Rule #2 is possibly our most important one:

Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.

Learn to disagree without being rude or disrespectful.

It can be difficult sometimes, since western social media thrives on collective outrage, and they knowingly ingrain this into us for years. But please do adhere to this rule, and it will make this place much more enjoyable.

We will not hesitate to issue temp bans (usually a day or two) for those who make everyone’s experience unpleasant.Hit the report button if you see this behavior.

Thanks!

  • nullthegrey@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good advice for life outside in the real world as well whenever possible. You can disagree without going thrermonuclear.

  • caribou@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    “YOU” are not your argument. Disagreement is not an attack on you as an individual and should not be taken as such.

  • smartwater0897@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 year ago

    First thing I read on Lemmy and it’s like I’ve found emotionally intelligent people finally.

    I saw the same thing on Mastadon, just normal people capable of handling their emotions.

    Western social media (and television) is promoting the worst in people and it can make users believe everyone is insane. So it’s very nice to see this being posted.

    Thanks!

    • Ryobee@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I really like the fediverse. I made a Mastodon account after Elon bought Twitter, because it was pretty clear he was disingenuous. On one hand, he said he wanted to “promote free speech” but on the other hand it seemed like he was focusing on one particular kind of speech (i.e. bigotry). It’s nice to see posts like this saying that lemmy hopes to be a different form of social media.

      But… I can’t help but feel like there may be a similar disingenuous story going on, as much as I hate to say it. I want the fediverse to grow into a safe place for anyone to express themselves. And it’s hard to see that happening when the developers (and moderators of the original instance, lemmy.ml) are unapologetic authoritarians. When they say they want people to be respectful, there seems to be a double meaning. After all, banning people for talking about human rights violations doesn’t seem to be conducive to an open, honest platform where people can express themselves. The developers of lemmy are, sadly, committed to the ideas of old-school authoritarian governments. And I worry that’s going to be a damaging force in what could have otherwise been a wonderful platform. Just my two cents.

  • bigbox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s nice to have a place where I can ask genuine questions without being called a complete idiot just for asking.

    • bobs_guns
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      ChatGPT has more social skills than a lot of people do…

  • 7eter@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    this! I hope we stay such a friendly and open-minded community where one doesn’t have to fear to say/write their thoughts.

    • Liempong_pagong@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Good luck with that. Knowing were the exodus has come from. We can start vetting the new users but this is not proven effective.

      Malicious reporting can also become a problem if we start being trigger happy on banning users.

      • 7eter@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is of course quiet a difficult task. And will be very much in the hands of the moderators. Just like the countless mods that voluntarily keept reddit running. I’am quiet positive that we cant accomplish that even better here.

  • Zevena@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am like a veteran to this site because i joined 2 years before new people moved to here

    I agree with this post and I think that its important to have a post like this to remind people.

  • rationalistfaith@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lots of redditors are coming out of echo-chambers. In fact most of reddit has become one starting from a suffocating top-down control.

    They’ve forgotten how Reddit used to be and so are astounded at how “uncomfortable” Lemmy is given its NON-pyramid like structure.

    The discomfort is how the world and free speech needs to be and I’m a non-white Muslim typing this.

    None of us is 100% right so we should always be exposed to other POVs and question ourselves to keep ourselves in check and evolve in objective ways.

    I hope Lemmy keeps it this way and the money doesn’t corrupt things as it always does. Believe you me, advertisers and nefarious actors are already reaching out to Lemmy authors to do exactly that.

  • d3Xt3r@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    Could we also have a rule saying that downvotes should not be used for disagreements? Downvotes should be meant for off-topic, or factually incorrect content. Disagreements should be debated in the comments, respectfully of course.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      While I personally never downvote anyone for disagreeing, I don’t think it’s possible, or desirable, to try to create rules around how people use their preference buttons.

      But I def suggest going into your settings and hiding vote scores, as that’s psychologically better for most people.

      • abbenm@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think it’s possible, or desirable, to try to create rules around how people use their preference buttons.

        I also don’t think it’s possible to actually end mean-spirited disagreement in internet comment sections, but it’s a valuable thing to strive for as a value and emphasize, like you did in this post.

        I think the same can be said for group-downvoting and stalking threads to downvote people based on what side they take without engaging with the substance of what is said. Minority viewpoints that add information are probably the most needed thing, and if anything I would say group downvoting is worse here than reddit on certain topics, unfortunately.

        I think the attention spans are better here, and many/most things are better here but this is a sore spot.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          We’ve kind of grown used to having terrible interactions on the internet, mainly because US big tech companies tacitly encourage it. They love rage-inducing content, because it keeps their users engaged, and spending more time on the site. We can def do better :)

      • TheBelgian@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        no but you censor and go even back in history to remove traces of an approved and upvoted comment to give a certain portrait of a user.

        why are you actually providing this instance, really?

      • DrQuint@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I can get behind this, because upvotes/downvote serve a purpose of telling the website “more people should see this”. But we don’t need to know what needs to be seen less. Upvotes will, on their own, already tell us what’s the top content and sort things out things. Late, Average and Middling posts aren’t really going to be seen by most people and are fine with a lesser rating accuracy.

        But what about de-constructive comments? What if something TRULY deserves to be seen less? Well, here’s a stance I don’t particularly believe everyone would get behind but has some merit: People should post their reasoning why their post was not very good as a response. As that not just generates discussion points, but also informs other onlookers of their rationale. And if a response gathers upvotes (ratio’d), then that signals a better message than a simple downvote ever would. Yeah, that means the only response to a troll is actually responding, and that may make a community appear less welcoming, but overall I don’t know if that’s a big issue in practice.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is why I’m personally not a fan of removing downvotes. No one really has been able to answer why upvotes need no comment to back them up, but downvotes for some reason always need a justification.

          Many trolling comments, or some comments we just disagree staunchly with, should be downvoted, and no one should be required to write an explanation for that.

          The other reason, is that all the big tech companies (except for reddit), have removed the dislike button. To me that signals that they don’t want it to be known that some positions are wildly unpopular.

          On twitter the only indicator of “dislike” now, is being “ratio’d”: having more comments than favorites, which of course they prefer because it drives up engagement, since no one can just downvote and move on. It also makes some reactionary positions (like being anti-trans for instance), seem much more popular than they really are.

          • DrQuint@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I do understand and agree with the rest of the post. By all means, downvotes do have value with dealing with immature or agenda’d posters if that is problematic to a community.

            But I did state why it can be fine and how there’s a reason why upvotes require no reasoning while downvotes do - they have an immediate, positive effect on the usability of the site (everyone sees top posts), while downvotes have a less immediate one (only a subset scrolls to see bottom posts). Upvotes are just inherently more valuable to the community on the whole and shouldn’t be put to equal questioning. Downvotes are more useful to contain undesirables.

            On this note, there’s somewhat of a tangential discussion to all of this, which is “should posts that go below a threshold (like -10 points) be hidden from users by default?”. I personally would opt to keep posts visible to myself, because I want to know what was said that earned the shunning. But I can’t think of a reason why a system that has downvotes shouldn’t do that filtering, after all, it basically empowers downvotes to do their job better, and stops trolls from latching to top posts.

            • blackbrook@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What you say about upvotes vs downvotes flies against how hierarchy inherently works. If you push something upward everything else moves downward relative to that. If you push something downward everything else moves upward relative to it.

            • CannotSleep420
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              FWIW, instance admins can disable downvotes if they want. Beehaw and Hexbear do it.

        • Lobstronomosity@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree. I made a post earlier to promote discussion, and it was downvoted more than I expected because people did not agree with the question I guess?

          I would still argue that if a post or comment provides useful discourse, it should be upvoted or at the very least, not downvoted.

        • SolarSailer@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hmm you raise an interesting point. I do agree that it’s helpful to explain to someone why they’re being downvoted.

          An experimental feature might be to allow downvotes only if you reply, or else you can choose to down vote a comment if you also upvote a response to the downvoted comment.

          • Adda@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Never heard this idea before. Some food for thought, indeed. Simply for its unique approach, people should keep this idea in mind when talking about down votes.

          • randomredditor12345@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think this idea is absolutely brilliant. I would love a platform that would force some level of accountability on those who put down other people’s perspectives.

      • d3Xt3r@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Now there’s an interesting approach, will have to check out Beehaw I guess.

      • iod@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        this only works for your own instance. someone from another instance can still downvote you

        • JackFromWisconsin@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, nothing prevents them from hitting the button. But the downvote wouldn’t be federated. Beehaw would never know if everyone else was downvoting them.

          • iod@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            hm. Seems you’re right. The original score doesn’t get updated if you downvote. Only the score on your own instance. Why even show the button on this one comment if it’s inconsistent like that?

    • DarraignTheSane@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes because having that rule worked so well for reddit over the years. It’s unfortunately an unenforceable rule so therefore etiquette at best.

      • Link@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right. And if they have a bad argument, regardless whether you agree with it or not, it’s worth a downvote. But if it is an opinion without an argument, I think it is fine to up- or downvote depending on whether you agree or disagree.

    • Link@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t really get why. A well reasoned position I disagree with might discourage me to downvote, because I would like the reasoning itself. But why would downvoting something you disagree with be bad?

      • Moonguide@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Personal experience ofc, but a lot of people argue in bad faith. Knowingly (or unknowingly) invoke logical fallacies, whataboutisms and straw man arguments. With how ideologically volatile the internet has turned in recent years, you can’t really have a reasonable argument any more without it becoming just a name calling session.

        Yesterday I noticed just how much reddit had jaded me. Had a bbq with some friends and a guy I knew was very much in the right, q anon stuff and all, asked me about my position on polarizing topics. I’m anarcho syndicalist. Expected it to get heated. Dude just genuinely asked questions and that was it. No trying to prod holes into the ideology or show the superiority of his ideology. It was kinda eye opening and showed me I just spent too much time in toxic areas of the internet. Though he seemed to have a bone to pick with the stereotypical city dweller lib. Had I had those positions he probably would’ve unloaded with quotes from the usual suspect talking heads.

      • weebs@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It helps prevent hivemind mentality and keeps us growing. Unpopular opinions often have ideas worth examining or could be outright correct despite common wisdom saying otherwise, and forums like these are one of the best places for us to engage with those facts. There’s also times when an opinion we like dislike is misinformed, and rather than send it to the bottom, it’s good to explain how it’s wrong for both our own sake (refining our arguments) and bystanders that haven’t given the topic much thought.

        But if someone left a turd, send that stank to the bottom!

        • caribou@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          undefined> But if someone left a turd, send that stank to the bottom!

          This is the crux of it though, where is the distinction between opposing viewpoint and absurdist argument? How would you combat people trolling, i.e. intentionally posting inflammatory things to cause disruption/argument?

          Am I trolling you right now? Or am I arguing in good faith? :-)

  • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve encountered some people who are not so… respectful with disagreements. I’ve made use of the report feature, however, it doesn’t seem to be of much use.

    • ImOnADiet
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      you haven’t been entirely respectful in your disagreements either come on now

        • ImOnADiet
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          ? I’ve been following that thread since yesterday, calling someone “buddy” is not respectful

            • ImOnADiet
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              22
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              it’s not “offensive” it’s disrespectful to be overly familiar with people like that. Calling someone I know buddy is very different from starting out an argument with buddy with an online stranger, it portrays a tone of disdain

                • amber (she/her)
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What do you gain from behaving this way? I understand it’s easy to get heated online but you’re just plainly trying to get under someone’s skin for no reason. Maybe you genuinely disagree that calling a stranger “buddy” right at the start of a disagreement is disrespectful, but you’re literally just responding derisively to someone in a way that you know they find disrespectful, underneath a post specifically telling you to be respectful in disagreements.

                  Also, personally I think it’s strange to question someone else’s understanding of English in regards to calling a stranger “buddy” in a disagreement, seeing as I think most English speakers would understand the passive aggressive attitude of such a thing easily.

                • bobs_guns
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  there’s a difference between being a bit rude and saying slurs at people, you know. they are both disrespectful though!

                • ImOnADiet
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think we just have a different view of being respectful

                • ImOnADiet
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I said you escalated tensions. I really do think that calling someone buddy is overly familiar, I guess I can’t speak for everyone but the argument really seemed to take a turn downhill when you called Yog buddy I don’t think it’s outlandish to say that escalated tensions. I really didn’t intend for it to come off as an “accusation” was just trying to give some pretty mild push back that you yourself were disrespectful in an argument. I think Yog probably should get a temp for like a day if you think I’m being unfair

                • ImOnADiet
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I would find it offensive if someone called me a shithead, as well as disrespectful, while calling me buddy/bud is disrespectful but not offensive

          • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            well, since you’re going to be disrespectful to me by setting an hilariously outrageous and arbitrary standard and then use that to insinuate that I’m actually the one who has done something wrong, I’m just going to assume you’re a troll.

            strange place to come and do that

            • ImOnADiet
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              what? why are you reacting like this I just said that you escalated the tensions yourself? Ironically this is exactly what I meant

              • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                you’ve clearly come here to antagonize me by accusing me of something preposterous: using the word “buddy”-- a word which means companion, friend. is English, maybe, not your first language?

                you’e the one making false accusations, and now, again. you’re clearly a troll.

                • ImOnADiet
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  20
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  calling people buddy, when you don’t know them, is passive aggressive to most people. And thanks for taking literally the worst faith interpretation possible, I just looked into this thread and saw you commented and remember reading through the argument you and Yog had.

  • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tone policing is classist and is the reason I stopped using this instance. It’ll be popular with the liberals who will weaponise it against those saying things they dislike but it’ll cause situation after situation where leftists get punished ultimately driving away the base of people that supported the site and platforming up to this point.

    • Barbarian@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      More power to ya. I like the ruleset here, but that’s the glorious thing about Lemmy: don’t like the rules of your instance? Go to one that works better for you.

    • pitninja@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tone policing is classist

      Apologies if this is something that you think should be obvious to anyone, but I’m genuinely curious what you mean by “classist” here.

      I occasionally encounter assholes from all walks of life and prefer to avoid them all the same. I’m actively in favor of reasonable moderation on social media sites to filter assholes out because it’s better for my mental health.

      Nobody’s saying we can’t have differences of opinion and disagreements. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable that we should be expected to engage respectfully or not at all. This is a standard that should be applied equally to all. It’s difficult to do, but we should also strive to hold people we otherwise generally agree with on principle accountable if they’re being aggressive/hostile/antagonistic because, at best, they’re being a bad advocate of our own positions and, at worst, they’re being an asshole.

      • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Alright I’ll bite.

        As you move down the wealth ladder you eventually reach a point at which there is a culture change. There are significant differences in the culture of the average middle-income anglo with guilt about their privilege compared to the people who are really, genuinely struggling. Once you cross a certain threshold, I’ll call it the poverty threshold for the sake of this reply but it’s not really a strict line but more of a broadly intersecting spectrum where there are many people who can blend into both groups, you reach a behavioural change point. This behavioural change, both in speech and in attitudes, is generally driven by those of us below a certain income level genuinely not giving a single fuck about how someone speaks but rather what they are saying.

        Take for example my home of Liverpool. If I go down the council flats I’ll find myself hundreds of people who will speak in ways that the middle-income liberals of america would find abhorrent. They will cuss you for a minor thing that makes it seem like you just killed their dog. This is normalised culture for them, and among their peers it is perfectly fine behaviour - but to the sheltered middle income person who sees it as an overreaction? It’s shocking, and they don’t like it.

        This trend occurs towards the lower income groups because frankly their is less and less incentive to ruin relationships with people over social policing. Far more is put up with and accepted because everyone’s got it rough and nobody’s interested in making someone’s life harder by getting overly emotional about a few swearsies.

        I fit into one of the blending people, seamlessly transitioning between the two and speaking both ways. I grew up in squats, but I also got a very fortunate break that led to me getting an education in what many would regard as the ruling class side of our education system, which is split between schools for the workers vs schools for the bourgeoisie.

        Anyway. The point is that the tone policing has the effect of shutting out these people from participation. The reason you don’t see the majority of these people in participation online isn’t because they don’t have access, it’s because they’ve had the experience of getting banned everywhere for not speaking like a cultured middle income liberal, and they’ve frankly got bigger priorities in their lives than learning how to speak like the people they fucking despise.

        It is classism because it explicitly shuts out this class of people from participation. Almost everywhere online the tone policing functions as a tool of class discrimination that bends internet culture towards privileged middle-income groups over the poor. It’s not explicitly intended to do this, but it is the outcome of it. Much like for example having a “no hoodies” rule in a shop doesn’t function to keep out middle-income people but keeps out the “chavs”, if you’ll forgive my use of a classist slur for effect.

        You wanna get aggressive and go at it? Go ahead. Do it. How something is expressed is not important compared to what is actually being said. The issue with this form of classism is that a section of society goes completely unrepresented online because of it, people whose politics almost always align with my own socialist views once they’re well educated in what their interests are.

        • pitninja@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thank you for responding thoughtfully and giving me things to consider I hadn’t thought about much previously.

          This seems like a tricky problem to me because, while I understand that there are inherent issues with deplatforming people who are simply edgier and more coarse in their dialog, whether it’s due to their culture, socioeconomic status, or otherwise, I also feel like I have a right not to tolerate undue abuse in my online discourse. You mention your own ability to context switch with your use of language and I understand and appreciate that’s a luxury and ability many people don’t have in life. I guess I don’t really see a great solution to the problem you’ve described other than flattening wealth inequality and getting people to mingle more amongst cultures starting at a young age.

          As far as dealing with adults goes right now, though, I’m willing to have conversations with anyone who will genuinely consider my viewpoint and express why they agree or disagree rather than simply attack my character and offer nothing of substance. I’ll engage even if they come back in a more hostile tone than I’d normally appreciate. You have not attacked my character and you’ve replied thoughtfully, so this exchange has been productive (at least for me) 🙂

          Circling back to some of my previous thoughts, I think regardless of culture/class one general problem I see is that when we talk amongst our various in-groups, we don’t have a direct contrarian viewpoint to challenge. This lets us get lazy in our internal discussions, accept as fact the ideas others would challenge, leave unexplained the concepts that our in-group just tends to know already, and worst of all vilify dissenting viewpoints to a dehumanizing extent. I see it in all groups, but specifically I see it first hand in liberal groups I’m in and I realize that it can be seductive to talk about conservativism (for example) as simply evil. Hell, I often see fellow liberals tearing apart their own if someone doesn’t live up to a 100% purity standard they’ve created.

          When I start hearing my liberal in-groups parrot such talking points, I take a step back and remind myself this is emotional, not rational, discourse and is not a productive way to discuss sociopolitical issues with others. Unfortunately, I don’t think enough people do this, so we ultimately get shouting matches when different ideologies bump into each other. Thus, my impassioned plea is that we all try to moderate ourselves and our own in-groups to the extent we are able. We can downvote people we might otherwise agree with if they’re being assholes, for example. It will make intersectional dialog more enjoyable for everyone.

          • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            but specifically I see it first hand in liberal groups I’m in and I realize that it can be seductive to talk about conservativism (for example) as simply evil. Hell, I often see fellow liberals tearing apart their own if someone doesn’t live up to a 100% purity standard they’ve created.

            Liberal groups are squeezed because the middle is disappearing under the steadily tightening contradictions. You only have to walk the streets for a day or two to see the results of liberalism, certainly it has created great productivity but the production is not going to the majority of people. When the soviet union fell the liberal ruling class (which I include conservatives in, they are two halves of liberalism, the political ideology of capitalism) went into overdrive taking away every single benefit given to the people in pursuit of competition with a real threat that sought to improve people’s standard of living worldwide.

            As such, liberals are radicalising in much the same way that many pushed to the left (communists/anarchists under the umbrella of socialism) are and as much as many pushed to the fascist right are. It was the liberals in the SDP that killed Rosa Luxembourg to prevent the would-have-been sparticist German revolution which then probably led to the nazis taking power, liberals aren’t incapable of being “extremist” in their own sense. As they get threatened more and more between the rising far left and the rising far right they themselves become just as radical about maintaining the status quo, this in turn causes them to shut us socialists out of their spaces. And why do they do that? Because they really don’t want people like you talking to people like me, because when people like you talk to people like me you come away from the interaction just a little bit more red than you were yesterday. They see that happening everywhere, and the only method they have to deal with it is to prevent the mixing of groups.

            When I start hearing my liberal in-groups parrot such talking points, I take a step back and remind myself this is emotional, not rational, discourse and is not a productive way to discuss sociopolitical issues with others.

            This is precisely when someone sometimes needs a verbal slap. One of the only tools we have for moving people in the online space is creating discomfort, and if creating discomfort in someone over the way one interaction occurs brings them towards behaving differently in a future interaction then it is a valid and useful tool to have available. Some people need a dressing down before they open up. Some people do not.

        • Chromozone@lemmy.chromozone.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I disagree. Reading content online is inherently different from listening to someone speaking out loud. Internet discourse must be different in order for us to better understand each other. Tone and emotion do not come off well in text posts so we adjust our way of communicating accordingly.

          I don’t know why I bother though, you clearly have a problem with a large portion of society that has done nothing to harm you. The average person is not out to get you. Your anger at the middle class is exactly what the super rich want.

          • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Disagree. I don’t give a shit.

            that has done nothing to harm you

            Yeah sure thing, except exploit the fuck out of people, enslave everyone, commit mass genocide and destroy the planet. Done absolutely NOTHING to harm me my ass.

            Your anger at the middle class is exactly what the super rich want.

            The middle class are aspiring bourgeoisie, there’s a reason they’re officially called the petit-bourgeoisie. This is not a conversation about the middle-class, it is a conversation about middle-income people, which are two entirely different things.

            There is zero value in having a conversation with anyone that names themselves chromosome though, definitely a totally normal name to choose.

            • Chromozone@lemmy.chromozone.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Right I forgot the main Lemmy instance is filled with degenerate tankies. Go write more fan fiction about Lenin’s (2nd btw) cat since you want to call out usernames so much lmfao

              • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Can you define tankie for me? The definition seems to change every time I talk to someone saying it. Right now all you know about me is that I read Lenin? Is reading Lenin supposed to be a bad thing?