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:

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?

  • Ulu-Mulu-no-die@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The community that has been banned wasn’t discriminating people either, they were discriminating specific discussions. Where do we draw the line?

    • ElectroVagrant@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      From OP’s linked post regarding this community, the rule in question was this:

      This community does not affirm practiced LGBTQ+ lifestyles

      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.