Sure, there are always outliers and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s just the overall impression I have.
(I wasn’t sure if !asklemmy@lemmy.world or this community would fit better for this kind of question, but I assume it fits here.)
Lemmy is always going to lean more radical than other platforms. Not only is the lead dev a Communist, but to pick Lemmy over Reddit is an ideological choice to begin with. There is an ideological barrier to entry, and this won’t change until Reddit goes under.
Echo chambers are never good, no matter the politics. Just reading this comment thread is proof. Some of these comments are fucking ridiculous.
Normally I’d say it was a weakness but the right has significantly departed from reality in most countries for way too long now. It’s incredibly rare to find a right-winger who can be present in a discussion without spewing a whole lot of vile conspiracy hate fascist bullshit.
So I find their absence refreshing, desirable and a strength of Lemmy.
I find the same on the left wing. Everytime I put out a slightly right wing position I get attacked and a ton of down votes.
Every time anyone mentions on Lemmy right wing positions it is with only to attack a strawman version that is very removed from what most right wing people think/do.
Downvotes can’t actually hurt you.
Personally, I’m fine with saying unpopular things and getting downvoted for it. Mods removing a disallowed viewpoint is something different.
They don’t hurt, but they still do not feel nice.
Just remember that the first person to say the world went around the sun got downvoted into oblivion… but it is factually accurate and a giant leap towards out current understanding of the physical realm. I’m happy for people to disagree with my views. Fuck, I probably disagreed with half of them, thirty years ago.
Mods removing a disallowed viewpoint is something different.
They will only do that if the opinion actually resonates lol
Haha yes, that’s usually the issue. I talked down below about getting banned on slrpnk because of some things I was saying. The comment thread with all the highly-upvoted replies getting removed by the mod, and the downvoted stuff intact, is hilarious to me:
https://slrpnk.net/post/14823401/11895951
The same mod also had a habit of arguing with people, while removing their comments but leaving his own side of the argument intact. He’s still a moderator there. In my opinion slrpnk needs to spend less time talking about anarchism and more time embodying anarchism.
Removed Comment I am gratified by the rate of downvotes on this. Greta Thunberg would, I think, be disappointed and angry that anyone would take what she said as a justification for ways to help get Trump elected. Let me highlight the very clearly written part that you seem to have missed: > It is probably Impossible to overestimate the consequences this specific election will have for the world and for the future of humanity. > > There is no doubt that one of the candidates — Trump — is way more dangerous than the other. If you want real positive change, listen to Greta and fight for change outside the system. If you want third parties, support RCV and proportional representation, to make them viable. If you want the end of the fucking world, then don’t vote, or vote for spoiler candidates within the current system that makes them unelectable. Edit: Formatting by PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
reason: Electoralism, liberalism
well you did kinda invade their safe space with common sense ideas, shit lord hehe
This moderator behavior here is exactly what you’d see on reddit lol
“We’re anarchists.”
“Cool. Here’s an urgent problem I see for the world that I think we should work on.”
“SHIT COCK GET OUT DISALLOWED We don’t say that here. You’re receiving a gentle ban, to think about what you’ve done. Be better.”
Oh my god… This is spot on. I feel like everyone here is mostly larping.
That’s the current modding situation across any community focused on working class politics… as if people running them are not interested in helping the peasants.
Why would anyone act like that on social media… for free at that
I use solarpunk and disappointed that it happened to you. I felt like solarpunk was the best instance Lemmy has, it feels like it has the least amount of echo chamber. Maybe I’m wrong.
I moderate my own community in solarpunk and I will try my best to not be like the moderator you talk about
I think you will see that these accusations have little substance, are taken out of context and argued in bad faith 🤷♂️
All I’ve done is link to the comments section illustrating what I was saying had happened, had happened.
Here he is, arguing with people while removing their comments and leaving his comments in place: https://slrpnk.net/post/14823401/11894346
I have no idea why you’re defending this guy. Like I said, the communities that try to “protect” their points of view, saying that one viewpoint is permitted in their space but other ones are will get you banned, generally become laughingstocks over time. It’s very different from protecting against abuse or racism, when you “protect” your space against people who don’t agree with some particular detail the way some particular person has interpreted it, and appoint an arbiter of what are the allowed interpretations, to ban anyone they disagree with. I think you should abandon that practice, and the censorship of ideas you disagree with, if you want to say that you’re supporting an instance that respects individual human freedom.
I don’t really have a problem with you in general, I was a little bit surprised that you came out swinging to defend this moderator. Maybe this all sounds like sour grapes on my part, but that is usually the result of banning people for disagreeing with you. It sparks a surprising amount of resentment.
I know you’re not the same moderator they were talking about, but I just want to make you aware of this: https://ponder.cat/comment/1193264
What are you talking about… This is the experience of most of us that dare slightly disagree on anything. It shouldn’t be this way
You’re comparing downvotes with “vile conspiracy hate fascist bullshit”. The behavior I’m talking about isn’t hurtful in the social-rejection way that downvotes are, it goes way way beyond that. Can you see the difference?
I empathize, as a human being you have to realize that it is YOU that has to use politics as a tool & NOT BECOME a tool of Politics (Do you get what I mean) Use both Right & Left policies, I think it was called Moderatism or Communitarianism
Every time anyone mentions on Lemmy right wing positions it is with only to attack a strawman version
It would help if you would be more precise. You are using a “feels like” statement here, which I have to disagree with b/c it is objectively false: all it would take would be to find a singular example wherein it was not true, at which point “every time” is shown to be invalid.
But often that does occur, yes. Sometimes our choice of wording can impede rather than aid in understanding?
And I say this as someone who seems to be more often misunderstood than not, go figure :-|.
I’m sure a counter example exists, but I’ve been around for year and not seen it yet. Though I’ll accept that the exception probably exists.
Please… this is a serious display of availability bias.
Let’s face it: the demographic here is just a hyper concentrated version of Reddit, which itself is mostly middle-upper class tweenagers from affluent countries. They get online and get convinced that everyone is just like them.
The average person that hangs out on Reddit-like forums absolutely does not represent the population at large, and any “right-winger who can be present in a discussion without spewing a whole lot of vile conspiracy hate fascist bullshit” has learned that there is no way one can have a reasonable exchange of ideas in any forum like this.
Your points about social bubbles and echo chambers are true, but experiencing the displeasure of having to routinely interact with rightwingers in person verifies that they have fully-fledged conviction in their “vile conspiracy hate fascist bullshit”. They can’t have a reasonable exchange of ideas because they bring nothing reasonable or empathetic to the table.
There are many right wingers here, not conservatives. Liberals are right wing, and lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works are mainly liberal instances.
What rimu was mainly talking about are conservatives, or even far right users. So he wasn’t criticizing the whole right wing, he just used the term right wing to refer to those.
I know it’s comfortable to sit and call anything slightly right of ultra socialism as ‘right wing’ but a spectrum exists.
To conflate republican evangelical dominionist Christians with liberals is peak hubris.
There is a saying: ‘when you’re a hammer, every problem is a nail’. When you reduce everything to class warfare you’re not engaging in an effective discourse to reduce harm in the world. You’re just pontificating on the merits of socialism, which yea, we all agree are neat. But so what? You think folding everyone else into a basket gives you credence or helps the discourse in any way?
I wasn’t conflating. Conservatives are not liberals. But they are both right wing. (at least, classical liberals are)
And there is more than just class warfare, i agree.
But so what? why does it matter that they are right wing? not everyone has to be a communist.
The term left and right are very ambiguous to define in the first place. Some people argue that leftism is anti-capitalism. Some argue that leftism is just belief in equality. They are all right. Same thing with the right wing.
I think my issue is with the usage of the phrase “right wing” because we need something scathing to label liberals. It doesn’t really contribute anything to the discourse except create layers of exclusion.
Liberalism, broadly, is not interested in supporting or enabling hierarchies. The only thing they share in common with right wing conservatism is the ownership of private property -but that’s it. So lumping them all in the same bucket isn’t doing much for anyone except creating more exclusion at the risk of pushing forward socialist policies. The reality is liberals are probably more likely to favor equality, even if it’s just ideological. Shouldn’t we strive to bring more people on board and build bridges rather than continue this bizarre war of artrition?
My intent was not to cause division, I originally meant to clear things up for the user I was originally replying to, but things quickly descended into arguing about semantics. I agree that we should all work together to eliminate the rising threat of far right, fascist parties worldwide. That is what we should be focusing on.
I’m tired over me bikeshedding, So i’m just going to forfeit out of this argument.
Have a great weekend
We don’t have to have an argument over it. It’s ok to have a conversation. I’m familiar with the ‘liberals are right wing’ talking point.
I’m just trying to understand what exactly it is that defines ‘right wing’ and how we define ‘liberalism’ . You’re right, it IS a semantic discussion, but clearly the implication is that liberalism is on par with being right wing. So, nonetheless, a semantic relabeling which is not devoid of consequences.
So I’m wondering, at what point do those two overlap (liberalism and right wing politics)? Is it the right to private property? Beyond that, what exactly makes liberalism ‘right wing’?
Liberals are right wing
Case closed.
They are? i’m not sure where you live, but most of the world considers them to be right wing.
but most of the world considers them to be right wing.
Yep. I’m fiscally conservative, mildly sympathetic to people who fear and resist change, and fond of the pragmatic pursuit of libertarian ideals, where that’s possible.
I also feel that how others do sex is none of my damn business, taxes supporting social services are necessary, and equitably applied rule of law is critical for any real economic prosperity.
On the scale of history, I suspect that makes me centrist or even a moderate conservative.
In my country, and today, somehow, astonishingly, this combination makes me what most would call very left leaning.
I feel that the right has gone insane and continues to alienate people who might otherwise have been allies.
In my country, and today, somehow, astonishingly, this combination makes me what most would call very left leaning.
Let me guess, the US? The only people i’ve ever heard call liberals something as BS as far-left communists are conservative americans. The overton window in america is so ridiculous it’s hilarious.
No. Liberalism is against most things that the right wing of the political spectrum explicitly stands for. Liberalism exists as a counter argument to conservatism. As I mentioned earlier US political language has twisted and distorted what these words really mean.
Liberalism is against most things that the right wing of the political spectrum explicitly stands for
I’m assuming you’re talking in a US perspective.
Leftism describes a spectrum of political ideologies that seeks to minimize hierarchies and desires to achieve equality and egalitarianism. Liberalism is a pro-capitalist ideology, and capitalism is hierarchial and is unequal. Thus, liberalism is right wing. Progressivism isn’t related to right or left wing. You can be a communist but socially conservative. You can be fiscally conservative and be progressive. In the US, being left wing or right wing is mainly measured on how progressive, or if you support social programs (a little leftist, but still can be right wing, just center-right). Liberalism is right wing. Conservatism is far right.
No. I’m not talking from a US perspective. I’m talking from a political perspective. Liberalism is a moral and political philosophy - that is available in more than one flavour. Many things liberalism stands for are incompatible with right wing governments. Conservatism is far right? No, fascism is far right and there is an enormous difference between being conservative and being a fascist. Right and left are both part of a spectrum and run the whole gamut from dipping your toe in the water to being fully submerged. It’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
I think it helps to place labels onto things… and then respect those labels.
Like porn: it can get someone literally fired if they chanced upon such at work - some corpos are just looking for any excuse to cut costs, especially a repeating salary one. But so long as it is labeled, and does not appear outside of bounds… then what is the harm? (more even, studies show that places that ban porn tend to have higher rates of sexualized crime i.e. rape, so the presence of porn literally seems to help society?)
And politics: so many of us here LOVE to discuss it! But what if someone had anxiety, and could not? Could they use something like hashtags, keywords, trigger warnings I dunno, and block out most of it, for the sake of their sanity? If not, then their only recourse would be to opt-out of the Fediverse entirely, thereby taking all of the content that they would have contributed with them…
Full disclosure of my own biases: this is why I am against places such as ChapoTrapHouse from being federated with most Lemmy instances (even as I support e.g. lemm.ee’s desire to keep it) - it’s not that I want it to “not exist” (I’ve enjoyed many of my own interactions there… though it is also simultaneously true that many users from hexbear [or their alts] act as toxic bullies, ignoring people’s consent outside of those spaces, despite being told explicitly not to by their admins), so much as that I want it to be properly labeled & constrained, so that someone does not walk into it unawares, not realize what it is, and then leave the Fediverse entirely having been turned away from us due to their interactions with them.
Likewise much of the content on lemmy.ml is very much not only anti-capitalist, but anti-Western - the former I sympathize with, though the vehemence with which it is delivered and especially the latter will turn people away, as it definitely has me (especially when it abuses blatantly false tropes).
And that is the identical reason why we cannot federate with conservative spaces either, if we want to survive: it is not that we want them to not exist so much as we cannot host their content here, without making THAT action a part of our own identity. And to be clear, I don’t mean content such as “God loves us, each & every one of us” (that’s kinda an awesome thought, is it not, regardless of what we each personally believe?), but rather “I know I speak for [my specific version of a god] when I say that he (she? it? them? other?) hates some people, especially YOUR type in particular!”
But even if we took it as a given, purely for the sake of a hypothetical argument mind you, that we actually did want some type of space to not exist, what are we going to do about it - sabotage their servers? And after they spin up new ones, with better protections - then what? No, the real recourse (imho) is to simply leave them be, yet not choose to federate their content here. We all were young & naive once too - they may grow given time, or not, but that’s their business, and all we can and should (and actually MUST) control is ours.
In all of the above cases - including the pornography example - it is not what the content is (or sometimes not just that), so much as the unfriendliness of it appearing outside of bounds, causing legitimate pain and harm when it is exposed to people.
I think the way to maximize utility is to increase diversity by increasing welcomingness. Sorta like how Linux does not push people into any one distro, or window manager, or anything at all - we each are free to pursue our own paths. That’s fucking awesome!:-P
Lest anything think that I’ve refused to answer the question: it is both. Our (future) political diversity can both be a wedge driven between us - if we allow that to happen naturally - or else a source of strength, e.g. to allow a centrist person to post content unrelated to their political beliefs (woodworking? a game community?), so long as they are respectful of other people’s beliefs in the process. We don’t all have to like one another, just get along. In diversity we find strength… or we could, if we did it right, i.e. if only the ones offered in good faith were allowed to stay while all others given the boot, and even then they need to remain within their allotted lanes.
Preemptively to the people who will scroll to the bottom of this, see me saying that diversity is a strength, and comment or just downvote and move on without bothering to read the rest: fuck you. But to anyone willing to offer a good-faith critique: I am listening.
I said this on reddit a long time ago and I’ll say it here:
We need a political tag like the NSFW tagThat would be so great
I find the limited political knowledge a far bigger concern. The US has taken perfectly acceptable words and butchered them: liberal, libertarian, conservative, left, fascist, socialist etc mean different things inside the US to what they mean everywhere else. I reckon US political language hasn’t butchered itself - there’s a plan in there somewhere.
Agreed but I want to push you to go further: it’s not just politics that has been so influenced.
Even Google searches - once world-renowned for their recall and precision and overall helpfulness, now are shit. Reddit as well. Twitter… well, apparently was always a hellhole? :-P YouTube was not though - until it was bought by Google.
Enshittification destroys all that it touches. Even/especially governments. Though the same happened to Rome, so many thousands of years ago. And to Russia too, more recently, despite it ostensibly calling itself “communist”/leftist.
I do think that there was a plan to help move it along, but I also think that it might have been an inevitable consequence of (more or less) entirely unfettered capitalism, and that those two worked together to destroy a nation that once was struggling far less than it seems to be doing lately?
Weakness, If you’re here for anything other than the narrow view.
Even if you’re here for the the narrow view take a moment and consider if an echo chamber is good for you.
I don’t care so much about the range of political views, just the quantity of them.
Too many people on Lemmy make their political ideology their entire identity, and it’s just freaking exhausting.
Can we not just be people talking to other people about cool stuff? I just get sick of political ideologies masquerading as people.
Then please stop by !dull_mens_club@lemmy.world
Subbed
Not sure if you’re there, but there’s !casualconversation@lemm.ee too
Yep, I subbed to that one when it moved from .world
There needs to be a lemmy.norm or some shit.
Just photoshop requests, memes, hobbies and dumb “askreddit” shit.
Discuss.Online seems that way.
Perhaps lemmy.today although that barely has any local content.
lemmy.ca? It does have a politicalmemes@lemmy.ca but other stuff too:-).
I find it highly interesting how in the replies to your message people are proving you right:-).
But fwiw, I do want to push back a little on my own irt your phrasing: perhaps it is not so much the intensity of someone’s views as the degree of welcomingness extended to people of all walks. Non-intuitively to some: this REQUIRES that we kick out people engaging in bad faith. However, once that’s done, shouldn’t we extend a welcoming hand to all who come in good faith?
Tbh I may not be expressing myself well there… so I’ll try with more extreme language: Nazis are bad, and thereby the Alt-Right that extends a welcoming hand to neo-nazis are bad, but centrists and liberals (both of whom would be called right-wing by many people internationally) should be made to feel welcomed? So breadth of political views - so long as delivered in good faith - not that the breadth is the thing desired, but rather the allowance for PEOPLE to come in and talk, if they want, regardless of their political views. The focus here is on the people - the tolerance is just the means to that good end (and this only works if we are intolerant to specifically those who are themselves intolerant).
I find it highly interesting how in the replies to your message people are proving you right:-).
Lol, what replies? I guess I’ve already blocked most/all the people I was referring to (or they’re on
.mlwhich I don’t federate with for pretty much this exact reason)[The rest of it]
When, out of nowhere, people put other people into boxes, ascribe a political label to them, and put words in their mouths without knowing anything about them, it is a HUGE turn off to me as far as interactions go.
e.g. A comment that’s taken out of context and the reply is basically, “Hurr, durr, that’s such an enlightened centrist thing to say. Guess you’re okay with a little fascism, huh, lib?”. That’s pretty fucking cringe and going to make me immediately block the person saying it (and I have and will continue to do so). Like, if that’s how their mind works, taking things out of context, jumping to conclusions, and projecting labels out of nowhere: I got nothing for them.
I’m not here with an agenda, I’m not trying to spread my beliefs, I’m not trying to convert anyone to anything (except maybe Linux lol), etc. I just wanna share and talk about cool shit.
And you know there’s someone reading this thinking (and possibly commenting) that the fact I haven’t announced myself to the room as a raging leftie means I must be a nazi in disguise. (Nope. Just someone who’s not here for political shit). My political beliefs and leanings are my own, and if they’re not apparent from my post/comment history, then whoever’s judging me just hasn’t paid attention.
As for how I treat people, as long as they’re clearly operating in good faith and with a good attitude, I welcome them until such time they’ve veered outside of civility or proven to be a troll, actual Nazi, or otherwise.
Exactly. Judgement is such hard work - best to avoid it when possible, but if necessary, not shy away from it either. Although in the latter case some WORK needs to be put in, if the desire is to do it correctly.
So many people claiming “bUt i WaS BaNNeD foR beInG ToO FrIenDlY, i’M ReaLlY sUcH a nIcE gUy”, when it is patently obvious to anyone who looks that that is not the case.
Removed by mod
People that shy away from this stuff are almost always rich people that are intentionally unsympathetic to the plight of poor people.
[citation needed]
If you lose your shit when you hear about politics, you simply don’t care about helping others. Period.
Now listen here whippersnapper I’ve been around too long to not know that it is, in fact, helpful for your praxis to touch grass. Declare it political if you want, but don’t bloody talk about politics while doing it.
Read Clausewitz: Absolute war is impossible because for a people to turn all its efforts to war, it would have to give up the things that it is fighting to defend. War being nothing but the continuation of politics by other means, this also applies to politics.
It is you, here, who is trying to make politics an absolute war, you’re the one barging into a bar where people are singing the people’s songs and dancing the people’s dances and say “up, to arms! what are you dancing, what are you singing, you need to fight for your right to sing and dance!”.
In short: Your praxis boils down to party pooping. Don’t be a party pooper. Party with the people, then go back to your politics as others go back to their looms and mills.
Removed by mod
Tsk, tsk. Upvoting yourself from alt accounts is generally a bannable offense. I’ve reported you.
Note: You’re not being silenced for your opinion, here. You’re being silenced, if you do get silenced, for your abuse of Lemmy systems. I realize you’re probably going to conflate the two dishonestly, but that’s what happened.
Tsk, tsk. Upvoting yourself from alt accounts is generally a bannable offense. I’ve reported you.
Do you have any evidence?
https://kbin.earth/m/fediverse@lemmy.world/t/740517/Do-you-think-the-mostly-limited-range-of-political-views/comment/4095945/favourites
Note the upvote from his alt on programming.dev, along with two suspect upvotes from other @infosec.pub accounts at exactly the same time. The one from @lemmy.eco.br seems like it could be real.
So… you’re banned here? Why then do I see your posts?
Cut that victim complex and actually engage with what I said instead of complaining that noone’s listening when you say shit 99.99% of people here already know, providing not solutions but analysis that is so undercomplex it barely qualifies as soundbites.
You’re not being a revolutionary, here. You’re an angry kid taking their first breath, loudly screaming as to the sudden incursion of the real-world into your sheltered life. Plenty others have been taking breaths for long enough to not be screaming, but scheming. Get to that level instead of having the gall to say “when people ignore me then that must be because they’re billionaires”. Too easy. Suspiciously easy, don’t you think? How many people ignore you, downvote you, how many billionaires are actually on lemmy?
“Allergic to analogies” should be your username. I’m not reading that insipid wall of text when the first sentence misunderstands my very clear analogy. Of course no one mentioned banning me. Try to follow along.
You may want to have a look at the definition of “sarcasm” and “rhetoric”.
I explained, in detail, why you’re getting ignored. You still refuse to engage with the topic. Try to not ignore me, ignore others, maybe then you’ll understand why what you say you simply doesn’t resonate. It takes more than one person to vibe.
Did that non sequitur rebuttal make sense to you in your head? 🤡
People that shy away from this stuff are almost always rich people that are intentionally unsympathetic to the plight of poor people.
[citation needed]
Lol, say you are a westerner liberal without saying you are a westerner liberal
Congratulations, you found a very novel thought-terminating cliche. I’m impressed by your creativity.
you know absolutely nothing about us in global south.
Brazilian, eh? You mean the country with higher GDP/capita than no less than nine European countries?
Stop pretending to know, in any shape or form, what it is like to be born in Burundi. And don’t pretend you’re not a colonial state, you’re barely better than the US when it comes to fucking over the indigenous population and that’s not a high standard.
Stop pretending that 7:1 is an everyday occurrence and count those stars on your jersey.
It is interesting to me that the people who are PASSIONATELY concerned about the plight of poor people in the third world, spend so much time pushing the solution of not voting for Kamala Harris, and so little time pushing support for charity work, NGOs in the United States, supporting the rare tiny handful of politicians who actually do care about human rights, or similar things. I think the amount of content I saw from them before the election that was dealing exclusively with the importance of not supporting Democrats probably outnumbered the other stuff by about 10:1. I guess as long as we make enough Kamala Harris memes, the Palestinians will be saved. Who knew?
Well, it worked out in the last election, I can’t wait for everything to get better for everyone in Gaza. That’s definitely what’s going to happen now, right?
I’ve run into you a few times. Let me save us both some time with the bullshit lesser of two evils finger wagging, neolib.
Kamala in no way, shape, or form supported any kind of peace in Palestine. So I have no idea what you’re pretending about.
Did you even look at the votes in the election? Not enough people voted third party to make a difference in the results of the election. But sure, try to blame people that oppose the genocide in gaza. Sure…
That’s true. However, I think there was a massive propaganda effort, quite successful, to get people to follow certain antipatterns of logic to help get Trump elected:
- “I care deeply about the genocide in Gaza, so I won’t vote for Democrats, even though Trump will make the genocide much worse and also create new ones.”
- “I care deeply about inflation and working people, so I’ll vote for Trump, even though Trump will make inflation much worse.”
- “I care deeply about crime and illegal immigration, so I’ll vote for Trump, even though his insane policies will mostly punish the innocent and create much more of the underlying conditions that lead to violent crime.”
And so on. It happens that foolish people on the left who thought that refusing to vote for Democrats was a way to help the Palestinians were one of the target audiences. But in the aggregate, I think the combination of those diverse populations getting suckered in their individual ways absolutely had a big impact on the election.
And please don’t say I am blaming the people that oppose the genocide in Gaza. I oppose the genocide in Gaza. Everyone on Lemmy opposes the genocide in Gaza. Because I oppose the genocide in Gaza, I didn’t want Trump to get elected, because he is about to make things much, much worse. If you have some tactical disagreement with how I want to oppose genocide, because you also oppose it but in some different way, then fine. But pretending that I have an issue with people who oppose genocide is just a dishonest strawman engineered in some think-tank somewhere, to help get Trump elected.
Yeah, there was certainly a lot of propaganda and lies to help elect Donald, but let’s be very real here - leftists not voting or voting third party over Gaza wasn’t a major part of his victory. Kamala Harris had a very weak campaign that didn’t address the concerns of young, white male voters. Personalities like Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, and others really do appeal to those people, telling them that they’re just fine and pointing their fingers at an endless list of targets to keep these people angry and afraid - and ultimately to vote for people like Donald who claim they’ll fix everything. I wasn’t trying to strawman but I have seen a lot of online comments purely blaming leftists for this election, and it’s frustrating.
What did I say, in my comment, to address exactly what you just repeated?
Specifically I’m interested in this part:
Yeah, there was certainly a lot of propaganda and lies to help elect Donald, but let’s be very real here - leftists not voting or voting third party over Gaza wasn’t a major part of his victory.
That had a very specific answer in the comment you’re replying to.
I don’t see it as either. I don’t come to social media to engage in political discussions, so for me, the bigger issue is the lack of thriving communities around topics outside of national/world politics and technology. I’d love to see more places like startrek.online.
I think its one of the reasons reddit will never reach the mainstream like reddit. For one people find it confusing to find a community which I disagree with, you just need to take a slight effort to understand that you have a choice of community and in return you get great freedom. Since its mostly for more techies I and its overwhelmingly like left, people with moderate right views will feel like they’re completely out of place.
Im also sad that many of the bigger communities like ml have unhinged mods that ban for anyone disagreeing with them. For example some calls for violence being overwhelmingly onesided on here made me feel sick at times. But I don’t feel like sparking that debate over here.
Im also sad that many of the bigger communities like ml have unhinged mods that ban for anyone disagreeing with them. For example some calls for violence being overwhelmingly onesided on here made me feel sick at times. But I don’t feel like sparking that debate over here.
For people interested on that topic, !meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works is a dedicated community
Mostly mixed. The way i think it’s a weakness is because I’m an anti authoritarian leftist, and i’d like a stronger anarchist/libertarian community on lemmy. Despite hexbear/lemmygrad/lemmy thriving, Solarpunk and dbzer0 feel a little lacking community wise. I’d also like a diverse political community, in general.
Another con is that if you even just disagree with a [bastard] moderator, they’ll immediately ban you. Happens on lemmy.world with being anti-zionist, happens on lemmy.ml under the guise of ‘rule 1’ for literally just criticizing a mod such as dessalines.
But i also think it’s a pro due to the lack of far-right content on lemmy. I remember on reddit casually seeing disgusting content, such as blatant racism (Such as arabs being called sand n-rs, Or racism against asians/immigrants in general on r/canada + r/europe) and most of that is obscure on lemmy.
I’m not denying that the Lemmy community doesn’t have problems, Lord no. But it’s much better than most other platforms.
Haha ML loves to ban you for even the slightest challenge of their views.
Don’t even need to challenge it. Just criticize a mod, and you’re banished to the void lmao
Talking about Yogthos eh?
Don’t forget our dear Dessalines, he’s a very sensitive one.
Because everyone knows, the best response when your lack of sources is met with sources is just “🤡”
The type of anarchism that says, “You must agree with my anarchism, and if you have some incorrect view, I’ll use my powers to remove you from the space” is not actually anarchism. It’s actually strikingly reminiscent of how the Russian implementation of communism had nothing to do with worker-led socialism that it was branded as. They implemented freedom by declaring themselves the arbiters of what were the allowed types of freedom and ruthlessly repressing anything else, which isn’t how it works.
In general, I think it’s a myth that if you disagree with liberal orthodoxy on lemmy.world, you’ll be banned. Plenty of people on lemmy.world constantly criticize the liberal orthodoxy and it’s fine. The people purporting the myth are either:
- Being flaming cocks and then claiming they were banned for their factual beliefs when they get banned, when that wasn’t the issue
- Or else trying to make themselves feel better about the censorship of liberals that happens on their own instances, by claiming lemmy.world is doing the same to their “side” when they aren’t.
The occasional whining about how unfair it is that you can’t post anti-Israel stories on lemmy.world, for example, is nothing to do with reality, but is instead a disguised yearning for a space where you can’t post pro-Israel stories, and the mods will enforce that political viewpoint using their powers so the speaker can feel comfortable because all they see is things that they already agree with.
I’ve skimmed the lemmy.world modlog, and it seems you seem to be right. That was a bad example.
But my point was moreso on the stubbornness of mods. For example, if i suggest that China is bad on lemmy.ml, that’ll get me a ban under the guise of “rule 1”. Why? it’s not against the rules, it’s not bigoted or racist.
If i write controversial, or even bigoted comments, then that’s another story. I was criticizing power tripping mods that ban users if they personally disagree with them, instead of actually break the rules
Yeah, those mods are bad, and they definitely exist including unapologetically on the tankie instances. I was just saying that the mirror-image bad mod, who will delete anything anti-Israel, is almost entirely a self-serving myth by a selected group that likes to pretend.
On the other hand, if someone repeats a lie often enough, doesn’t that make it true? :-P
I absolutely think that’s the idea, yes.
The world is a complicated place. Part of the optimization our brain does, to even be able to make sense of it at all without being overwhelmed, is to absorb things that you see other people saying to each other, and incorporate them into how you see the world. So I’m always interested when I see a variety of people all saying the same thing, even though that thing is demonstrably not true if you think for yourself for a few seconds.
In this case I think it’s just some kind of internal cope that they’re doing for themselves, and the repetition leading to other people potentially absorbing it is purely accidental, but it’s still a dangerous pattern.
I tend to love reading your comments - they are insightful and deep:-).
When people behave identically as a “bot” would - passing along what it has heard, without thinking twice or even so much as once about it - they can act as part of that same, dark anti-pattern. Except the danger is so much more real then b/c they “genuinely” hold their belief?
I thought that a lot of it was due to enshittification reasons to maximize profit incentive, e.g. making it hard to “search” on Reddit, yet exceedingly easy to “post”, while at the same time making it harder to read the community rules prior to doing so, all to maximize “engagement”. But it seems more related to human nature, which will never change.
Hey, thank you! Yeah. The nature of the network can induce people to behave nice or behave mean, and to put a lot or a little effort into the stuff they are posting. I think a lot of the anonymity and ease-of-getting-on of the modern Lemmy-type internet means that you get kind of the lowest common denominator of human nature. It’s unfortunately true of commercial networks as it is of free ones.
It’s a weakness. We need more anti-authoritarians here for sure. And even conservatives if nothing else so they can represent their own opinions rather than just laughing at straw-man versions of what neolibs want to say they think. I have moments I hate it here but there’s nowhere good to go and I guess I add a little diversity.
I disagree with the conservatives part. Their ideology does not deserve a place at the adults’ table. It is far too bent on undermining democracy, equity, and egalitarian society.
EDIT: To clarify, this is elementary “Paradox of Tolerance”. Those that wish to undermine democracy in an equitable society cannot be tolerated without making an end to democracy inevitable. Not all opinions are created equal. For example: “I think trans people should receive additional state-funded support.” and “I think that trans people should be murdered and/or the state should cultivate an environment amplifying their likelihood to commit suicide.” (the prevailing view expressed by the far-right through their actions and legislation) are opinions that should not be given equal treatment.
Yep, paradox of tolerance. We shouldn’t bend over for far-right, or even fascists for the sake of “pure tolerance”.
Saying, “I don’t like what they say so they shouldn’t have a voice” sounds a lot like undermining democracy to me. Them living in conservative echo chambers doesn’t increase dialog or challenge their beliefs either. Divided media and divided opinions are the tools to take down a nation. Supporting this kind of division strikes me as an example of the main kind of foreign interference this country is crumbling because of. If that was your goal, I guess congratulations?
Paradox of Tolerance. Those that intend to undermine a just and equitable society that tolerates the existence of all kinds of people cannot be tolerated.
But do we actually wait until we see how people think, or just silence them based on their opinion on one or twy divisive issues as a litmus test to justify our own intolerance? “They don’t support trans women in women sports so none of their opinions are valid.”
It’s, unfortunately, very subjective. A statement like that could be from a place of ignorance that they are willing to dig into and grow as a person. Any judgement has to include whether good faith is intended, etc. Conservativism itself is incompatible with motion towards a more just world, as rigid hierarchy is part of its core, and it is also an ideology rife with bad faith actors. Giving extra space for such an ideology that already has a far louder voice than it should have does not result in anything productive.
I’m sorry but libertarians and ancaps are just proto-feudalists that may like to smoke weed.
I agree. I should have specified, i meant left-libertarianism.
i’d like a stronger anarchist/libertarian community on lemmy.
That’s one thing that I’ve been both disappointed and surprised to not see.
The anarchist community on Reddit is fairly large, but not very anarchist. There’s a very strong authoritarian bent to their claimed anarchism. I had hopes that the nature of this place would invite a community that was anarchist not only in name but in spirit, but I’ve seen surprisingly little sign of that, or even really of anarchism at all.
db0 is real anarchists, as far as I can tell. Because they are not overbearing about it, it’s harder to be aware of them.
I think by definition, it’s easier to be aware of the “official” self-identified anarchist communities than the ones that are just doing their own thing.
I assumed that they were at least anarchism-adjacent - it’s pretty much a prerequisite for the bulk of their focus.
I hadn’t really looked into their political posting much though, and yeah - even with just a cursory glance, it’s promising.
And I hadn’t thought about that distinction between people who simply hold a position and people who “officially” wear the label in the context of anarchism (though I’ve noted it often with atheists), but yeah, there’s undoubtedly some truth there.
Thanks for the heads-up.
The slrpnk admins, as far as I can tell, stand in the same relationship to anarchism that your average megachurch organization does with Christianity.
If all you look at is the words, it looks like they’re supporting it.
Absolutely yes. Anarchists on reddit were largely only anarchist by name, and we don’t even have a proper community here. And anarchist communities on instances such as lemmy.ml are even worse, to be honest. Most political representation on lemmy is for authoritarian leftists, where’s the love for anarchy :(
I just wish the top posts on the meme pages were more than just an anti-capitalist caption and a vaguely related image.
I block most of thé memes community, the only ones remaining being !lotrmemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com and !bikinibottomtwitter@lemmy.world
I think it’s a strength because I don’t want to chat with fascists, thanks
It’s a weakness in the sense that there are times this place turns into a straight-up echo chamber…
But when there is actual debate going on, it tends to be a lot more civil than on other sites (most of the time)
Yeah hasn’t been helpful for getting a sense for the minds of the masses but generally a lot more grounded than reddit
Also though echo chambers are bad most of the time for most people, occasionally they help in challenging our own beliefs but only when engaged critically.
No echo-chamber is stronger for it. It’s a weakness.
I view the focus on Lemmy’s political opinions as a weakness for attracting new users.
