After the ban of the c/christians community for having a rule against LGBTQ+ content. I wonder where is the actual line of what is allowed and what is not on this instance. (https://lemmy.world/post/1762563)
There are plenty of instances allowing hate speech against religious people. Looking through them I can see how they can be pretty offensive for someone who was brought up religious.
For example !atheistmemes@lemmy.world.
From their description
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
Some of the content:
- https://lemmy.world/post/1783216
- https://lemmy.world/post/1766629
- https://lemmy.world/post/1591110
- https://lemmy.world/post/1585721
To clarify, I do not feel offended, as I am in no capacity religious and I am an atheist also. I also do not ask for the removal of that community as I don’t believe neither of the two should be removed.
But going through the content on atheistmemes the content there is far worse and more offending than it was on c/christians. While on c/christians only the rules where marginally breaking the rules, while there were no content that was in violation. This community in my opinion does both.
Allowing anti religion community while banning the pro religion one is creating a real deficit of different opinions here.
What is your opinion? Do you think that one should be allowed while the other not and why?
One thing to note is that the posts you’ve linked criticize or make fun of religious beliefs, but they don’t call for violence, discrimination, or other injustice against religious people.
If that was the case I would agree with you. But it’s not what they were banned for, they were banned for not allowing LGBTQ+ content on their community.
Your response doesn’t make sense to me. I’m referring to the four posts you linked on the atheistmemes forum. None of them express “hate speech” in the sense of calling for anyone to be treated hatefully, excluded from society, etc. They all express mockery or criticism of religious beliefs.
While this may be disliked by religious people, it’s not the same as (e.g.) calling for them to be discriminated against as individuals, driven out of society, etc. which are all commonplace anti-LGBTQ+ remarks from American, Russian, or African right-wingers.
“Hate speech” does not mean “speech that I hate”.
I still ask you to give me a post where c/christians were calling for someone
to be treated hatefully, excluded from societyThey literally had a rule excluding an entire marginalized group.
Are you saying excluding a whole group based on sexuality from their community isn’t discrimination?
I didn’t say they were. I said that the four links you provided did not seem to be examples of the thing you were claiming (“hate speech against religious people”).
I said a very specific thing. Please don’t read into it the thing that you wished that I had said, in order to have an argument that you wanted to have.
This is false. They were banned for maintaining a policy which denies that LGBTQ+ people have a right to exist as they are.
Also, you were totally allowed to make anti-LGBTQ+ content. You were only prohibited from making anything pro- because let me tell you, if you’ve ever tried to get glitter out of an echo chamber, it is a total hassle.
The community that has been banned wasn’t discriminating people either, they were discriminating specific discussions. Where do we draw the line?
From OP’s linked post regarding this community, the rule in question was this:
That doesn’t appear to be related to mere discussion, but the basic being of LGBTQ+ people. I’m not sure what else “practiced LGBTQ+ lifestyles” might refer to, and the phrasing is just a longer way of saying they reject their being.