New FAQ!

info/faq.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+### What is a hate group?
+
+A group of people that attacks or vilifies a sector of society or class of people, normally for immutable characteristics (an aspect of a person that cannot be changed), such as:
+
+- Race / Ethnicity
+- Disability
+- Sexual orientation
+- Gender identity
+
+This also extends to areas such as religion (as long as the religious sect/group itself is not a hate group).
+
+For my purposes a hate group is *to attack or vilify people for immutable things, or non-harmful activities or ideologies that can co-exist in a peaceful or compassionate society.*
+
+<br/>
+
+'Hate group' historically refers to an organised group with physical locations, ie. National Socialist Movement or English Defense League, but for the sake of this blocklist it's more about ideological groups, because that's how hate groups tend to work on the internet. 
+
+Historically in the pre-internet days, to be part of a hate group was to be part of an actual physical group or chapter with meetings or rallies. In the internet age, you don't have to be a part of an organisation to contribute to a unified, hateful discourse, and this is exactly what we see with the 'alt-right'.
+
+---
+
+### Do you just block right-wing people?
+
+It's not really of any concern of mine whether something is left or right (and I'm not a fan of this dichotomy that much anyway), just the ideologies that are espoused. If they are hateful by my classifications (see above), then they go on the blocklist. This kind of behaviour is typically more common on the right, especially on the fediverse.
+
+---
+
+### What about anti-white racism?
+
+The problem with the idea of anti-white racism is not that it can't exist (there definitely are hate ideologies that malign or vilify white people), it's that this concept is often used as a reaction to civil rights reform, people who call out racism, or someone talking about their general frustration regarding these kinds of topics. 
+
+It's also often used as a dogwhistle as part of a false narrative currently being perpetuated by white supremacists (ie. 'White Genocide', 'The Great Displacement', etc.).
+
+<br/>
+
+To be frustrated with institutional racism or be frustrated with behaviour typical of white communities is not the same as attacking and vilifying people for being white. You can't stop being white, but you can change your views or at least have a meaningful discussion about them if someone calls you out for it.
+
+I haven't seen any fediverse entities that act with hateful ideologies with respect to white people, so there's none on this list so far.
+
+[If you want examples of **real** anti-white hate groups, the SPLC has a bunch.](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/black-nationalist)
+
+
+----
+
+### What about antifa?
+
+You are free to disagree with violence that antifascist groups sometimes employ (much of an antifasist group's time is actually spent doing non-violent things), but it's not an immutable characteristic to have fascist ideologies or to spread fascist ideologies, nor is it a characteristic that can exist in a democratic or compassionate society. Paradox of Tolerance and all that.
+
+To be against a hate group for being a hate group isn't the same as actually being a hate group. It's just people protecting their communities who are being victimised.
+
+---
+
+### You shouldn't censor people for their ideologies.
+
+Firstly, censorship is normally performed at a state level, in a way where access by any other means is impossible or very difficult. 
+
+Blocking isn't censorship. Nobody is actually stopping you from listening to hate groups in the entire fediverse. If you don't like what an instance blocks, then go on a different instance. 
+
+Communities have the right to define their own boundaries, whether you agree with the motivations or not.
+
+Secondly, ideologies do not exist in a vacuum - they have implications and consequences, and not all ideologies should be considered equal because of that. You know, Nazism is an ideology but for decades most people have had the common sense to dismiss it.
+
+----
+
+### Shouldn't there be people around who can challenge these hateful ideologies?
+
+Yes, but it's not everyone's responsibility. Especially not the responsibility of those who are normally victimised by hate groups (and for whom someone in a hate group would be inclined not to listen to anyway).
+
+If you have the energy and faculties (and know enough about what you're doing) to occasionally put yourself around these kinds of people (especially if you're white, straight, cis, male, etc.) and provide alternative narratives or an alternative voice, then by all means do.
+
+----
+
+### Can't you just let users block each other? 
+
+Because it doesn't give anyone a guarantee of safety.
+
+I would argue that a safe environment is one where someone doesn't have to be concerned or worried about abuse or oppressive ideologies aimed at them, that isn't a place where someone has to react as an individual against individual cases of abuse. **Proactive rather than reactive, community-based rather than individual-based.**
+
+Whether a victim of abuse can block someone or not doesn't really matter because the emotional damage is already done at that point. In the long run, that wears someone down. It's also very isolating because it's all on the individual to manage it.
+
+I don't personally want to be in an instance where people in vulnerable groups (like myself) are basically expected to fend for themselves. That's a pretty unhappy way for a place to be IMO and one of the reasons people left Twitter for our kind of Mastodon instances.
+
+But if you're not bothered by certain people and don't get as much abuse as someone else, you're free to go on an instance where you can block people on an individual level. Nobody's stopping you, everyone has choices that suit them.
+
+
+----
+
+### What about admins who aren't in hate groups but let users who are hate group on their instances?
+
+It's an admin's responsibility for who they have on their server.
+
+When speech carries consequences, you cannot claim to be a nautral facilitator of information. The internet isn't just networks - ***it is a network of people***.
+
+I would also raise serious questions about any of those admins, for them to have the capacity to treat people who dehumanise trans people the same way as someone who likes a certain TV show.