Centerists : 196

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is such a braindead take. Humanity is networked. You can cut a link, but you can't disconnect someone from yourself unless you yeet them out of existence

Drive them into bigot echo chambers and someone has to deal with them thinking everyone is secretly as bigoted as them

Respond in kind - if they're rational, defeat them with reason. If they're a dumbfuck, quote then and mock how stupid their words are. If they're a troll, counter troll them

And when they feel bad for saying bad things, offer an olive branch. Highlight the path back to being a respectable person

You don't need to be equipped to do it all - I'm personally good at counter trolling and reaching out to those already verbally beaten down

We all have to live with these people - we all have a have a responsibility to do our part. Give them the social rejection they deserve when they say unacceptable things - people who don't learn from logic learn emotionally, so make them feel bad. It's ok to attack those attacking others unfairly - just always leave a path back to acceptance

Kill them or rehabilitate them - those are the only options that fix the problem

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's less about cutting them off as a person and more about banning them from a page, group, or platform. Like banning them from a Mastodon instance or Lemmy server.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago

That's my point - you're cutting them off from negative feedback in a very low risk setting. They still vote. They come to Thanksgiving. They work and shop around you. And most people don't quit social media after getting a ban - they find somewhere more hospitable. They go soothe each other by turning bigotry into a sense of belonging. Then, having normalized saying horrible things, it comes out elsewhere

The better outcome is that a healthy community circles around them and calls them an asshole, and hopefully a few people explain why they're being an asshole

Yes, feelings can be hurt, but this is a best case scenario even on that front - when someone says something terrible to you and the community leaps to your defense, it hurts a lot less. I'd go so far as to call it empowering

Some people need safe spaces, because they've been traumatized. Safe spaces should exist for people to heal - but they should be limited and small corners.

Humans need to mix. They naturally adjust to social norms - I think the last decade has shown us that bigots who hold their tongue are much better than ones convinced it's socially acceptable to say horrible things

Moderation has a place, but it should be dedicated only to keeping the community healthy - a healthy community is a community that can police itself. Spammers have no place in a healthy community, because they exploit the medium of communication. Doxing is generally the same. Continuous personal attackers eventually prove they deserve exile from the community. A community under attack from outsiders might need a more decisive hand to return to health

But a healthy community should have dissidents. Modern communities are just little shards of society as a whole - if you're not spreading social norms you're just an echo chamber. You have to spread that health outwards, because we're all connected at the end of the day - the people we ban don't go away, we deny them the pressure to rehabilitate when we decide to keep them out of our online platforms. They're still there in the real world

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Violence against fascists isn't an answer, its a question and the answer is always yes

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

When you debate the bigots in the "Free Market of Ideas", you basically say that these bigoted ideas are "Just as valid as any other"

This is why you don't see Temu shit on Target shelves, but in shady grey market apps.

[+] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The rational debate is so the on the fence people see the problems with the bigots rather than just the bigoted opinions/“proof”

It’s about stopping the lies from spreading not changing an individual opinion. You could hardly call yourself a leftist if you don’t understand that

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Tolerance goes both ways motherfucker

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Fuck sealions!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I tried, but it didn't go well for either of us.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Look, I am a big believer in attempting to educate other people and better the world around you by trying to change harmful or hateful outlooks, but I also realize that some people cannot be changed. Trying to engage these types of people in real life is just putting yourself in danger. Engaging them online is fine but there's a limit to how long you should spend having dialogue with someone who could probably argue their irrational viewpoints for weeks on end without stopping.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I try to keep an open mind and engage in conversation when I can too. Tbh the fallacy I find to be the most irritating (and probably most common) is when the person already presupposes your entire argument and crafts straw men arguments against you. To me, that tells me they’re just unwilling/unable to listen to me and listen to my actual arguments. No use in debating someone who doesn’t even know what they’re debating against.

Having to keep saying “but that’s not what I said” every time I try and explain myself gets exhausting after awhile lol

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

Yep.

My entire family is conservative. They eat up every drop of shit from the shit fountain. I can disprove anything they give me in about five seconds, and no matter how absolutely cratered their opinions are and decimated their egos in an argument, a week later, they'll start right back up again with some insane shit they heard online.

It's like trying to patch a dam made of mud.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

"Their irrational viewpoints" because our viewpoints are all rational. Unfortunately, that's what everyone who's hard-line on their views and won't consider discussion with others seems to think.

The meme posted here comes off as super dumb to me, not only will we not listen to anyone else, we are so closed minded that we won't even listen to people who agree with us but also see where the other side is coming from.

Lemmy is a strong echochamber for leftists sadly, it was my hope that Lemmy would have a thoughtful userbase who recognises both sides are equally problematic for their extreme views and hard headedness.

Majority of it is bullshit anyway, biggest joke on earth is the political system, the world functions because of all the people who don't give a damn and get on with living their lives and being useful.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You are in a queer friendly community talking about "... recognize both sides are equally problematic for their extreme views ..." That is incorrect. The most leftists are not pushing or perpetrating the genocide (or removal, or subjugation) of my people (the queer, disabled, and other social minorities). I know from experience the same is not true of the right. Just like the OP and like many of the comments, I do not tolerate "both-sidesism" because it is not an equal scale. The right creates a platform built regressionist practices. I think some leftists are annoying, but at least they aren't trying to kill me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"equally problematic for their extreme views" means you look at all the extreme views of each side and compare how problematic they are. Genocide on social minorities is an extreme view. Accepting social minorities for what they are is not an extreme view, so these two things cannot be compared in this equation.

The genocide of social minortities thing from "the right" could maybe be compared to the excusing and denying of Chinese genocide from "the left".

In this case, both are problematic, but the right side thing has a personal impact for you, so it weighs heavier for you. Someone with a Taiwanese background may find the other side's problem to weigh heavier.

It s not a very good measure to base your political beliefs upon, but it's rather a measure to support the centrist view and illustrate that extremism happens on both sides.

Finally, political views are a spectrum. There is no true left or right or liberal or conservative, or rather there is, but there shouldn't be. The left/right debate only polarizes society. I think most centrists are against that polarisation and think that the centrist view could be a way to bridge the gap and find a way to reunite society.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

I see the common mistake of associating the left with authoritarianism.

China and such are not left. They're even further right to the point of fascism labeled communism.

Remebere communism/socialism is about the workers relation to the means of production. Chinese people do not own the factories they work on, so I'm not sure you can call them left.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Tolerance paradox

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Unfortunately, the solution to the paradox boils down to "Might Makes Right". The bounds of tolerance aren't set by a consensus, but by whomever has the Power to Yeet.

And while this game seems satisfying early on (Yeet the Nazis! Yeet the Tankies! Yeet the Radical Centrists!) you do get into a cycle of purity where you're yeeting anyone who questions whether the last guy who got yeeted deserved it.

That leaves us with the age-old Martin Niemöller verse:

"And then they came to Yeet me - and there was no one left to Yeet back on my behalf".

What is the appropriate degree of tolerance? How do you prevent it from expanding to include people who would dissolve the institution? How do you prevent it from collapsing into a state of cult-like obedience to authority? It's a balancing act and one that the individuals with the power to silence fringe communities rarely have an interest in performing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Laws, courts, and a strong democracy my dude.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The Intolerance Paradox posits the risk that these institutions are infiltrated by intolerant agents.

Florida has laws, courts, and an electoral system. None of those seem to be holding the fascists back. Many are being employed by fascists to legitimize their violence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If the USA had better laws, the news media would not be free from getting sued or fined for spreading lies. If the USA has a stronger democracy, where we didn't have to deal with this elector nonsense, then we'd have federal laws that prevent fascists from getting into power.

We don't/didn't have that, so now we get to hope that the fascists don't win.

The only way we get out of this is by charging some of these fascists with treason and putting them in jail.

I'm curious what your take is on using governmental violence against fascists? For example, throwing them in jail.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

we’d have federal laws that prevent fascists from getting into power.

A country riddled with fascists isn't going to pass laws against themselves. You (paradoxically) need to get rid of the fascists first, before you get rid of the fascist policy.

That's why we couldn't have pass the civil rights amendments until after secession. And why we didn't pass the Equal Rights (for women) amendment at all.

now we get to hope that the fascists don’t win.

Unfortunately, we've embraced fascism in both parties as the donor elites have tacked rightward. Harris striking common cause with the Cheneys might as well be a stake through the heart of American liberalism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ok, so you're accepting defeat?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Can't plan for victory if you don't admit defeat.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

What the heck does that mean? You do your best, every step of the way. If you don't have a democracy, do a revolution. If the people don't know how badly they're getting screwed, educate them. Being doomer is not useful. Keep trying to improve the situation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I believe the answer lies in bureaucracy.

You're allowed to be intolerant but you gotta fill out just a bunch of paperwork to do so. And if someone to pay a fee, fill in several forms, submit to an ID chrck and wait 6 weeks just to get a literal N word pass, then yeet.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Society needs a yeeting tree.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The Yeeting Tree by Shel Silverstein. It would have had a better lesson.