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

  • whiny9130@lemmy.ml
    401·
    1 year ago

    “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.

    • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
      15·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • ArtVandelay@lemmy.world
      6·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • MichaelA@mastodon.social
      5·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • carlyman@lemmy.mlOP
      61·
      1 year ago

      +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.

      • DevCat@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 year ago

        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.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

        • carlyman@lemmy.mlOP
          3·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • DevCat@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • carlyman@lemmy.mlOP
              3·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • spaceghoti@lemmy.one
                2·
                1 year ago

                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.