better than reason is poorly supported. We could at least as plausibly appeal to reason rather than to offended emotion with the bonus of not irrationally overgeneralizing.

People can interpret context to draw distinctions & you’re overgeneralizing. The overgeneralization underpinning your offended opinion isn’t a valid argument. Neither is the speculation offered to support it. Telling people their words mean something they do not, disrespecting their moral agency & ability think, & insulting their intelligence to discern meaning is unpersuasive. Promoting a rational argument more specifically supporting the outcomes you favor would be more persuasive.

Are you making something not about yourself about yourself? That…checks out.

Ironically, it might support the author’s point. Now I’ve got to reexamine how much this explains other social media interactions.

That’s going to get someone hurt. These words have just as much destructive potential, so we need to treat them the same way.

Offense isn’t harm: no one is getting hurt. You’re overstating the harm of expression by appealing to clinical language & understating the need for resilience & enough judgement to discern that in context, the word has a looser meaning. It’s a bit overdramatic.

Moreover, conventional language doesn’t operate the way you suggest: there’s no such rule about psychiatrists & “off limits”. No one is obligated to share your opinion on this: it’s not fact.

Y’all have heard of the Nazi Bar problem, right?

Bullshit genetic or reductio ad hitlerum fallacy. Carried to its logical conclusion, anything tainted by Nazis (eg, the universe) is a Nazi bar. Have you considered finding yourself another universe to inhabit, since this one is irredeemably tainted? While we may argue the universe is far too vast to be a “Nazi bar”, so is the internet or any “platform”.

Worse, censoring ideas gives them covert power. It doesn’t discredit them or strip them of power like challenging them in a public forum could. It’s also a disservice to better ideas

• it withholds opportunities for people to become competent enough advocates to discredit bad ideas
• instead of deradicalize opponents, it drives their discussion elsewhere: they continue to radicalize & grow opposition unchallenged.

Censorship is incompetent advocacy: it mistakes suppressing the expression of bad ideas for effective advocacy that directly discredits bad ideas, develops intellectual growth, and steers toward better ideas.

Paradox of intolerance?

The bogus social media version subverting the original message or the real one?

Karl Popper opposed censorship/argued for free inquiry & open discourse.

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.

Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism.

Only cowards fear words. Words are not the danger. It’s the dangerous people whose words we fail to discredit.

Well that’s fucking stupid when we know deplatforming works. Also you’re using specific definitions to deliberately misunderstand the paradox of tolerance so this is a stupid argument in the first place.

Your willful ignorance & stubborn denial of Karl Popper’s directly quoted writing on the subject is not a valid argument. Multiple references cited prove you wrong & you’ve cited nothing. Conventional definitions found here & all over the place (from wikipedia & to SEP) fit Karl Popper’s usage and prove you’re wrong. You’re just wrong.

A fucking high school intellect wrote that garbage article. Also, fuck pacifism, that’s a tool of fascists.

You should be troubled that highschooler can refute you: work on yourself.

And next time use your own words instead of a gpt.

Cool speculative ad hominem: beep boop. Supposing an AI reasons better than you should also trouble you. Try arguing better with logic & evidence next time, genius.

Maybe read about the French revolutionary National Assembly & where political left came from?

Yes: crack open a history book.

Liberalism was the original leftism: see the French revolutionary National Assembly. It doesn’t intrinsically have anything to do with capitalism. In general, liberalism is neither left nor right. It promotes individualism. Historically, it progressed from humanism.

leftism begins at anti-capitalism

Not the political science definition.

General definitions & the historical development of liberalism are academic.

liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

Some of the earliest liberal practices are found in the US Declaration of Independence, which predates the French revolution spreading the practice of liberal ideals throughout Europe. The US declaration pretty much rehashes core tenets of liberal philosophy

• inherent equality of individuals
• universal individual rights & liberties
• consent of the governed (governments exist for the people who have a right to change & replace them, & authority is legitimate only when it protects those liberties).

Note how capitalism isn’t mentioned anywhere: it’s nonessential. Capitalism predates & isn’t liberalism. Liberalism is moral & political philosophy, not an economic one.

The philosophy is a natural progression of humanist philosophies from the Renaissance through the Protestant Reformation & the Enlightenment that stress the importance of individuality, secular reasoning, & tolerance over dogma & subservience to unaccountable authority. To address unaccountable authority based on dogma & traditions, English & French philosophers defined legitimate authority based on humanist morality pretty much as expressed in the US declaration. They argued that political systems thrive better with limits & duties on authority & an adversarial system of institutional competition whether in separation of powers, adversarial law system with habeas corpus & right to jury trial, competitive elections, dialogue, or economic competition.

1700s

When the liberals were the leftists?

If we rely on the logic of the German approach, we wouldn’t be able to call the thing a thing until its too late. The point being made is that if you wait long enough to be able to a full historical analysis, you’ve effectively become an apologist for genocide on the basis of a lack of evidence.

Untrue: it’s a matter of accurate wording. “The evidence so far indicates they’re potentially…” or “For all we know, they could be…” gets the same idea across without violating integrity concerning degree of certainty or knowledge.

Providing material support to Israel is no different from providing material support to Nazi Germany

Technically & literally false: they are different. A lawyer can challenge the falsehood.

Providing material support to Israel is bad for the same reasons providing material support to any genocidal state including Nazi Germany is bad

Providing material support to Israel is providing material support to a genocidal state

Providing material support to Israel is as bad as providing material support to a feebler Nazi Germany

All technically correct or opinion.

Claiming shit is true before we have the evidence to justify it is invalid & another way to state you’re claiming shit you don’t actually know: you’re spouting shit. Spouting shit is fine in cool countries that respect liberty. However, Germany is not one of them. Spouting the wrong shit in Germany is legally risky: apparently, the law parses words with autistic literalism.

By punishing verbal laziness, the law doesn’t necessarily “support genocide”. It is coercing you to stop being a slob & express yourself with (annoying?) accuracy.

Cool non-answer. What part of civility rules typical across lemmy such as dbzer0’s own

Don’t be shitty. i.e. telling people to kill themselves, or bad-jacketing is bannable.

allows exceptions for unhinged promotion of violence against commenters whom we unreasonably allege or “bad-jacket” as Zionist? Uncivil denunciations of Zionism are uncivil; therefore, moderators enforcing civility must prosecute. No evidence was given the moderators penalize civil denunciations of Zionism. Enforcing civility doesn’t imply Zionism.

This is basic logic. Denying basic logic implies staggering stupidity or dishonesty.