I don’t want right-wing fanatics…I don’t want leftist fanatics…I want a place where all views can be discussed with respect and civility. /r/politics was NOT that place. I hope Lemmy can avoid the echo chamber to allow respectful disagreement and discourse to occur (while not overly defending extremists on either side).
I like to believe there is much more we agree upon than disagree…and while not always the case, sometimes we need to take a moment to ensure we aren’t talking passed each other and be willing to listen to understand (even if you don’t agree in the end). It’s okay to disagree as long as you respect one another.
“If you want to be heard, first learn to listen.” - John F. Kennedy
I don’t want leftist fanatics
Too bad nerd we’re already here and we will cleanse you of your brainworms. Please do not resist.
I want right-wing fanatics and leftist fanatics personally, otherwise where’s the fun?
I always found it on Reddit, the politics subreddit was full of people who may have despised the alt right but they were at least willing to let them speak. On the conservative subreddit, however, they would ban you for stepping 1 in out of their echo chamber. Let’s leave the conservative echo chamber to itself.
One of the worst parts of this campaign of controlling hate speech, deplatforming, censorship etc. is that we lose out on some great internet flame wars. Let the freaks fight it out online. Why won’t they let me exist as a connoisseur of internet rage??
Civility fetishism is actually an endorsement of the sociopathic status quo and reinforces existing power structures. What is considered civil tends to be whatever is acceptable to the most privileged people in society and those most allowed to exist by power structures.
There were heaps and mounds of liberals hemming and hawing over the incivility of Martin Luther King Jr, for example. They said he and his wanted too much too fast and that it was just rude and counterproductive when they used tactics of direct action and made speeches about the necessity of imminent liberation. To the white liberals, that was uncivil.
It tends to mean that those falling outside “the norm” can be abused by simply endorsing the status quo as well. For example, trans people face existential threats from the status quo, but all someone has to do to endorse the abuse of trans people is to ephemistically support “traditional values” in an article about Florida kidnapping trans kids. In reality, calling that transphobe names and making fun of them would be much less harmful than the “civil” statement.
I understand that this instance endorses some of the civility fetish, but I hope it becomes clear that this isn’t a value-neutral position.
In terms of left vs. right discourse, I guess I’ll point to MLK again:
I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negroes’ great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s “Counciler” or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”
I, too, like to think of MLK in matters such as this:
“Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don’t know each other; they don’t know each other because they cannot communicate; they cannot communicate because they are separated.”
“We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”
And he was decreasingly civil over time and vilified in his time by the moderates who wanted to dither about decorum rather than oppose segregation. MLK was frequently uncivil and this was grounded in the tolerance for anti-black violence and apathy of such pretenses.
In no world was he saying you’ve just gotta be civil and polite with everyone lol
“should we have a 2 cent sales tax to fund schools or a 4 cent one” is politics. “Should trans people exist” is not politics.
Or, rather, don’t argue with someone who doesn’t think you’re a human being. Don’t give them a forum.
Agreed. Taking away rights and dehumanizing is not politics. It shouldn’t be allowed to be seen as valid political discourse. That type of speech doesn’t deserve to have a platform.
Agreed. I don’t like how much our society has given into the Right’s attempt to inherently politicize the existence of minority groups. The TREATMENT of those minority groups by the government is certainly political, but not whether or not they should be allowed to exist.
I’m 100% okay telling people who think that Transgender healthcare should be banned, or that the Jews are the root of societies problems, or that the government should force women to carry pregnancies to term to go have those opinions elsewhere, that they aren’t welcome here. I don’t think it’s somehow “anti free speech” to do that either, they can go scream it on the corner of their street all they want. Just don’t let them do it here, because these aren’t issues that I think should be up for debate. The root of the “debate” around those issues is bigotry (and control over the individual, in the case of abortion) and I don’t see any way to acceptably decouple the bigotry from the “issue” at hand.
Sometimes society decides an idea is too shitty to be expressed publicly without shame and ridicule, and I think that’s fine. I don’t have a problem with private spaces openly banning that kind of speech.
I fully appreciate what you’re saying. I will say this though, it’s hard to want to have civil discourse with people who support politicians who actively are trying to strip my rights away and think I shouldn’t exist. I know they themselves might not agree with that aspect of the politician but by continuing to vote for that person they are condoning what the politician is doing.
yep, it isn’t politics just because it was said by a politician. that can still be hate speech.
For sure…and the rhetoric of politicians further that divide with extreme hyperbole. There are a small set people who agree with that…but throughout my domestic (USA) and international travels, they seem to be the fringe. We can’t let the loudest people on the extremes dominate the conversation.
I’m not sure how fringe they are anymore. Look at the recent Bud Light and Target fiascos. I think the sentiment is larger than people thought
deleted by creator
