Mommy and daddy keep going on about horizontalism but then they make me go to bed even when I don’t want to >:(
I think that’s more the nature of social media than anything else.
it’s the nature of people.
they love to dog pile on the ‘outsider’. and they also love to circle up the wagons over a perceived threat.
so what happens is outsiders form their own little tightly knit and hostile tribes. social media greatly expanded the specificity by which people identify themselves. so you have raw milk nutjobs jerking each other off over their ‘pasturization is an evil conspiracy to ruin our immune systems’ inside their little bubbles and feeling like big smart geniuses because everyone else is an dumb sheep who has been duped by Louis Pasteur’s evil invention.
No one is making you be here. You can click a button and start your own community or even spin up your own server and if your modding policies are that much better people will switch. …or none or very few of the users like what you say and the mod just happens to be the one responsible for telling you.
Is it frustrating to be part of the outgroup? Sure. Is it frustrating to have an opinion people dislike or don’t think is worth leaving their ingroup for? Sure. But that’s just called being a weirdo. Lots of people are weirdos. I’m a weirdo. In fact it’s often hard for me to get certain things done or find certain products. Bigelow doesn’t stock my favorite flavor in most stores because it’s not popular enough. That’s not oppression that’s just being unpopular.
Being a weirdo isn’t for the faint of heart. Dialectal behavior therapy changed my life and teaches four ways to approach a problem. 1. Stop seeing it as a problem. 2. Fix the problem (conform). 3. Accept the problem. 4. Stay whiny. I tend to vacillate between 1 and 3 (sigh sadly and order my tea online) but I spend little time engaging in #4 (bitching online about how it’s other people’s fault).
I’m not even going to look into your specific ideology. With people who say these things I often regret finding out.
what’s frustrating the most is how people hate you for factual true opinions, because those truths don’t align with their delusional worldview.
true, it’s ultimately about popularity. And what’s popular… is often stupid, wrong, and cruel. Dialectical behavior won’t do anything when you are getting harassed and assaulted, and increasingly we live in a world where people are become not just disagreeing and segregating, but straight up calling violent and bloodthirsty to those they disagree with.
Lemmy is rife with very pro-violence people. Who also claim they are anti-violence. But you know, only anti-violence against the ‘good’ people. Violence totally col against the ‘bad’ people.
The same people who rage against authority and advocate prison abolition seem to love becoming “dungeon masters.”
I mean this may be decentralized but its still social media. Its gonna be a cesspool by nature of social media.
the shit always rises to the top.
and to find the good stuff you have to wade through it.
This
This reads like a freeze peach kinda thought.
Are you really comparing a completely optional forum to a society where people can and will point guns at you?
“They don’t let me spread transphobic rhetoric in this optional community online, literally 1984!”
Anybody who sees Authority as a responsability is naturally averse to having it because they would feel the weight of it and would feel bad if, whilst holding Authority, they made a mistake and others got in some way hurt because of that.
Those who see Authority as power to advance something (be it their own personal upsides or some idea they believe in) with little or no feeling of responsability towards others (be it not all directly or they’ve suppressed it by convincing themselves their actions are somehow “for the greater good” hence any bad they do with the authority has that grand excuse to salve their conscience), have no such aversion to holding authority.
That posture towards authority of people of the second kind applies more broadly to all manner of things which serve to pressure, convince or manipulate others (Authority is generally power force something on others) so of course they also have no aversion to using other such tools, including using ideology to manipulate others, and sometimes that means passing themselves as somebody who holds a certain ideology, and that includes Anarchism.
So yeah, you’re going to find that certain people who parrot Anarchist talk aren’t in fact people whose Principles mean they’re naturally Anarchist but rather people being Performative Anarchists in order to fit-in and manipulate others driven by entirelly different Principles, and such people are absolutelly pro-Authority as long as they’re in control of it.
In summary, there are two types of people who seem Anarchist:
- Those whose personal principles means they are averse to people controlling other people. There are naturally against any form of Authority.
- Those who want to control other people and are in a specific situation where Theatre Of Anarchism can advance their objectives. These are against forms of Authority which hinder their objectives but are in favor of forms of Authority which advance their objectives.
IMHO, the best way to spot the second kind from the first is to look for the often repetition of common slogans and having a superficial level of ideology with no actual tracing back to personal principles since they learned the ideology at an intellectual level rather than being drived by their Principles - i.e. what feels Right and what feels Wrong - to finding that formal ideology as something that fits them.
By the way, this method to identify the real ones from the performers also works for all other ideologies and even things like Faith - start paying attention and you’ll spot all manner of teatrics around ideologies all across the entire political spectrum as well as in people professing some faith or other.
Just wanted to say this is a fantastic take. 100% agree.
Too many people want to argue in the sense they are a ‘greater’ authority than you, to try to force you into agreement with them. And generally lack any ability to genuinely reflect on themselves, their actions, or the flaws/contradictions often inherent in their ideology. So ultimately they just fall back on slogans as self-evident truths that must be preached and obeyed.
That’s very different than actually reading the source material of an ideology. How many Anarchists have read Bakunin? Anytime someone claims to be anarchist I love asking them that and looking at the total look of confusion on their face…
The anarchist code of conduct
Okay, I’ll bite. I need to add to my block list anyway.
Y’all have heard of the Nazi Bar problem, right? Paradox of intolerance? Which turns out not to be a paradox after all? You should def look that one up rather than waiting for me to type it all out.
People like to refer to the paradox of tolerance but always skip out on the inconvenient bit:
""Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
— In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.“”
If you are not able to rationally argue why we shouldn’t be bigoted, I don’t know what to tell you.
We are all bigoted.
The idea is we have institutions that minimize our bigotry by not being subject to the judgements of any one particular person and their biases.
People who claim some absolute stance of non-bigotry… are basically the most likely to engage in bigotry because they deny it is even possible they could be.
People who whinge on about the the paradox of intolerance are always cunts who want to have a reason to beat people up because it makes them feel big. It’s a stupid argument either way, because there is no such thing as unlimited tolerance, and no society is ever ‘free’.
i mean, seems you’re also conveniently skipping over the part that says:
as long as we can counter them by rational argument
it’s right there in the text:
popper states outright, that there are some ideologies and by extension people, that straight-up cannot be argued with. these, therefore, must be excluded from the community, and thereby form the limit to tolerance that must be enforced.
people really love to misinterpret popper…
what goes along nicely with the tolerance of paradox is the quote about anti-semites being entirely aware of how absurd their position truly are:
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
take both popper and sartre together into consideration of a larger context and it becomes abundantly obvious that a certain minimum of intolerance is strictly necessary for a functional society.
what happens when all checks on speech are removed can be clearly seen in the rotting corpses of facebook and twitter… it’s disastrous.
One problem with bigots is they dont care about truth or logic. Its a waste of time to continually argue the same points over and over again with people who refuse to learn or think.
But remember, be sure that your point is logical and truthful, and not parroting talking points in spite of them being repeated all around you.
Being truthful and logical is not always a popular position. Some would say it’s not even often the popular position.
You personally don’t have to. Always plenty of people out there willing to do it for you.
If you are not able to rationally argue why we shouldn’t be bigoted, I don’t know what to tell you.
it’s not that people can’t, but spaces which have unlimited tolerance for sealions suggesting that it’s necessary to argue about that are likely to have less interesting discussions than spaces which do not 🙄
Then be clear about the rules. I have 0 problems with people creating communities with very clear rules on what is allowed and what isn’t. I wholeheartedly welcome that. What I take issue with is when people claim to have open discussion, or the space is for “rational discourse”, or “anarchist” discourse etc. but then ban everything that doesn’t very exactly align with the mod ideology.
If most people waving the anarchist flag would admit they’re just doing it because it’s cool but actually, they just want to be the authoritarians in place of the authoritarians, that would be fine. I’d happily avoid them. Problem is that when they don’t admit it, they drag down the whole anarchist ideology because they are misrepresenting it.
You have it backwards.
Rational discourse, pragmatically speaking, is discourse that starts from agreed upon premises. Anarchists thing the only rational discourse there is, is one that agrees with anarchism’s superiority over other political systems of thought and organization.
And secondly, people appeal to high minded ideals like ‘rational discourse’ not because they practice them, but because they give them a sense of authority. Each mod of each flavor on anarchism believes theirs is the best, otherwise why would they believe in it?
key words there are discourse and discussion.
As is explained in a few responses to your paradox of tolerance reply (that you seem to have conveniently not replied to so far), the kind of discussion or conversation they are referencing requires both parties to be working in good faith.
from your own reference
as long as we can counter them by rational argument
If one party can’t or won’t provide logic or reasoning to their side of an exchange, that’s not a discussion because there is nothing to discuss with someone not willing to engage in good faith.
There are absolutely places that are ideological echo chambers, despite claiming otherwise, but banning someone for the inability (or unwillingness) to engage in good faith isn’t a removal based on ideology it’s a removal based on not adhering to the basic tenets of how discussions are supposed to work.
If it just so happens that most of that kind of banning happens to people with ideologies you subscribe to, perhaps it’s worth considering how you can help these people understand how to have an actual conversation.
That all being said, from what i’ve seen here I’d guess you’re on the purposeful bad faith side of things so I’m not expecting any reasonable consideration, but feel free to surprise me (or block me, i suppose).
You’re making quite a lot of frankly weird assumptions.
Find a single line from me where I’m saying that people who don’t engage in rational discourse shouldn’t be kicked out.
In fact, have a honest think. How much of your response is based on a knee jerk reaction instead of actually looking at what I’ve been saying in this thread?
You’re making quite a lot of frankly weird assumptions.
I’ve clearly stated what i’m referring to and how i got there, if you think there is an unsupported statement then reference it directly and i will respond.
That being said, fuck, i think i’ve seen two posts next to each other and missed where it changed from them to you.
That’s entirely my bad and i apologise, my response was supposed to be for the other person.
No hard feelings :)
Not sure what theme you’re using but at least for me the default one makes it a bit hard to separate replies. I still like it most of all for just lurking.
i think people not knowing how to actually win an argument against a bigot is exactly the reason there are so many these days
shit’s easy. not that they’ll admit defeat but getting them babbling irrational nonsense takes very little debating skills. and when they inevitably start throwing ad hominems, then the mods have legitimate grounds to kick them out.
“You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves in to.”
Though it is occasionally possible to point out how their arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny and get them to engage on it.
Only works with the ones not doing it on purpose, however.
Just to let you know before I block you, I didn’t read your “reasonable disagreement” of a wall of text
You mean the direct quote of Popper that you yourself referred to? You didn’t read the very piece of text you told me to read?
>“look up paradox of tolerance UwU” >“ok, let’s look at what it actually says” >“i didn’t read it UwU”
that tracks
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
so I guess you have an intolerance to intolerance?
Y’all have heard of the Nazi Bar problem, right?
Bullshit genetic or reductio ad hitlerum fallacy. Carried to its logical conclusion, anything tainted by Nazis (eg, the universe) is a Nazi bar. Have you considered finding yourself another universe to inhabit, since this one is irredeemably tainted? While we may argue the universe is far too vast to be a “Nazi bar”, so is the internet or any “platform”.
Worse, censoring ideas gives them covert power. It doesn’t discredit them or strip them of power like challenging them in a public forum could. It’s also a disservice to better ideas
- it withholds opportunities for people to become competent enough advocates to discredit bad ideas
- instead of deradicalize opponents, it drives their discussion elsewhere: they continue to radicalize & grow opposition unchallenged.
Censorship is incompetent advocacy: it mistakes suppressing the expression of bad ideas for effective advocacy that directly discredits bad ideas, develops intellectual growth, and steers toward better ideas.
Paradox of intolerance?
The bogus social media version subverting the original message or the real one?
text alternative
The True Paradox of Tolerance
By philosopher Karl Popper[1]
You think you know the Popper Paradox thanks to this? (👉 comic from pictoline.com)
Karl Popper: I never said that!
Popper argued that society via its institutions should have a right to prohibit those who are intolerant.
Karl Popper: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
For Popper, on what grounds may society suppress the intolerant? When they “are not prepared to meet on the level of rational argument” “they forbid their followers to listen to rational argument … & teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”. The argument of the intolerably intolerant is force & violence.
We misconstrue this paradox at our peril … to the extent that one group could declare another group ‘intolerant’ just to prohibit their ideas, speech & other freedoms.
Grave sign: “The Intolerant” RIP
Underneath it lies a pile of symbols for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Black power. A leg labeled tolerance kicks the Gay Pride symbol into the pile.Muchas gracias a @lokijustice y asivaespana.com
Karl Popper opposed censorship/argued for free inquiry & open discourse.
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism.
Only cowards fear words. Words are not the danger. It’s the dangerous people whose words we fail to discredit.
Source: The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl R. Popper ↩︎
Lemmy is a Tankie Bar.
Okay, that’s just funny. Hi friend
right-wingers aren’t allowed on leftist spaces. nothing positive comes from that.
I think “being able to select which community(ies) one is part of and having the ability to opt out” vs being born into it is a key differentiator.
Fwiw, I’m not part of any moderating teams.
Looking at you, leftymemes
ugh
groupthink central, do NOT divert an inch from the state sanctioned opinions, OR ELSE
It’s all fun and games until you say that China is wearing socialism as a cloak the same way America wears Christianity or Israel wears anti-semitism.
People’s takes on China here are so clueless and weird.
Xi is essentially a dictator at this point. Like Putin, he has systematiclly consolidated power over the years and increasingly removed any federation of government power that was more in line with socialist ideals and power structures. China was more socialist 30 years ago than it is today, and the USSR was far less centralized than Russia is now. But we can’t let the facts get in the way of the ideals.
Israeli’s problem is also the same, the consolidation of power in a single person that increasingly fails to manifest the democratic ideas on which it argues its cultural superiority.
I’ve seen better moderation in .ml instances.
Uh oh. One or the other found you, here comes the brigade!
I’ve been brigaded by better instances.
“You are allowed to do anything you want, so long as it’s exactly what we say”
Hey! I will have you know that we’re are all different and unique in exactly the same way.
Dbshitters are alt-left and should be treated in the same way as any libertarian nutjob.
Not true for everyone. But sure, I understand the idea. Its just that i know people who hate authority and because of that, they know how to act with compassion instead. They dont speak bad of others and they dont have a lot of ego to defend.
The best leaders are reluctant to even have power. And they see it more as a responsibility to do right by the people.
I dont see that type of leader in America at all, but they exist in real life in Europe.
They exist in the US you don’t hear about them because those leaders don’t make good headlines.
You know that anarchism doesn’t mean no rules right? It just means no rulers, but that’s not how it works on Lemmy or any social media of this type for that matter.
It just means no rulers, but that’s not how it works
…anywhere in reality.
Humans spent thousands of years without rulers. Also, look at all the grassroots organizations trying to stop fascism in America right now.
Leaders are dispensable AND disposable. We do not need them.
Humans spent thousands of years without rulers.
orly? which thousands?
when we lived in peaceful harmony with the dinosaurs.
before the evil comet fell and brought rulers upon us and the dinosaurs were forced under the earth to become lizard people.
