There is also a dearth of cannibalistic viewpoints here. And Zoroastrians are woefully underrepresented.
I don’t come here to change my views (though it happens from time to time), and neither do they. I’m not ignorant of their thoughts; I’m inundated with them every day. I don’t need to interact with assholes here. I don’t want to come here and watch people scream back and forth at each other, and I definitely am not interested in participating—there is a reason I’ve left other social media.
You don’t have to subscribe to political communities if you don’t want to see political discussion. But the dearth of genuine political discussion here is a problem for the people who do want it, that can’t be fixed by individual action.
What is genuine political discussion? How do you moderate it? Who is going to come when it’s moderated? How do you deal with both legitimate and legitimate complaints about biased moderation?
I just don’t think it’s a thing on social media. I think it can happen in private conversations, but as soon as it becomes more about winning an argument or posturing for readers, I think any hope of earnest discourse is lost. The more public a conversation, the worse it is. It’s like trying to argue with a bully in front of their friends. You might be able to reach the humanity in them, but not in that moment.
It used to be, in the early days of mass social media (and it was widespread on forums)
Moderation isn’t easy but it also needn’t be fraught - set standards of civility (strict or loose) and basic rules about hate speech, and let people take themselves out of discussions that are within the rules that they nevertheless don’t like.
It works a lot better in small communities where you talk to the same people - you can ignore people you don’t like and not have the same conversation over and over.
But the dearth of genuine political discussion here is a problem for the people who do want it
It’s not genuine if we don’t want to constantly have to expose ourselves to toxic bigots or “smooth” manipulators who think it’s not really toxic bigotry if they are “just asking questions?”
It’s not genuine if we don’t want to start every single discussion of something bad Trump did with rebutting a half dozen versions of “but whatabout that time when dems…”?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
I will not be shamed into allowing toxicity into my life, on social media or otherwise, in the name of “avoiding an echo chamber.” NOTHING is stopping a conservative from coming here and making cogent, factual arguments, aside from their own fragility.
The conservatives who “can’t” post to Lemmy are the ones who don’t know how to have an actual conversation and get banned. What fraction of conservatives that represents is an excercise left to the reader. But I’ve got my own opinion on that number for sure.
The fact that you characterise natural ways of engaging in a discussion negatively doesn’t mean it’s not genuine, and it doesn’t mean you’re forced to look at it if it’s available.
NOTHING is stopping a conservative from coming here and making cogent, factual arguments, aside from their own fragility.
The structure of vote-based social media makes it difficult, and the people who, rather than remove themselves from places where arguments happen, shout down the people having the arguments, stops this from happening.
You’d be right to point out that conservative-majority spaces are just as, if not more guilty of this, but that doesn’t make it less true.
The conservatives who “can’t” post to Lemmy are the ones who don’t know how to have an actual conversation and get banned.
That’s true but it’s not the only thing that’s going on.
Edit: And frankly, having to explain that in regard to my comment above is precisely what I love not having to constantly do at Lemmy. (Because people both understand the difference, and don’t pretend not to.)
it doesn’t mean you’re forced to look at it if it’s available.
The case being made here is that this is a left wing echo chamber, and that I am not interested in genuine discussion if I either don’t think it is, or don’t care that it is.
I have provided examples of trolling, toxic behavior.
I do not want trolling, toxic behavior here. It is not welcome by me in the community, whether I’m forced to look at it or not.
I’m also not supporting (and nor am I aware of any such thing existing) some kind of a blanket ban on conservatives. They are the folks always telling people to man up, grab themselves by their bootstraps, have the courage of their convictions, etc etc. Guess they need to take some of their own advice if it’s a little rough sometimes trying to push authoritarianism and bigotry in some spaces. And if they get banned because they have forgotten how to talk to people who don’t already agree with them, I can’t find it in me to care.
I will not be shamed into allowing toxicity into my life, on social media or otherwise, in the name of “avoiding an echo chamber.”
Yeah, but if you go in saying that this is the inevitable result of having conservatives discuss politics here, I am suspicious that your threshold for those terms is waaayy lower than mine.
The person I replied to originally wasn’t talking about trolling or toxic behaviour, they were talking about conservative viewpoints (likening them to cannibalism, I might add) so, if you want to chip in that trolling isn’t welcome then I’ll certainly agree with that, but there’s a reason I’m not really talking about that.
These are two of the the primary things gone from my life now that I’ve cut every conservative I can from it. It’s glorious.
So if you want me to support some kind of outreach for conservatives (who apparently can’t post anywhere they aren’t overtly welcomed and that’s a problem the rest of us need to fix) I need some understanding of what you think the upside is.
I haven’t seen that.
I’ve seen scolding people for not wanting to surround themselves with people who have had years and years to demonstrate what they are like and what they support. The only thing new about modern conservatism is how it no longer bothers trying to pretend it’s not hateful.
As I have said repeatedly, nothing stops a conservative from coming here and communicating like an adult.
There is also a dearth of cannibalistic viewpoints here. And Zoroastrians are woefully underrepresented.
I don’t come here to change my views (though it happens from time to time), and neither do they. I’m not ignorant of their thoughts; I’m inundated with them every day. I don’t need to interact with assholes here. I don’t want to come here and watch people scream back and forth at each other, and I definitely am not interested in participating—there is a reason I’ve left other social media.
You don’t have to subscribe to political communities if you don’t want to see political discussion. But the dearth of genuine political discussion here is a problem for the people who do want it, that can’t be fixed by individual action.
What is genuine political discussion? How do you moderate it? Who is going to come when it’s moderated? How do you deal with both legitimate and legitimate complaints about biased moderation?
I just don’t think it’s a thing on social media. I think it can happen in private conversations, but as soon as it becomes more about winning an argument or posturing for readers, I think any hope of earnest discourse is lost. The more public a conversation, the worse it is. It’s like trying to argue with a bully in front of their friends. You might be able to reach the humanity in them, but not in that moment.
It used to be, in the early days of mass social media (and it was widespread on forums)
Moderation isn’t easy but it also needn’t be fraught - set standards of civility (strict or loose) and basic rules about hate speech, and let people take themselves out of discussions that are within the rules that they nevertheless don’t like.
It works a lot better in small communities where you talk to the same people - you can ignore people you don’t like and not have the same conversation over and over.
It’s not genuine if we don’t want to constantly have to expose ourselves to toxic bigots or “smooth” manipulators who think it’s not really toxic bigotry if they are “just asking questions?”
It’s not genuine if we don’t want to start every single discussion of something bad Trump did with rebutting a half dozen versions of “but whatabout that time when dems…”?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
I will not be shamed into allowing toxicity into my life, on social media or otherwise, in the name of “avoiding an echo chamber.” NOTHING is stopping a conservative from coming here and making cogent, factual arguments, aside from their own fragility.
The conservatives who “can’t” post to Lemmy are the ones who don’t know how to have an actual conversation and get banned. What fraction of conservatives that represents is an excercise left to the reader. But I’ve got my own opinion on that number for sure.
The fact that you characterise natural ways of engaging in a discussion negatively doesn’t mean it’s not genuine, and it doesn’t mean you’re forced to look at it if it’s available.
The structure of vote-based social media makes it difficult, and the people who, rather than remove themselves from places where arguments happen, shout down the people having the arguments, stops this from happening.
You’d be right to point out that conservative-majority spaces are just as, if not more guilty of this, but that doesn’t make it less true.
That’s true but it’s not the only thing that’s going on.
It’s natural to ask questions. It’s natural to point out hypocrisy.
JAQing off and Whataboutism are not those things.
Edit: And frankly, having to explain that in regard to my comment above is precisely what I love not having to constantly do at Lemmy. (Because people both understand the difference, and don’t pretend not to.)
The case being made here is that this is a left wing echo chamber, and that I am not interested in genuine discussion if I either don’t think it is, or don’t care that it is.
I have provided examples of trolling, toxic behavior.
I do not want trolling, toxic behavior here. It is not welcome by me in the community, whether I’m forced to look at it or not.
I’m also not supporting (and nor am I aware of any such thing existing) some kind of a blanket ban on conservatives. They are the folks always telling people to man up, grab themselves by their bootstraps, have the courage of their convictions, etc etc. Guess they need to take some of their own advice if it’s a little rough sometimes trying to push authoritarianism and bigotry in some spaces. And if they get banned because they have forgotten how to talk to people who don’t already agree with them, I can’t find it in me to care.
Yeah, but if you go in saying that this is the inevitable result of having conservatives discuss politics here, I am suspicious that your threshold for those terms is waaayy lower than mine.
The person I replied to originally wasn’t talking about trolling or toxic behaviour, they were talking about conservative viewpoints (likening them to cannibalism, I might add) so, if you want to chip in that trolling isn’t welcome then I’ll certainly agree with that, but there’s a reason I’m not really talking about that.
These are two of the the primary things gone from my life now that I’ve cut every conservative I can from it. It’s glorious.
So if you want me to support some kind of outreach for conservatives (who apparently can’t post anywhere they aren’t overtly welcomed and that’s a problem the rest of us need to fix) I need some understanding of what you think the upside is.
I haven’t seen that.
I’ve seen scolding people for not wanting to surround themselves with people who have had years and years to demonstrate what they are like and what they support. The only thing new about modern conservatism is how it no longer bothers trying to pretend it’s not hateful.
As I have said repeatedly, nothing stops a conservative from coming here and communicating like an adult.