- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
This is a good thing.
Let people say what they want. If you don’t like it, you can always ignore them.
Me when I like to spread disinformation on the internet
That’s how disinformation works.
It also strives in the world of censorship, it just serves the dominant force then.
I’m half with you. You can say what you want, but if you harass people, regardless of the content of your speech, you should be banned/silenced on private platforms.
Hard disagree.
If one person’s rights negatively affect another persons rights you can’t just rule one right to be more important in every situation. There’s gotta be more nuance than that.
You can say whatever you want without affecting other people’s rights.
How does writing a comment on Facebook negatively affect anyone’s rights?
Speech on Facebook/Instagram/etc can constitute harassment, which is a rights violation. That said, harassment has two parts to it:
- actual harm to receiver
- intended harm by the speaker
The second is harder to prove, but fortunately social media has a lot of samples to pick from to demonstrate a pattern.
You are a mentally deranged paedophile that wants to mutilate children.
Just ignore me while I tell everyone I know about that paedophile john89, okay?
Sure thing!
I see what you’re getting at - if we’re gonna allow our citizens freedom of speech, this is part of what it looks like. For the record, these dumb ass takes on my LGBTQ+ peeps do NOT align with my own personal feelings. However, freedom of speech is objectively a good thing.
Problem is that entities like Meta and X are suppressing the voices of people that are making comments against the status quo and challenging the uber rich, and elevating the voices of the bigots.
All that to say I think that’s why people are downvoting you, but I agree with you.
As a libertarian, I love the saying, “your rights end where mine begin.” You can say whatever you like, up until the point where it starts violating my rights. Harassment violates my rights, and if you harass me with your speech, regardless of the actual content, you should be silenced on that platform.
The way I see it, harassment has two parts to it:
- damages
- intent
If I offend on accident, I should have the opportunity to make it right. If I offend on purpose, I should be banned.
Fuck Meta and Zuck. I wish I could stop using WhatsApp, as every other Meta product is out of my devices already.
I wish our government actually regulated these corporations so they are not able to have a tentacle in so many essential technologies.
All of the symptoms of the crushing power of techbro oligarchs are directly tied to failures of govt to regulate.
This has been true since “sign in with Facebook” became a thing.
I think with Brazil banning Xitter, and I reckon Starmer might too given how much Musk has attacked him, it might be come more of a thing.
Every journey needs a first step.
Try to convince some of your contacts to use something else. Repeat until a large chunk of your contacts are available outside WhatsApp, and make yourself increasingly harder to access through WhatsApp and increasingly easier to access on your preferred alternative.
Not wrong tbh
I think it’s more accurate to say homophobic people have a mental illness
“How dare people different from me exist”
that’s not what I said at all lol
I thought it’s widely-agreed that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. The debate lies in how to treat it—try to realign the busy with the mind or the mind with the body.
Zeezee already has a great reply. I’d also like to add that gender dysphoria isn’t the same as being trans, it’s possible to be trans and not have dysphoria
It depends on the “science of the times.” Crazy concept, I know.
It’s why psychology is considered a “soft science” and doesn’t deserve the authority that hard sciences have.
It’s a crazy concept to apply “science of the times” to only psychology, but not every other branch of science and medicine, as there are huge holes in understanding everywhere.
I have no idea what sciences would be considered “hard” in this definition.
Math is pretty solid
Not really. Psychology has a massive reproducibility issue right now.
You’re right, all other fields have been completely unaffected!
Psychology stands out with how many results are not reproducible.
While in physics, we can fundamentally change our theoretical understanding of very core concepts without impacting the reproducibility of experiments, and any new theory must also satisfy existing, reproducible experiments.
Same goes for chemistry, computer science, geology, etc. You can discover differences in core, fundamental concepts without invalidating existing experiments.
Actually that’s a common misconception - while gender dysphoria is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) - it’s not actually a mental disorder (similar to how the DSM includes physiological and environmental issues like Insomnia or Social Exclusion) - main reason it’s there is for admin purposes and to facilitate treatment access.
However, a condition like body dysmorphia (think Anorexia Nervosa) is considered a mental disorder because the issue is the mind incorrectly perceiving the body - therefore it can be treated using psychotherapy which enables the mind to correctly perceive the body and prevent harm.
People who experience gender dysphoria on the other hand - actually correctly perceive their body (that’s where the distress comes from) so psychotherapy doesn’t work to alleviate this - as you can’t therapy away an accurate perception (think gay conversion therapy)
Which is why after many decades of research the only treatment that’s been found to work is aligning the body with the mind - as at that point the mind continues perceiving the body correctly but this time it’s congruent with it’s mental model which alleviates the distress.
Hope this helps :)
Which is why after many decades of research the only treatment that’s been found to work is aligning the body with the mind - as at that point the mind continues perceiving the body correctly but this time it’s congruent with it’s mental model which alleviates the distress.
Just because the best treatment involves physical alteration doesn’t change whether it’s a mental disorder. You don’t classify disorders by how they’re addressed, you classify them as where they occur. Whether we term it a disorder, incongruence, etc, the fact remains that the distress happens in the mind.
That said, not all disorders (or whatever you want to call them) need to be “fixed” (i.e. made to be in line w/ the majority), they’re merely a way to distinguish one group of the population from another. Sometimes the best treatment is no treatment, sometimes is physical alteration, sometimes it’s medication, and sometimes it’s psychotherapy.
The average person shouldn’t really care what treatment option an individual chooses to alleviate their symptoms, and the “best” option can very well vary by person. Whether we call it a “disorder” isn’t the issue, the issue is the social impact of assigning a label (i.e. how others react to it). So to me, calling it a disorder should never be against any forum rules, the rules should instead focus on banning harassment, and calling it a disorder could constitute harassment given context.
So why leave this comment? You yourself identify the social impact of “assigning a label (i.e. how others react to it)” - so for what purpose are you arguing for what labels are to be assigned?
Can you not just accept that the people impacted by this label (and the scientific community) have recognized that this label is harmful to individuals and not feel the need to chime in?
Or do you feel your desire for pedantry is more important than the negative impact such a label can have on marginalized groups?
What’s gained by insisting on potentially harmful labels?
Even by your own admission, labels have social impact. So why are you choosing to argue for harmful ones?
EDIT: If you’re actually arguing for better acceptance of people with mental disorders - I would recommend volunteering at a mental health institution or defending people’s right to self-determination.
for what purpose are you arguing for what labels are to be assigned?
I believe in freedom of speech, and I don’t think any particular phrases, terms, or verbiage is absolutely unacceptable.
If you ban certain words, people will just substitute them for others with the same underlying meaning. Look at how people dance around YouTube’s TOS to communicate the same thing without using certain words (unalive, “super mario brothers,” etc). Banning people for using certain terminology or discussing certain topics completely misses the point, which is eliminating intolerance.
this label is harmful
It’s not the label that’s harmful, it’s the intent and meaning behind it. Policies for a platform should be based on the root of the issue, not the symptoms.
So your argument is “people will break the rules so we shouldn’t have any rules because it doesn’t matter”?
This is the classic nazi bar argument - which has been proven time and time again that “free speech absolutism” consistently leads to spaces becoming hostile to marginalized groups
I see you have your heart in the right place but by insisting on everyone having equal rights to say anything - you are inherently favoring the oppressor over the oppressed.
I don’t think we’ll come to an agreement so I’ll stop replying as this feels futile to argue over.
EDIT: Just FYI this is what you’re defending in this instance
It may seem like a pedantic difference but you are missing a key part of what’s going on here. Nobody is challenging that gender dysphoria is a bad thing to experience… This policy is saying it’s kosher to proclaim “transness is a mental illness” which means in effect that encompasses gender euphoria and all expressions of gender incongruity as symptoms of a mental illness. It’s a subtle linguistic difference but one makes it possible to publicly derride trans people as being delusional or harmful to people around them or dangers to themselves and push for “curing” all transness by approaching being trans as a failure state.
It’s freedom of speech. Being able to say what you want and suffer the consequences of your decisions is what it is all about.
Oh you mean like specifically disallowing people from calling someone crazy unless that person is gay or trans? How the fuck is that “free speech”?
I can post some violent fantasy online and meta won’t allow you to call me crazy for it, but if you call me crazy because you think I’m gay that’s just fine?
Except it’s not really “freedom of speech?” You can’t normally say someone is mentally ill - the verbiage is that you can specifically only call LGBT people mentally ill.
Soon as Trump gets elected, the disinformation campaign could resume.
Could?
My mom believes the bullshit about LGBTQ being a mental illness. Can’t wait for it to get worse! Thanks Facebook!
I find homophobia to be a mental illness. I mean it’s right there in the name.
They always did because their moderators didn’t act upon old rules anyway.
It’s worth noting you’re only allowed to insultingly say someone has a mental illness in relation to their gender or second orientation.
Do not post … Insults, including those about: … Mental characteristics, including but not limited to allegations of stupidity, intellectual capacity, and mental illness, and unsupported comparisons between PC groups on the basis of inherent intellectual capacity. We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like “weird.”
Source: https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/hateful-conduct/
Rich men have a mental illness and are weird.
So it’s ok to say that zuckerfucker developed mental illnesses due to excessive zoophile orgies
Fuck Mark Zuckerberg, evil motherfucker.
Mark was never a source of good in this world.
According to the text messages, Zuckerberg wrote, “Yeah, so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard, just ask me. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS.”
In response, a friend inquired, “What? How did you manage to obtain all that?”
To which Zuckerberg callously replied, “People just submitted it. I don’t know why they ‘trust me.’ Dumb f****.”
Dana White is on the Meta board as happens to be the same time.
Wonder how much longer you’ll be able to question the impact professional gambling has on the outcome of UFC matches.
huh?
Doesn’t make the least bit of sense to me either?
I guess this is what fascists consider “freedom”.
Personally I would rather escape wasting my life in servitude to capital.
FB won’t even do anything about the constant bombardment of scammer profiles that hit you if you post on any public group. They are always some attractive woman (stolen pics probably) with a profile that is a few months old and 1-2 posts at best. They always have the same message “I saw your profile pic! Friend me!” or some such crap.
On the bright side, if there’s a boomer who only posts bad memes about how much he hates his wife, you can say he has a mental illness.
You could before, because it’s true, but you still can too.
This has always been the case.
