this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
742 points (96.6% liked)

You Should Know

35533 readers
980 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Obvious as it may sound, people with authoritarian beliefs hiding behind free speech actually consider it as a weakness akin empathy. It allows losers like them to amplify their reach despite not being in power. They abandon their "free speech absolutist" postures the moment they think they are in power.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 hours ago

Yes.

Fascist ideologies, like Nazism, are explicitly anti-liberalist. They don't believe in the very concept of liberties. They explicitly write down on paper why they believe democracy and freedom is a failure. So, when you see one pulling the free speech card, they're simply trying to appeal to your beliefs, or society's beliefs, to give themselves a platform. It's inherently insincere, they're mocking you.

Nazis have to act like this. History has shown us, without doubt, how repulsive their plans are both in theory and in practice, so until they have power, they cannot show their true colors. They can't just be honest and play "might is right" yet because communities would just do the right thing and violently extinguish their movement (including, but not limited to, punching them on sight). So they must hide behind society's privileges, the rights and freedoms of liberalism. They can enjoy police protection at protests to save them from the people they work to have killed, they can sue people for collecting intelligence on them and getting them fired, they can just point out liberalist hypocracy if their freedoms are violated, but listen to leaks and how they organize behind closed doors to know that's simply opportunistic cowardice.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 24 points 6 hours ago

First thing Free Speech Absolutionist Elon did when taking over Twitter was making it so that cisgender is a slur, but the n-word is not

[–] Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago

Barely anyone truly believes in it. They only care when they need it.

I've been a free speech advocate and activist for years and I helped people that literally wanted me banned 2 months prior for the most nonsense reasons. They didnt care sbout free speech until they stepped over a line - then, free speech was the most important thing in the world.

That's universal for all political alignments btw. It's both fascist clowns or wannabe antifa super soldiers. Both only care about it when it's needed.

[–] st33lb0ne@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

They believe in ¨I speak¨

[–] SabinStargem@lemmings.world 4 points 5 hours ago

I am a free speech absolutist. Evil people should say what they want to do...so that I can tell them what will happen if they try to ICE my neighbors. 🔫 🩸

The thing about modern discourse on social media platforms like Reddit, is that bigots get to threaten people all they like. If a good person mentions Luigi or what should happen to Musk, they get banned. THIS is the real threat to democracy.

It is best if the bad guys don't work in secret. They should expose themselves to be monsters early and often, with decent folk making it clear that evil positions deserve equally merciless responses. I think part of why the Republicans have been so successful, is because they feel like "winners" to people who value assertiveness. Democrats almost always holds true to decorum and norms - which gives them the impression of being "weak" losers.

Some people vote for the strong, because by extension, it makes themselves feel strong. I think this explains why some people simply never listen to any amount of reason or evidence - they perceive the world through feelings, not thought. This is why "rough" speaking democrats might hold value in our society, because they can speak the same language, while still holding the values of goodness close to their heart.

To put it simply, a lot of Republicans might cease supporting Trump, if the following entered their mind: "They are stronger than me. I don't want to get punched! Let's stay home."

...it isn't terrific, but I think some people are simply biased towards authority. Be it good or evil.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 27 points 11 hours ago

Their version of free speech is to prevent you from contradicting the lies they continuously spew and then paint your rebuttal as an attack on their rights to spew them. They’re the victim of leftist propaganda.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 56 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Here is what free speech is:

Fuck the USA, Fuck Russia, Fuck China, Fuck France, Fuck the UK.

Here is what free speech is NOT: [Racial Slurs]

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 43 points 15 hours ago (6 children)

Honestly, the latter is absolutely free speech. They are 100% free to say that shit if they want. They are not free however from consequences, i.e. getting hit in the mouth, fired from their job, etc.

[–] Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

It depends on the source of the consequences.

Social consequences? Completely fine, even desirable.

Legal consequences? This is where trouble starts and freedom of speech is no longer given.

[–] VisionScout@lemmy.wtf 1 points 3 hours ago

They are not free however from consequences, i.e. getting hit in the mouth,

I would say that this is wrong. If you get hit in the mouth for something you say, than it's not freedom of speech. It's the law of the strongest.

Example: You wouldn't hit a UFC fighter for something he said to you on a 1 to 1, however you would beat him if you are 10 against him. This is the law of the strongest.

I don't believe in absolut free speech. I think that it needs to have limits in it (very well defined limits), and there should be consequences for certain things. And the consequences need to be enforced in a way to counter them, like for example if you say hate crap then you should be forced to contribute to anti-hate orgs.

[–] tenton01@lemm.ee 19 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

This is the real takeaway. Freedom of speech is the freedom to say anything. That's it. You can just say it. It does not protect you from the consequences. It's an important distinction to make, and I'm glad to see other people making that point.

[–] piecat@lemmy.world 20 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Counterpoint:

You can say anything in an authoritarian state, the consequences are that you'll get disappeared in the night.

[–] tenton01@lemm.ee 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Your argument is... valid. Everyone, we've just established worldwide freedom of speech! Put this in the history books!

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The argument means that if there are severe systematic consequences to some things you say, then it cannot be considered free speech.

[–] tenton01@lemm.ee 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I know, it was a joke. I guess I forgot the /s

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Oh, sorry, I'm too depressed from the world situation to see humour in anything..

[–] tenton01@lemm.ee 2 points 4 hours ago

I'm right there with you, friend. Scary times we're living in, I wish there weren't so many events taking place that'll be in future history books.

[–] kjetil@lemmy.world 9 points 12 hours ago

100% this. The freedom to say anything also does not entail the right to be listened to. Nobody is required to platform "undesirable" speech. Getting banned from a platform is a perfectly acceptable consequence.

[–] drislands@lemmy.world 12 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I guess the primary difference is between legally free speech versus socially free speech. The argument being that the government shouldn't stop you from slinging slurs, while you have absolutely no right to not be ostracized/shunned/shamed by your fellow man.

[–] segabased@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 hours ago

I also think while yelling racial slurs should not be illegal, organizing and mobilizing under a racist ideology that promises to eliminate free speech should be criminalized. The tricky part is doing it in a way that won't be abused ie calling things that aren't racist and supremacist ideology those things to criminalize them.

If only there was an art vs porn emergency button encoded into the law. You just know it when you see it and can call things what they are

[–] zloubida@lemmy.world -4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I disagree. Free speech should have limits, like every other freedom, because freedoms oppose each others. Insults, defamation, threats, calls for hatred, lies, … shouldn't be covered by free speech.

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Like it or not, that's been the interpretation since the founding of the US. It is not the case in some other countries, but I'm assuming we are talking about the US here. What most people miss is it only restricts the government from punishing your speech, not private entities. Insults, defamation, and lies, are absolutely allowed, but you can be found liable civilly for any damage done by this speech either through punitive damages (lawsuit settlement) or other means, deplatforming, loss of employment, etc.

threats, calls for hatred, are a bit of a gray area. It depends on the severity of the threat, but true threats can be prosecuted.

Hate speech is generally allowed, but if it is inciteful enough to be a true threat, it too can be prosecuted.

If you'd like to read up on true threats, see below:

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2024/08/True-Threats-Guidance-3.pdf

[–] zloubida@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Oh I know more or less how the American law works. But I think it's a bad one, that's all.

I'm French, and in France hate speech is illegal. Negation of crimes against humanity is illegal. Defamation is illegal. And you know what? France is still a free country. Freer even maybe, as our other freedoms and rights (like our rights to live peacefully) are more protected.

[–] OrloNorppa@sopuli.xyz 132 points 22 hours ago (10 children)

It's insane to me that somehow free speech has been successfully twisted into a dog whistle to basically just spread disinformation, actively call for extermination of minority groups and openly attack and threaten other people. That shit is not free speech those are malicious actions - and they should absolutely not be tolerated under some vague guise of free speech.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Precisely. That's why the most important mantra we can recite is "this is not normal". No matter how normalized it gets, fascism is not normal.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yesman@lemmy.world 24 points 21 hours ago

If you pay attention to the reactionaries, they always steal ideas from the left. Fake news, media bias? That's Noam Chomsky. Incels stole the idea of critical examination of gender from feminists. Racists are banning books on the theory that they target people based on their race.

That's why they're called reactionaries. They cannot organize and ideology or a movement except as an opposition to the left dragging society forward. And like anyone motivated by spite and envy, they study us closely.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Hubi@feddit.org 73 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (29 children)

When our opponents say: "Yes, we used to grant you freedom of opinion", yes. You did, that is no reason why we should do the same to you! Your stupidity need not be contagious to us! [Laughter.] That you have given this to us - that is proof of how stupid you are! [Laughter.]

  • Joseph Goebbels
load more comments (29 replies)
[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Fascism is incompatible with any kind of freedom. Free speech is co-opted by conservatives and fascists so that they can promote bigotry without consequence. There is no reason that members of the KKK should be legally allowed to recruit people. That should be against the law. It should be against the law to promote xenophobia, racism, misogyny, and queerphobia. The only people who benefit from a system where you can espouse those beliefs without legal consequence are bigots and fascists.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Vertelleus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 18 hours ago

The only free speech they like is their own -- unopposed and the only thing heard.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 9 points 15 hours ago

They abandon their “free speech absolutist” postures the moment ~~they think they are in power.~~ you ask them why they support malicious advertising, impersonation and pedophilia

Fix'd. Because those things would be protected under "absolute" freeze peach.

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 33 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

The far right are well-practiced at co-opting and twisting concepts. It's classic doublespeak.

It's why you have "Christians" who are staunchly opposed to feeding the hungry, or treating the sick. (See: school lunches.)

It's why "capitalism" now represents the complete lack of meaningful competition, when that competition is the only thing that ever made capitalism worthwhile in the first place. (See: Microsoft getting away scot-free after being found guilty of illegal, anticompetitive business practices all throughout the 90s.)

It's why "free speech" proponents are laser-focused on creating new and terrifying mechanisms for censorship. (See: *gestures widely*)

I could go on.

It's sad how little resistance has been made against this corruption. How easily our natural allies have been turned into our greatest enemies.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nednobbins@lemm.ee 17 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

Does anyone?

The closest I can think of to “real free speech absolutists” is the old-school doctrinal libertarians. Even they have limits on what they believe should be allowed and specifically state that contracts should be legally enforceable.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 points 8 hours ago

There are no absolutists, my friend. Everyone has limits.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

You don't need to be an "absolutist" to believe in free speech. Open exchange of ideas is valuable. Not needing to be suspicious of everyone hiding what they really think out of fear is valuable. Censorship powers are very tempting to abuse and the consequences of their abuse are terrible, therefore they should be strictly limited. Believing in free speech can just be understanding this stuff and having a bias against shutting people up as a go-to solution.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Does anyone?

Yes, old-school liberals, the ACLU, etc.

It's bizarre & disappointing that newer generations seem to associate freedom of speech with right-wing authoritarians when freedom of speech has been a firmly liberal value advanced through the enlightenment & civil rights movement. Everyone ought to defend it.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Claim it, twist it, poison it, ruin it. Hate groups and vile scum always do that with things people used to care about or that used to be innocuous.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›