Well, just look at what happened to the Lemmy conservative communities.
It seems like most have been taken over and turned into only satire posts about conservatives; only a few are truly for conservatives, mostly in other federations, not leemmmy.world.
The problem is, we have to live next to them in our daily lives, and they us. Part of the reason why we’re now spinning down the drain as a nation is because everyone retreated to isolated online bubbles instead of talking to their family, friends and neighbors.
Exactly the kind “harumph, not ME” attitude I am describing.
Community made us the most successful species on Earth. But we have allowed capital and greed to form systems that pry us apart into echo chambers that are disconnected from the axioms we share and this has festered into a kind of hate so extreme that when someone tries to expose what’s been done to us, it’s attacked as “centerism” at best, or advocacy for making friends with nazis in worst-faith reactionism.
There is nuance in the non-digital world, and avoiding talking to or seeing the thoughts and ideas, no matter how dumb, of the people we’re trained to be phobic of only makes the problem worse.
We have to get off the internet. People who get off the internet are going to be the actual thought leaders and unifiers of tomorrow.
I agree, but the point of my comment wasn’t that my country’s any better because it’s absolutely not. I was mostly just pointing out that on a global platform, it’s odd to say “our nation” without specifying which one
Self-built echo chambers and self-censorship seem to hinder our views, especially when it comes to being able to notice populist viewpoints and what the working class views are on politics.
Conservatives have nothing of value to contribute to discussions. I say that on the basis of having made serious attempts at engagement with them. They are very anti-intellectual and bring down the quality of discussion to quips and shouting matches. BlueMAGA types are similar, but they are at least toned down a few degrees, and importantly, they aren’t openly bigoted and exclusionary. Like, you’re never going to have trans people and MAGA coexisting in the same online spaces and I’d much rather have the former than the latter, as there’s a much higher probability of them saying something worthwhile.
It’s like, imagine two doctors trying to discuss the intricacies of their field in a room where a conspiracy theorist, like, say, Jimmy Dore for example, is listening in for some phrase they can twist around and take out of context and attack them with. That’s what it’s like having conservatives in an online space.
Outside of online spaces, conservatives are largely incompatible with a functioning society, they don’t understand basic concepts needed for the government to function, and their heads are instead filled with a bunch of harmful and objectively wrong ideas. They will fight tooth and nail against their own interests just to stop anyone else from having good things.
On the rare occasions when they accidentally stumble into a correct take, it’s because they’re wrong twice, and it only muddies the waters for people who have a similar take for coherent reasons.
Name one thing that conservatives contribute to any discussion that’s worth listening to.
Conservatives have nothing of value to contribute to discussions.
This is why Trump is in the oval office, and some of you are too full of yourselves to see it.
I say that on the basis of having made serious attempts at engagement with them.
You mean calling them Nazi’s and fascists and telling them they should be murdered because they want to stop illegal immigration didn’t work?! I am SHOCKED.
I think I understand what you are saying, but that is the nature of a society.
We all have our own unique upbringings and experiences that shape us.
Political tribalism helps increase the difficulty of uniting the working class. Divide and conquer is still relevant in our society, especially with identity politics and social issues.
I think it fundamentally goes back to:
It is difficult to have discussions with people that do not share our views or way of thinking.
It takes a lot of time and effort IRL and on forums.
The problem with this sentiment is that you misrepresent the points of contention. This is not a disagreement over people’s preferred pizza toppings, where parties can safely “agree to disagree.” We are talking about positions that pose a clear, real, immediate existential threat to entire groups of people, simply because they exist. Do you really think this hasn’t been discussed? Do you genuinely think this hasn’t been talked about, debated, argued, demonstrated, illustrated, and experienced ad infinitum for literal decades?
The reason you are being downvoted (and justly so) is that your argument in this case is literally a form of victim-blaming. People being actively harmed, abused, and oppressed are under no obligated whatsoever to try and meet their aggressors in the middle or to concede any part of their existence to them. This disease was festering long before the internet existed. “Echo chambers” have nothing to do with it. It a matter of good versus evil, right versus wrong, liberty versus death. Neither the oppressed mor their defenders will lie down and die because you are inconvenienced by conflict they never wanted.
Right, but for some of us, our upbringings and experiences include, “Reading actual works of political theory” while for others it involves, “Watching cable TV.” An ignorant viewpoint is not on an equal level as an informed one.
Of course, uniting the working class is important, but that doesn’t mean falling into “Tailism,” that is, adopting reactionary views to ingratiate ourselves to a reactionary population. The goal is to spread education and knowledge to make the population less reactionary. It is necessary, to a degree, to meet people where they’re at and to accommodate their concerns, but there is a line to be drawn. Engaging in Tailism fractures the left, alienates comrades who will object for legitimate reasons, legitimizes reactionary views, and makes a movement far more susceptible to opportunists, who are only concerned with their own advancement and willing to sell out members of the working class, since, you know, that’s what Tailism is.
If you want to actually build a working class coalition, the most important thing is to practice solidarity. Everyone is part of a minority, in a sense. For instance, whatever job you have, most people aren’t involved in that field. Being a minority in a democracy is inherently precarious, because the majority could take your rights away. Solidarity means an alliance between disparate groups to stand together for mutual defense. But that alliance is broken when you sell out a group for political gain. Not only do you lose that group, but every group in the coalition starts wondering if they’ll be next, and starts worrying about themselves than coming to the defense of others who might be more in the crosshairs. If solidarity breaks down, then how can the working class be united?
The main issue comes from people not actually debating in good faith or their arguments boiling down to “I just don’t think people that are different from me should exist.”
Echo chambers aren’t good sure, just look at the .ml instances, but allowing “free speech” and bigotry isn’t good as well.
Echo chambers aren’t good sure, just look at the .ml instances, but allowing “free speech” and bigotry isn’t good as well.
The problem with this is that sites like Reddit, Lemmy, old Twitter, and old (and possibly current) facebook, is that anything that goes against the echo chamber is called “bigotry” or any of the “phobic”'s and is censored, further cementing the echo chamber.
Care to cite an example of an opinion that was rejected? And make sure it’s not something pro-Zionist, pro-ICE, anti-trans, anti-Medicare, or pro-any person who holds those viewpoints. Those stances reject sanctity of human life.
I’ll grant that trans people in sports is one issue that has some nuance to it.
The core problem I’d like to solve there is deciding where trans people can compete. The lawmakers that have fought to “protect women’s sports” generally only care about one faction, and have offered no solution for where these people could compete; denying them an entire life opportunity for no reason other than not finding a space for them. That’s why it’s called anti-trans.
What’s more, when the issue comes up, it’s at a State or even Federal level regarding one singular person in one school in that state. That’s a haunting level of personal focus on one’s life, especially in a lack of harmful actions to deserve it. We’ve had far smaller legislative responses to mass shootings.
Trans women, especially, don’t want anything other than to compete against women - this was evident by world swimming creating a trans category alongside the men’s and women’s and then not a single trans athlete registering, so they scrapped it.
Trans women can compete with the men since they are the male sex, and sport is separated by sex, not gender. Gender doesn’t make the average male significantly bigger/stronger/faster than the average woman - sex does.
Trans men can compete with women provided their testosterone levels fall in the accepted levels. If they choose to take lots of testosterone - a performance enhancing drug - then like any other woman they can’t compete.
The only real issue is that trans women want to compete against women because they can dominate.
Wanting men to stay out of women’s sports and other spaces is not “anti-trans”. I, as a male, shouldn’t be going to women’s gyms, saunas, doctors, etc. It’s not hate or fear of trans women, it’s simply understanding why those womens only places exist in the first place.
Yes, that is a problem when it comes to having discussions with others, especially if political tribalism is heavily involved.
Echo chambers aren’t good sure, just look at the .ml instances,
It seems . ML has an echo chamber problem then.
allowing “free speech” and bigotry isn’t good as well.
It is free speech and our first amendment right; privately owned platforms do like to hinder and censor dissidents, with help from the government.
It has to be consistent because it is always used for one side first, then it is used against the other later on.
I think we have found out that many free speech absolutists are hypocrites and were using it as an excuse to help their profits.
I think Glenn Greenwald is an excellent example of someone with consistency when he shares his views and critiques, especially when you see his background:
Glenn Edward Greenwald is an American journalist, author, and former lawyer. In 1996, Greenwald founded a law firm concentrating on First Amendment litigation.
This goes back to tribalism within politics and what propaganda apparatus we each prefer to consume on the daily.
I am always going to be highly critical of all governments, oligarchy-controlled media, and politicians.
The status quo is what is fed to the working class, but new media and the internet have helped fight the echo chambers and censorship we are born in; being pro-war and believing everything our governments tell us to believe will be much harder when there are multiple sources of information.
It is always funny when people who criticize the status quo (Democrats, Bernie Sanders, AOC) from the left instead of the right are labeled the boogeyman.
Well, just look at what happened to the Lemmy conservative communities.
It seems like most have been taken over and turned into only satire posts about conservatives; only a few are truly for conservatives, mostly in other federations, not leemmmy.world.
Good. We don’t want conservatives here.
The problem is, we have to live next to them in our daily lives, and they us. Part of the reason why we’re now spinning down the drain as a nation is because everyone retreated to isolated online bubbles instead of talking to their family, friends and neighbors.
What nation?
Exactly the kind “harumph, not ME” attitude I am describing.
Community made us the most successful species on Earth. But we have allowed capital and greed to form systems that pry us apart into echo chambers that are disconnected from the axioms we share and this has festered into a kind of hate so extreme that when someone tries to expose what’s been done to us, it’s attacked as “centerism” at best, or advocacy for making friends with nazis in worst-faith reactionism.
There is nuance in the non-digital world, and avoiding talking to or seeing the thoughts and ideas, no matter how dumb, of the people we’re trained to be phobic of only makes the problem worse.
We have to get off the internet. People who get off the internet are going to be the actual thought leaders and unifiers of tomorrow.
I agree, but the point of my comment wasn’t that my country’s any better because it’s absolutely not. I was mostly just pointing out that on a global platform, it’s odd to say “our nation” without specifying which one
In general, or in left-leaning communities?
Self-built echo chambers and self-censorship seem to hinder our views, especially when it comes to being able to notice populist viewpoints and what the working class views are on politics.
Both.
Conservatives have nothing of value to contribute to discussions. I say that on the basis of having made serious attempts at engagement with them. They are very anti-intellectual and bring down the quality of discussion to quips and shouting matches. BlueMAGA types are similar, but they are at least toned down a few degrees, and importantly, they aren’t openly bigoted and exclusionary. Like, you’re never going to have trans people and MAGA coexisting in the same online spaces and I’d much rather have the former than the latter, as there’s a much higher probability of them saying something worthwhile.
It’s like, imagine two doctors trying to discuss the intricacies of their field in a room where a conspiracy theorist, like, say, Jimmy Dore for example, is listening in for some phrase they can twist around and take out of context and attack them with. That’s what it’s like having conservatives in an online space.
Outside of online spaces, conservatives are largely incompatible with a functioning society, they don’t understand basic concepts needed for the government to function, and their heads are instead filled with a bunch of harmful and objectively wrong ideas. They will fight tooth and nail against their own interests just to stop anyone else from having good things.
On the rare occasions when they accidentally stumble into a correct take, it’s because they’re wrong twice, and it only muddies the waters for people who have a similar take for coherent reasons.
Name one thing that conservatives contribute to any discussion that’s worth listening to.
This is why Trump is in the oval office, and some of you are too full of yourselves to see it.
You mean calling them Nazi’s and fascists and telling them they should be murdered because they want to stop illegal immigration didn’t work?! I am SHOCKED.
I think I understand what you are saying, but that is the nature of a society.
We all have our own unique upbringings and experiences that shape us.
Political tribalism helps increase the difficulty of uniting the working class. Divide and conquer is still relevant in our society, especially with identity politics and social issues.
I think it fundamentally goes back to:
The problem with this sentiment is that you misrepresent the points of contention. This is not a disagreement over people’s preferred pizza toppings, where parties can safely “agree to disagree.” We are talking about positions that pose a clear, real, immediate existential threat to entire groups of people, simply because they exist. Do you really think this hasn’t been discussed? Do you genuinely think this hasn’t been talked about, debated, argued, demonstrated, illustrated, and experienced ad infinitum for literal decades?
The reason you are being downvoted (and justly so) is that your argument in this case is literally a form of victim-blaming. People being actively harmed, abused, and oppressed are under no obligated whatsoever to try and meet their aggressors in the middle or to concede any part of their existence to them. This disease was festering long before the internet existed. “Echo chambers” have nothing to do with it. It a matter of good versus evil, right versus wrong, liberty versus death. Neither the oppressed mor their defenders will lie down and die because you are inconvenienced by conflict they never wanted.
Example 2 of why Trump is in power, and how you guys still don’t get it.
Are you suggesting that Trump does not take such positions?
Which positions that Trump takes are a “clear, real, immediate existential threat to entire groups of people, simply because they exist”?
Right, but for some of us, our upbringings and experiences include, “Reading actual works of political theory” while for others it involves, “Watching cable TV.” An ignorant viewpoint is not on an equal level as an informed one.
Of course, uniting the working class is important, but that doesn’t mean falling into “Tailism,” that is, adopting reactionary views to ingratiate ourselves to a reactionary population. The goal is to spread education and knowledge to make the population less reactionary. It is necessary, to a degree, to meet people where they’re at and to accommodate their concerns, but there is a line to be drawn. Engaging in Tailism fractures the left, alienates comrades who will object for legitimate reasons, legitimizes reactionary views, and makes a movement far more susceptible to opportunists, who are only concerned with their own advancement and willing to sell out members of the working class, since, you know, that’s what Tailism is.
If you want to actually build a working class coalition, the most important thing is to practice solidarity. Everyone is part of a minority, in a sense. For instance, whatever job you have, most people aren’t involved in that field. Being a minority in a democracy is inherently precarious, because the majority could take your rights away. Solidarity means an alliance between disparate groups to stand together for mutual defense. But that alliance is broken when you sell out a group for political gain. Not only do you lose that group, but every group in the coalition starts wondering if they’ll be next, and starts worrying about themselves than coming to the defense of others who might be more in the crosshairs. If solidarity breaks down, then how can the working class be united?
The main issue comes from people not actually debating in good faith or their arguments boiling down to “I just don’t think people that are different from me should exist.”
Echo chambers aren’t good sure, just look at the .ml instances, but allowing “free speech” and bigotry isn’t good as well.
The problem with this is that sites like Reddit, Lemmy, old Twitter, and old (and possibly current) facebook, is that anything that goes against the echo chamber is called “bigotry” or any of the “phobic”'s and is censored, further cementing the echo chamber.
Care to cite an example of an opinion that was rejected? And make sure it’s not something pro-Zionist, pro-ICE, anti-trans, anti-Medicare, or pro-any person who holds those viewpoints. Those stances reject sanctity of human life.
I’d like to own a couple people but the government won’t let me and I keep on getting censored when I say in online.
You guys label “women’s sports is for women” as “anti-trans” though.
I’ll grant that trans people in sports is one issue that has some nuance to it.
The core problem I’d like to solve there is deciding where trans people can compete. The lawmakers that have fought to “protect women’s sports” generally only care about one faction, and have offered no solution for where these people could compete; denying them an entire life opportunity for no reason other than not finding a space for them. That’s why it’s called anti-trans.
What’s more, when the issue comes up, it’s at a State or even Federal level regarding one singular person in one school in that state. That’s a haunting level of personal focus on one’s life, especially in a lack of harmful actions to deserve it. We’ve had far smaller legislative responses to mass shootings.
Trans women, especially, don’t want anything other than to compete against women - this was evident by world swimming creating a trans category alongside the men’s and women’s and then not a single trans athlete registering, so they scrapped it.
Trans women can compete with the men since they are the male sex, and sport is separated by sex, not gender. Gender doesn’t make the average male significantly bigger/stronger/faster than the average woman - sex does.
Trans men can compete with women provided their testosterone levels fall in the accepted levels. If they choose to take lots of testosterone - a performance enhancing drug - then like any other woman they can’t compete.
The only real issue is that trans women want to compete against women because they can dominate.
Wanting men to stay out of women’s sports and other spaces is not “anti-trans”. I, as a male, shouldn’t be going to women’s gyms, saunas, doctors, etc. It’s not hate or fear of trans women, it’s simply understanding why those womens only places exist in the first place.
Yes, that is a problem when it comes to having discussions with others, especially if political tribalism is heavily involved.
It seems . ML has an echo chamber problem then.
It is free speech and our first amendment right; privately owned platforms do like to hinder and censor dissidents, with help from the government.
It has to be consistent because it is always used for one side first, then it is used against the other later on.
I think we have found out that many free speech absolutists are hypocrites and were using it as an excuse to help their profits.
I think Glenn Greenwald is an excellent example of someone with consistency when he shares his views and critiques, especially when you see his background:
Glen Greenward is extremely pro-Russia and continues to repeat debunked lies about Ukrainian biolabs.
This goes back to tribalism within politics and what propaganda apparatus we each prefer to consume on the daily.
I am always going to be highly critical of all governments, oligarchy-controlled media, and politicians.
The status quo is what is fed to the working class, but new media and the internet have helped fight the echo chambers and censorship we are born in; being pro-war and believing everything our governments tell us to believe will be much harder when there are multiple sources of information.
So do you think Putin’s corruption and oligarchy is bad?
This include the Russian and the United States government.
Those other ones are the ones that have five different accounts being ran by the same person.
I think that is the norm on lemmy, though, not just conservative leaning accounts.
I don’t think you’re right but I’d be more then willing to look at any proof you have of that.
Oh, interesting!
What is interesting is your complete lack of proof.
Hey there’s one now.
imagine thinking jimmy fucking dore of all people is a “lefty” might as well make a user name ElonMuskIsAJain
It is always funny when people who criticize the status quo (Democrats, Bernie Sanders, AOC) from the left instead of the right are labeled the boogeyman.
Nice try, though.
Dude, you spammed a hit piece about sanders that claimed he doesn’t support universal healthcare.
Now you’re whining about a lack of representation for maga chuds.
You’re not doing anything from the left.
I disagree, but thanks for sharing your views on the matter.
Edit:
Anyone can just look at any of the cums you moderate or comments you make and make up their own mind.
True.
I make it easy to see what I share and what my thoughts are on politics.
I try to keep and share my views in simple terms so it is easier to understand.
I enjoy your thoughts on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Hahaha, thanks!