Itās one thing to have differing views, but Iāve seen enough attempted reddit migrations to be relieved that the popular communities in the fediverse so far havenāt been about crazy racist stuff or other extreme right bullshit.
I am also glad that Iām getting away from redditās general political shitposting, which was more left leaning. You couldnāt have any proper discourse on there, and even I with my generally more left leaning views recognized that.
Thereās a Lemmy instance perfect for you then: exploding-heads.
We are more than welcome to decide what behavior is and isnāt appropriate in our own community. If you donāt like it, then you donāt have to be here. You arenāt entitled to our friendship.
deleted by creator
Discourse canāt exist when one party believes the other party has no right to exist
Yes exactly. Both sides need to take a long look in the mirror and stop projecting their self hatred on the other side.
Youāve already been given a suggestion for just that kind of instance. If you want to see that kind of content, thereās a spot for that.
Or are you just upset that there are places who donāt welcome those kinds of dumbfuck takes? Is it that you want to see the content for yourself, or that you want to make the content and force everyone to see it?
Either way, this instance isnāt the place for you. Exploding heads is. Go there, be happy.
The issue I have with this overzealousness to censor is that the people who are most eager to censor others, are often the most bigoted, hateful, and misinformed. The suggestion of going to exploding-heads is just dishonest. They are undeniably right-wing. What I wish for is an open platform where left and right can speak freely to each other in polite discourse, not simply just be exposed to whatever dogshit takes some far right people post. going to exploding-heads would then limit my ability to see other positions.
Are you suggesting that I should have an account on each fediverse instance, just to get all of the content? If so, then what the actual fuck is the point of federation in the first place?
Oh, I see. Youāre delusional. You honestly think I should be having āpolite discourseā with people who either want me dead, or are ok with voting for people who want me dead.
Because, see, whatās left? What makes a Republican want to claim to be a Republican other than the culture war bullshit? What do they stand for? They havenāt stood for āfiscal responsibilityā or āsmall governmentā since W was in office. The straight-up write things like āWe stand against teaching critical thinking in schoolsā (see: Texas GOP party platform) into their guiding documents. And you think theyāre going to have a civil conversation? You think I owe them a civil conversation?
Every server we allow those people on freely will become exploding heads or 4 chan. Go look at r/politicalcompassmemes if you need an example. I donāt know how many times we have to watch it happen before you get the picture, or maybe this is your first ever internet community experience. But youāre wrong. Their bad-faith rhetoric, carefully-stated death threats, and direct personal attacks will drive everyone who isnāt one of them away, leaving only Nazis. If the admins call them out and ban them for that stuff, theyāll end up banning all of them and weāll be having this same conversation. If the admins allow their speech, but donāt allow us to say āFuck off, weeb, nobody likes youā without censure, then guess who gets to control the ādiscourseā? And if the admins donāt ban anyone for it, weāll become Voat. Since only the slimiest members of humanity can tolerate that vibe for long, guess who ends up owning the server by default?
You wanna see that shit, you enjoy being called slurs and told to go kys, you are free to seek out the communities who will do that for you. But fuck all the way off with telling me I must put up with it, too.
Oh, I can block them? No I fucking canāt. I blocked you days ago, and your shit still shows up in my notifications. So, again, fuck off. If I have to listen to whatever dumb shit spills out of your brain, against my will, then you get to listen to my toxicity.
ā¦youā¦ honestly thoughtā¦ the fediverseā¦ was supposed to be a centralized content aggregatorā¦?
Whatā¦ uh, so, whatā¦ what do you think the fediverse is?
have youā¦ talked with them? I try to speak with everyone and pretty much none of them actually want me dead. If you want to talk about voting criminals into power, look at the democrat party, who legit rigged the 2020 election to vote a known pedophile rapist and warmonger into power. a guy who literally pushed racist and homophobic policy. a guy who literally is fighting to repeal racial equality. a guy who literally openly said heād deny me healthcare. should we then shut down conversation with every democrat voter? why are you so eager to shut down conversation? do you not realize that creates echochambers, which increases the extremism and polarization?
If you actually spoke to them and tried to understand where theyāre coming from, maybe youād learn that :) instead you choose to shut down conversation, ban them, censor them, any chance you get. So of course you donāt understand why they hold the views and say the things they do! you never listened to what they had to say!
Regardless of how offended you might feel or say you are, the reality is that there are actually decent points to be made by people in both major political parties; as well as the varying 3rd parties. Personally, I found my own view on things that matches neither cleanly, so whereās that put me? should I just be on the side of censoring both democrats and republicans? or are you suggesting that anyone that holds any view other than your specific view should be censored and banned? is anything other than openly accepting and celebrating human sacrifice something that should be silenced, censored, and banned? serious question. is going against that ābeing hateful and intolerantā? where is your line? how about pedophilia? are people against pedophilia just āhateful bigots who are intolerant and mean for no real reasonā? where is your line?
The reality is that thereās a lot of, and growing, opposition to progressive ideology because it is causing harm to real people. Surely, if something is causing harm, we should try to stop that harm? IMO the proper thing to do is to try and base our views on science (not feelings), and to try and heal and help as many people as possible reach their potential, while also avoiding societal setups that would inevitably lead to problems. Is this an unreasonable stance?
I think youāll find if you talk to a lot of registered republicans that they do actually hold those views, but that many of the establishment career politicians hold different views than the people voting for them. Ironically, people who are against sending obscene amount of money to ukraine are now called ābigotsā. so if they push for small gov and fiscal responsibility, theyāre a bigot. but if they donāt, theyāre a hypocrite? arenāt you being unfair?
I donāt think you owe anyone anything. I think that youāre in the wrong, and are an authoritarian tyrant and bigot yourself, if you try to shut down a conversation between two consenting people who are completely unrelated to you and arenāt addressing you. If you donāt wish to speak to someone, thatās on you, feel free to ignore them or block them. But it says a lot about you if the second you run into a disagreement, or if you think someoneās doing something wrong, instead of helping correct their behavior or ideas, you instead shut down the conversation and let them keep doing what theyāre doing. Do you have no feeling of obligation to help improve society? if not, Iād say that puts you as worse than them. While they may be misinformed or perhaps hateful due to their ignorance, you are openly admitting that you donāt wish to improve society. Iād much prefer a misinformed and ignorant group who want to do the right thing, than someone who neglects the possibility of improving society.
I thought āreality has a liberal biasā and all that? Surely, if we allow people to discuss, to debate, to converse with each other, and to let everyone speak rather than a few, we should arrive at what is true, yeah? if youāre saying people will become conservative after fair uncensored debate and discussion, then surely they are right? No one is asking for 4chan. thereās a difference between fair, uncensored, civil polite discussion, and shitflinging slurs around. exploding-heads themselves have a ban on slurs.
One of the best subreddits for actual discussion between people of differing ideas? Iād prefer if more places where like that, personally. What issue do you have with them? Theyāre a meme sub but the civility there is awe inspiring.
I canāt say thatās ever been my experience in right wing spaces. Iāve only ever had that experience in progressive spaces. Perhaps what youāre experiencing isnāt a problem with right wing people, but rather the hostility and polarization between two groups that are constantly at each otherās throats because they refuse to hear each other out?
Why do you feel that their insults shouldnāt be allowed, but yours should? Isnāt that unfair? Either we prevent all insults and have civil discussion (my preference), or we allow all insults from both sides. Surely thatās fair?
The opposite is actually happening here. You are trying to push your content preferences onto everyone else. All Iām saying is: let the users decide. If you wanna block them, go ahead. Craft your own echochamber. But why should you being offended at civil discussion mean that no one else can discuss things?
Fair enough. This seems to be a bug then. I agree that should be fixed. blocking should prevent you from seeing the blocked content.
My understanding was that Iād sign up on a single site, and then have access to content from across the federated sites. Not: have to sign up an account on each individual site, and only see that one siteās content. Isnāt that latter way just a centralized platform? where is the āfederatedā part then?
Sign up on one site -> see content from all the sites. is this not the point of the fediverse? are you really saying the fediverse is: sign up on one site -> see only that siteās content? because that just sounds like a regular centralized platform to me.
Do you prefer having a centralized authority dictating your exposure to content? What prevents you from personally blocking instances you disagree with and allowing others to make their own choices? Is it possible that the idea of critical thinking is discomforting and itās more convenient to be shielded from diverging opinions, rather than exercising personal discernment?
Fuck off to your sad shithole, nobody has any obligation to be nice to Nazis. To the contrary, every decent person should feel obligated to strongly tell them to fuck off. You donāt have a space here, we donāt want you here, you are not welcome.
Iām not talking about letting nazis be here, Iām talking about not calling everyone you donāt like nazis.
I know what you pretend you mean, nobody is falling for that.
Blocking a person or instance still allows the bigotry to spread.
The problem here is what gets defined as bigotry and who gets to define it? I was called a nazi for expressing the same opinion Iām expressing here. Do you think that might be a bit much? How long until the bubble of acceptable thoughts and opinions shrinks so much YOU get defined as a nazi?
Your argument is known as the āslippery slope fallacyā, @Kantiberl.
Edit: Iām guessing itās a bug, but I canāt get this comment to reply to the right person.
Who defines what counts as ābigotryā? I think the guys over at beehaw are extremely bigoted. does that mean that we should prevent everyone from speaking with them simply because I think theyāre bigots?
The community itself is kindly asking you to fuck off with its comments and downvotes, no central authority needed
This is the approach I support. donāt like certain content? block, downvote, move on. donāt demand that everyone else be prevented from seeing it.
Like, you mean, a website? Thatās what you mean by ācentralized authorityā, right? A website? With its Terms and Conditions, following the applicable copyright and IP laws, following the relevant laws of the jurisdiction it operates in? Yeah, Iām fine with that.
If youāre not, go to Exploding Heads. They welcome you. They want you.
We donāt.
I donāt want exploding-heads. I would have blocked the instance myself if it hadnāt been blocked already. My issue is I donāt like having content blocked FOR me because Iām a functioning adult that can make my own decisions about what I see and think. You should be careful with how quick you are to cede control of what youāre allowed to see to others. Might make you pretty susceptible to hate and give you a false sense of reality.
Oh, I see. You want 4chan.
Well, good news! 4chan exists! Go there.
deleted by creator
Oh, is 4chan too much freedom for you? What happened to your whole āno rules, just rightā attitude?
Itās sounding more and more like you donāt give a single fuck about seeing this kind of content; you want to force us to see this content. All the places you could go to get it, and youāre still arguing that we should have to see it too or weāre not free.
Youāre right. Weāre not free. Weāre sad, pathetic, chained little sheep beholden to a ācentral authorityā that doesnāt allow hate speech. Run while you can! Flee, quickly! Or you, too, might get consumed by the woke mind virus and start thinking that maybe the Jews are ok people!
I like how youāre acting like you arenāt toxic yourself
When did I say that? Iām very toxic towards people who are cool with the view that I should be either āsentenced to deathā or āhunted with dogsā.
Oh, youāre not cool with it, you just want to force me to listen to it anyway. Thatās so different.
Go back to 4 chan, otaku.
so youāre saying you donāt want content blocked for you then proceed to block the largest instance that doesnāt do that?
Yes.
If me and you are having a discussion, but the topic is the fact that I want to kill you, how long will it take before you stop wanting to talk to me?
āBut itās just words!ā
Well, we know thatās not true, so how long would it take before you stopped wanting to be around me?
Oh, also I promote pediphelia. Just as a little fun thing. Just the casual story of raping kids.
I get the appeal. I do. I 1000% do. I get it. But also fuck Nazis. I donāt want to be around them. Iām gay, so they donāt want to be around me. Fuck pedophiles. I donāt want to be around them. So if a site is filled with Nazis and pedophiles, Iām gonna go to a different site. Now you have an echo chamber of Nazis and pedophiles. The thing you wanted to avoid. But youāre stuck with only talking to Nazis and pedophiles.
Meanwhile the bubble without Nazis is a really large bubble encompassing everything except Nazis and pedophiles.
Which hardly looks like a bubble.
Iām not advocating for unchallenged platforms for nazis. What Iām concerned about is the dangerous broadening of the term ānaziā to include any viewpoint differing from oneās own. Neither you nor I hold all the answers. However, Iām not the one categorizing wide-ranging groups as ānazisā to conveniently dismiss dissenting views, while complacently considering myself superior to all those being arbitrarily mislabeled as ānazisā. It SERIOUSLY weakens your entire argument when you throw that word around so carelessly.
Well we donāt use it for just anyone who has any different opinion. So the problem right there is solved. We do use it frequently. But thatās when we see thing like homo/transphobia(Nazis hated queer people), antisemitism(another group Nazis hated), racism(also Nazis), and sexism(once again, Nazis). There seems to be a pretty fucking large overlap of what modern day Republicans preach and what the Nazis preached. Including as of lately āeradicating transgendernessā and āerasing communities.ā As well as the amount of terrorist attacks that ha e actively been encouraged.
So if you would prefer we could just call everyone bigot, since that includes them all and not everyone personally considers themselves a Nazi, but I hardly see the difference between a Nazi, the KKK, Proud Boys, 3%ers, etc, when they all preach the exact same stuff. At that point youāre not arguing anything except semantics. Itās like the whole ārace realismā thing. Itās racism, but more palatable to racists who think the name racist is mean, but not the mentality.
I guess another way to look at it is as people keep bringing up, but thereās a German saying about this. If you have a table with 9 people and 1 Nazi, you have 10 Nazis.
This also doesnāt change the actual argument being made, which is about a forum that is open. In which case, you do get Nazis. Like not even what we mean when we call Nazis as Nazis, but people who call themselves Nazis. We have seen that over and over and over. You get Nazis, and you get pedophiles. Then everyone else starts to leave and you are stuck with Nazis and pedophiles.
So once again, I get the mentality behind it. In a lot of ways I would love a site like that. But itās also a little different for those of us that are having people call for our deaths on a regular basis.