this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
2824 points (95.1% liked)
Showerthoughts
30032 readers
432 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As someone who holds some opinions which don’t directly fit into the mainstream on Lemmy, I actually feel like people have been more aggressive to me when I share my opinion here when compared to Reddit. I will admit, I think I was also too aggressive in some of my interactions due to this unfortunately.
It’s tough because I hate Reddit for ideological reasons, and have been hoping for a viable alternative for a while, but now that it’s here I feel like it might just not be for me.
Hopefully as it grows it will become better in this regard.
This is a very leftist online space. And proudly so. And it's not like there's a lack of disagreement among leftists. But any vagueries about having "controversial" opinions is gonna come across as fascist dogwhistling or at best liberal snobbery.
If you truly want a “leftist” online space lacking disagreement, you’re just asking to be put in an echo chamber. Differing opinions are important and should be encouraged - hell this is one of the core principals of democracy.
The only opinions I don’t respect are those advocating violence or violating basic human rights.
I hate fascism and I honestly don’t know what liberal means in this context since “leftists” seem to use it as a catchall term often.
Lol the fact that you think leftism is small and unified enough to be at risk of becoming an "echo chamber" shows just how little you know about leftism.
Liberalis generally are capitalists who think that capitalism is a "free", "democratic" and "equal" system. Some liberals think its flaws can be ironed out with regulation and reform.
Leftists aren't just socially progressive. They're also anti-capitalist. And no amount of "debating" is gonna change that.
Btw
sounds a lot like Musk lol. But least you unambiguously stated you hate fascism, even though I'm not really sure what you would even define as 'fascism'...
Sorry I misread your comment, I thought you said leftists lack disagreement, while also claiming it’s a good thing. I don’t think leftism is small and unified (that’s why I put it in quotes in my comment, since I assumed you actually meant a small subsection of leftists).
Also, while I honestly despise Musk, if he truly believes that (I doubt it), then I agree with him.
I probably define fascism the same as you, no need to be passive aggressive.
Ah ok.
Re Musk, it's about intent. He's been using "different opinions" under the pretence of "free speech" (and "democracy") as an excuse to boost fascist content on Twitter. It's cryptofash doublespeak.
But even fascism aside "you should be more open to debating differing opinions" still comes across as tone-deaf centrism.
In any case the implications aren't pretty.
As for defining fascism, with crap like "horseshoe theory" muddying the waters, as well as the general impression people have that fascism is some isolated evil from the past, there's ample room for doubt in online interactions.
Let me make things clear - extreme opinions (like, in my personal opinion, supporting terrorism) shouldn’t be tolerated or accepted.
Sure but statements like that are kinda meaningless when there are people who believe that movements like Antifa and BLM are "terrorist".
I guess you’re right.
I define a terrorist as someone who kills (or attempts to kill) innocent people publicly to incite terror due to ideological reasons (I’m not a native English speaker and this sentence was hard for me to write, hopefully this makes sense).
The vast, vast majority of BLM and Antifa aren’t even close to this definition, so while there are some things they do I disagree with, I will always defend their right to protest and resist.
Mate, you were confrontational in the first place lol, no need to tell the other guy to calm down, he's not an idiot, he knows what you initially assumed of him obviously.
I didn’t mean to be confrontational, but rereading my comment I could see why you would say that. I’d chalk it up to cultural differences.
But this means he could have also not meant to be passive aggressive, so I also shouldn’t have assumed.
There are some, let's say fringe, political beliefs on some of the instances. I've just learned to keep out of their spaces and the arguments are easy to avoid.
There are some IMO extreme political beliefs which seem to be considered valid on mainstream instances and communities.
I’ve seen, multiple times, people openly supporting terrorism as a solution to oppression/occupation on Lemmy since I joined.
Edit: sorry Memmy froze for a sec and posted the same comment a bunch of times.
There are some IMO extreme political beliefs which seem to be considered valid on mainstream instances and communities.
I’ve seen, multiple times, people openly supporting terrorism as a solution to oppression/occupation on Lemmy since I joined.
Here in the USA that's literally how our country was founded.
There are some IMO extreme political beliefs which seem to be considered valid on mainstream instances and communities.
I’ve seen, multiple times, people openly supporting terrorism as a solution to oppression/occupation on Lemmy since I joined.
I mean TBF when you look at history terrorism seems to work decently enough.
I wanna see you say that to my face or to the face of anyone else who is or knows a victim of terror.
Fucking wild take
It all depends on whether you consider Mandela are terrorist.
There are some IMO extreme political beliefs which seem to be considered valid on mainstream instances and communities.
I’ve seen, multiple times, people openly supporting terrorism as a solution to oppression/occupation on Lemmy since I joined.
As someone who shares your desire for a better alternative, I find it disheartening to witness aggression. Although my experience with Lemmy was similar to Reddit (perhaps it's just a matter of how I express myself or the communities I engage with), I genuinely hope you can also find comfort in Lemmy. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
What kind of opinions?
I’m not sure how to answer that honestly
As in what opinions are causing arguments.
Edit: ah, you're a Christian. Yeah if I'm being honest I hope most Christians stay out of here. Relgious folks as a whole honestly. Don't need the toxic rhetoric that they bring to the table, with everything happening in america. I don't think any Christian should be surprised to find themselves hated by less religious folks.
Found the problem, folks. Seriously WTF how can someone say something like this with a straight face.
This is exactly what I’m talking about - I’m not Christian, I think Christianity is extremely bad (hell, one of my only two posts is a song by Greek Black Metal band Rotting Christ).
People just assume the worst if they don’t agree slightly with your opinion.
Edit: accidentally replied to this twice instead of your next reply.
Oh lol yeah, I totally misread that.
Well I can tell you you have a blind spot when it comes to Israel. That seems to regularly cause arguments.
Have you considered that maybe you have a blind spot?
The majnstream opinion on a subject is not always the correct one.
Anyway I don’t want to argue about this, let’s just agree to disagree.
No, I'm not gonna agree to disagree. But I am willing to leave it at you're wrong.
Thank you for proving my original point in this thread, I guess.
All too happy to.
Lol I assume I probably disagree with his position, but has he actually stated it anywhere yet?
Christians shouldn't be surprised to be hated. It's right there in 1 John 3:13:
But Christians should make sure they are hated for the right reasons (unpopular beliefs), rather than the wrong reasons (lack of kindness and love). On behalf of Christians I am sorry for times when we have allowed fear, prejudice, hysteria and selfishness to stop us from loving those we disagree with, or those we don't understand.
I am a conservative Christian, so I am certain there is much we disagree on. But Christians everywhere, myself included, need to remember to love all people, despite our disagreements, as we are encouraged to do in Mat 5:43-48 and Rom 12:9-21.
No. Christians shouldn't be surprised to be hated because of some prophecy. They shouldn't be surprised to be hated because of their vile beliefs which they insist on forcing on everyone else.
When your entire belief structure is based on faith, something that you cannot prove and that requires indoctrination, you have no place prescribing to anyone, nor do your faiths have any place in the state or law.
I understood the question, but you can just look at my comment history of you’re curious.
I’m not gonna list all my controversial opinions in a comment, and I also don’t necessarily know which ones are considered controversial on Lemmy before I share them.
Yeah I did that and edited.
Well the basic rule of persuasion is to state what you agree with already, I assume an arguement can be productive and civil if you follow a similar pattern. State your points of agreement, then the diagreement.
I don’t try to argue though, usually.
I just share my opinion and people start arguing with me.
Well, if you're replying to somebody then they're going to understandably assume it's directed at their opinion, especially if you didn't simply post a comment on a post and replied instead.
Otherwise if your opinion is part of a current contentious political debate, then it will attract arguement and the best you can do is assume it's in good faith and try to counter the fundamental point they're making - if you're inclined to.
I agree with you, my point is that many other people don’t, and instead get very aggressive and resort to name calling or petty insults.
And I won’t lie, I’m not perfect and this sometimes happens to me, but never when someone is actually arguing in good faith, only as a response to someone already doing that or if their opinion is extreme (for example if they advocate racist ideas).
Well you can't control what other say, the only option is to ignore or tell them they're rude.
And I'd argue an extreme position isn't necessarily morally repugnant, and likewise racism is necessarily extreme. For example usury is a Christian sin, and having that crime abolished would achieve a moral good but it is an extreme position.
Btw I haven't looked at many of your comments, so I can't work out whether you're a centrist (who calls positions outside the overton window extreme), or if you're broadly a left-liberal euphemistically calling racism extreme.