There are subjective things and there are objective things. What you're doing at this moment (trying to justify both sides) is intellectually dishonest.
> To them you are the assholes for calling it trash or wanting to get rid of it.
A child might call their parents stupid for not letting them eat candy all day. Objectively the parents are not stupid, the child has a mistaken perspective.
From the perspective of a hypergiant star, the sun is not that big. This does not change the objective truth that the sun is a large object.
I hope you realize you are justifying horrible, vile speech by trying to "see both sides".
> There are subjective things and there are objective things. What you're doing at this moment (trying to justify both sides) is intellectually dishonest.
Well you didn't really justify anything or understand what I said and then accused me of acting in bad faith. Lovely.
> A child might call their parents stupid for not letting them eat candy all day. Objectively the parents are not stupid, the child has a mistaken perspective.
Also the nanny state that you are promoting will have the opposite effect of what you want. Most of the places that have draconian rules are normally the places where most of the vice occurs ... it just happens out of sight of the authorities.
> I hope you realize you are justifying horrible, vile speech by trying to "see both sides".
I believe in freedom of speech. If people cannot say vile things they cannot be corrected by the rest of society, by silencing them you will just force it underground where it will fester. Well done you are making the problem worse.
In the prespective of the child, the parent might be stupid. Even in the perspective of other parent, some parent might not consider it stupid.
This just show "large" is relative.
I'm not justifying horrible, vile speech because I disagree that the speech is horrible or vile.
I'd feel better if we lived in a society where we wouldn't have to lead this discussion in the first place but since that's just not the case education and limiting propaganda seems like a good way to go.
Its boil down to whoever win on the battle.
The winning side get to decide the meaning of free speech, the meaning of radicals, right or wrong or where the line is.
Yes, society as a whole has a collective opinion that forms the mainstream and defines a) what's outside of that and b) what to do with those outside of it. Do you see a problem in excluding these opinions from mainstream platforms like Facebook and reddit? Even with a pretty open stance towards free speech I see excluding people posting racist death threats from a platform I use to look at cat pictures as a positive.
It's almost a Poe's Law of moral relativism in general, but there's the additional step of "and therefore, I will not have opinions on right and wrong and will let others do as they please, because who am I to have moral opinions about others"—but that in itself is a moral opinion about others.
The Overton window (which is what you are referring to) changes over time. What is considered acceptable is transient (I've seen the term for ethinic minority change 5 times in my life time so far and the older terms are now considered racist). Homosexuality for example would have been outside of the Overton window in the past and would have been deemed outside of polite discussion.
People have lost their jobs or banned for comments on Facebook / Twitter etc that are literally years old. Most of these comments were made made over a decade ago.
There are many groups of people that conduct a witch hunter using "outrage archaeology". They will go through someone's tweets for something that is now considered inappropriate and they will demand an apology for things that were said decades before and the person probably doesn't even remember why they made that comment at the time. Bernie Sanders (who is considered from my understanding to be somewhat of a progressive candidate) had something he wrote in 1980 dredged up in an attempt to smear him.
I've was temporarily suspended on twitter because I posted a Death Threat to my friend as a Joke between us and some other friends that were following each other. My friend and I regularly trade racist remarks about each others race on whatsapp because it is a long standing joke. Should we be censored because of an inside joke between friends?
I see moderating who can participate in a group as part of the opinion that this thread seems to try and uphold. If reddit (as the more or less democratic whole, not the company or technical system) prefers not to give terrorists, white supremacists or whatever fringe group that is based on hatred a platform you're free to see that as a problem, it's just not one the mainstream agrees with.
Likewise, the "extremist" too have their viewpoint, to them you are the danger, and they too will fight for it.
If you don't allow them to be part of the world you end up alienating them forever and they can never redeem themselves and change.
Society has forgotten how to forgive.
Easily: what is right improves the human condition and reduces suffering. What is wrong does the opposite.
Let me short-circuit your next question, which is surely "how do you measure what improves the human condition, and what is suffering?" We have to use our judgment, which we are graced with by virtue of being moral agents. This is subjective, like anything worth doing, which means we sometimes get it wrong. And that's fine. The fact that we sometimes imprison innocent people doesn't invalidate wholesale the concept of a system of justice.
Before you judge something as morally right or wrong, you have to have a standard that you're judging it by. Otherwise you'll just end up making ad-hoc decisions that depend on your emotions at the moment with no particular meaning or direction. Your morals will wander aimlessly in the space of possible morals, pushed this way and that by peer pressure and the media. They'll also develop internal inconsistencies. What's the use of an aimless moral? You might as well just pick them randomly.