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
“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. 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.
Agreed, arguments or discussions or whatever should be made in good faith from both sides, and if that is not the case, it’s agenda pushing and it can fuck right off.
+1
+1. And perhaps I’m wrong – bc terrible people do exist – but we shouldn’t let the extreme hyperbole dominate the conversation…politicians use that to divide us and the media uses it for sensationalism.
If someone wants to spew hatred, then they don’t get to be part of that conversation.
Have you ever heard of the Paradox of Tolerance?
Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Popper’s Paradox of tolerance underscores the need for thoughtful consideration, but it doesn’t dismiss the importance of civil discourse. Popper himself called for the “tolerance of the intolerant” within the bounds of rational criticism highlights that while we acknowledge the limits of tolerance, engaging in respectful dialogue remains crucial. By upholding civil discourse, challenging ideas through reasoned arguments, and embracing Popper’s notion, we can maintain a tolerant society while fostering understanding and progress.
As he says:
…as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise
This would, of course, require that they make their argument in good faith. Unfortunately, this is an ability that has too often eluded the right wing.
I guess for me…folks should try to assume good intentions at the start. I often find (any/all sides) quickly put up defenses, presume the worst, and find ways to be insulted where they wouldn’t have if they were also behaving in good faith. Assholes exist, but let them prove that they are first.
Yes, I agree. Let them prove it first. But too many “enlightened centrists” place the bar for proof so high that it’s impossible. When Democrats conceded 95% of Republicans’ demands in the 2015 budget, Republicans complained about not getting the entire 100% and centrists said “we should listen to them.”
There comes a point where the fetish for civility goes too far. We’ve long passed that in US politics.
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.
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
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.
deleted by creator
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??
Ha, true…I don’t want JUST the fanatics…I want a place where real discussions can be had. A mind can’t be changed or influenced otherwise.
I mentioned once on r/politics that I’m glad my spouse and I have differing views on some things politically. It allows us to learn from each other and empathize with the new perspective…I was crucified.
edit: grammar
Exactly! My wife and I also have different views on many (not all) politics. We’ve come to better understand each other’s viewpoints and I think made us better as individuals and as a couple.
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.
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
