We’re the good guys, they’re the bad guys. Isn’t it?
Whenever someone posts this sort of vague “people aren’t tolerating my ideas” post, nine-times-outta-ten, the ideas in question are just awful.
No, my idea is great, everyone else is wrong!
10/10 times somebody seethes at the idea of merely listening to ideas that they might dislike or disagree with is some extremist whacko who gets all their information from a heavily vetted and censored echo chambers.
Which ideas? Be specific :)
It literally doesn’t matter. Blocking yourself off from any ideas, no matter how tame or how extreme is something that’s both sad and dangerous. Willful ignorance is a poison. It’s not a sign of purity or strength, it’s a sign of fear and weakness.
Nah, sod off. We’ve fought wars over some of these “ideas”. We don’t need to rehash them until the end of time. We hear more diverse ideas from the diverse people who are allowed to thrive by removing a tiny handful of bigoted opinions.
Why do you want to silence those diverse people and their varied opinions? Are you scared of their ideas? Are you a weak little coward?
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to build a giant slide from the peak of Mount Joffre, OK‽
Like yours
What?
-
Biden’s a good president
-
I like cars
-
Food isn’t expensive if you buy chicken/pork on sale
-
Corpo greed / cost cutting / layoffs is driven by ruthless consumer demand for cheaper products over all else. Rather than pointing to faceless organizations looking for a boogieman, people should look in a mirror.
-
Elections are won by voting
On some self reflection, #3 and #4 is pretty closely related. Something something no margin for small farmers I think. Ah well, everyone’s a hypocrite - including me.
- Subjective. But he’s not the worst.
- Liking cars is one thing, but we should not be designing our lives around cars. The more we cater for cars, the worse our living conditions get. The more we treat cars as the primary and required method of transport, the worse our society becomes.
- And 4. Individual action alone is simply just ineffective at solving the problems. Focusing on individuals rather than systemic change is the same as doing nothing. If we want to change behaviour, we have to change incentives.
I’m saying “individual” action is the problem. When an “individual” buys bottled water, or buys some cheap shit from Temu which will break in 2 days, or throws cardboard in the trash instead of recycling, everything becomes just a little bit worse.
It’s not an individual. Every time you see that word, you can safely multiply it by a couple hundred million and see the actual almost-daily effect of what an “individual” does. A billionaire flying one leg of a private flight 10 miles? Who fucking cares compared to the bigger picture?
Whenever I see conversations like this, I have to wonder, what is your goal? Are you trying to solve the problem? Or are you trying to find someone to blame?
Because if it’s the latter, then go ahead blame individuals all you like. It’s overly simplistic and ignores the fact that people’s behaviour is shaped by the systems they live under. It’s also completely and utterly useless at actually solving the problem. But by all means, you can waste your time as much as you like, just don’t expect people who actually want to affect change to waste their time humouring such stupidity.
Not sure if you’re actually trying to understand what I wrote, but I’m not trying to find someone to blame - I’ve already found them. I’m not trying to effect change - I’d become a politician or teacher if I wanted to do that. These are just observations.
And it’s interesting that “people who actually want to affect change” wouldn’t want to try to tackle the actual problems. I guess it’s easier to point to single-target big bad entities rather than a more vague entity like…everyone. Also it is easier to pretend people don’t have agency, isn’t it?
I’m not trying to find someone to blame - I’ve already found them.
… Please consider being a serious person.
And it’s interesting that “people who actually want to affect change” wouldn’t want to try to tackle the actual problems.
Wagging your finger at individuals is never, ever going to solve the problem.
Identifying systemic changes, and advocating for them politically, will.
I guess it’s easier to point to single-target big bad entities rather than a more vague entity like…everyone.
Again. You are focusing on blame and pointing fingers. Nobody cares who you want to blame.
Also it is easier to pretend people don’t have agency, isn’t it?
Nowhere has I said that people don’t have agency. I said that people’s behaviour is shaped by the systems they live under, which is a trivially true observation.
So if we want to effect change on a scale large enough to actually make a difference, we will focus on systemic changes.
You realize you two are agreeing with each other right lol?
All of these in the numbered list could add some serious dynamics to conversations on Lemmy. Yeah. You have identified our collective blind spots.
-
Sometimes the bad guys have skulls on their caps and it’s really just that black and white simple.
Sometimes, but not usually
Thorsquint.jpg
Using imfglip and linking to it instead of hosting the image somewhere (Lemmy? Imgbb?) definitely makes you one of the baddies.
Also there’s several variations of this meme that you could have used that don’t use a violent abusers image. Like a similar one with Geordi LaForge from Star Trek.
drake is a violent abuser?
I think they’ve mixed up Drake, the rapper, and Drake Bell, the actor. Though the two look nothing alike, so maybe I’ve missed some news report.
Drake is a groomer.
Do you want to inform us in some words of his missdeeds instead of using a word that has lost all its meaning by now? No offense but if i would hate everyone that was called a groomer by someone on the web i would literally hate every single person in the world because thats where we are with “groomer” right now.
You can use any search engine to fine more if you want
Have you red that article of yours? He might be a creep but this is NOT grooming. Maybe stop using that word as it means something completely different.
Dating an 18 year old, when you’re 31, who you’ve known for few years isn’t grooming. Sure buddy.
And another 17 year pld says that dude in his mid-30s is a ‘good friend’?
Pretty fucking sus pattern lmao.
“Preparing a person for a position requiring skilled behavior, especially by providing opportunity for practise and guidance in making the right decisions.” Now id like to see how knowing a person is the same as preparing the person, in this case, for a sexual relationship. The act of grooming minors entails to prepare them for sexual acts in order for the abuser to have a willing object for their sexual gratification.
What you are having a problem with, and i would even say rightfully so, is the power imbalance between these people. Power imbalance can have many sources, lika age gap, power or wealth. Not sure which is the biggest factor here. But again, calling it grooming simply is the worst way to adress the problem you actually want to talk about and it is hurting victims of actual grooming. Just like calling the GOP a bunch of groomers when you would need to adress the corruption and their obvious steps towards dismantling the democracy. It is helping the offenders by derailing the whole conversation without offering any actionable steps.
What’s wrong with linking to imgflip ?
For me (using Jerboa), it automatically opens in an external browser instead of just opening the image in app.
Other apps might not have this issue though. Not sure why OP made the remark.
Sorry, I did not know that. Won`t happen again.
How dare the public not want to hear about us stripping the rights of gays, and trans people? ECHO CHAMBER! I JUST WANT CIVIL DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW BLACK PEOPLE ARE NOTHING BUT THUGS AND RAPISTS AND THEY SHOULD GO BACK TO AFRICA.
How about no dude? Go back to Truth Social and rant there. Nobody wants to hear about your eugenics, how a female comic artist hurts your browsing experience and you’re too contrarian not to spew misogynist rhetoric.
Progressives and most real moderates know better now. It’s all bad-faith arguments and dog whistles. The paradox of tolerance is real and people need to stop platforming insanity.
Meanwhile you’ve got a c/Politics mod defending the Daily Wire as a “valid alternate viewpoint.” Truly we’ve reached post-irony
I just want people to stop thinking their political views are meme-worthy. I came here to be entertained, not lectured.
God nothing is more annoying than brain damaged American progressives who think they’re intellectuals. Even if we ignore your strawman, the very idea that there are people who are close minded enough to actually actively refuse to even be exposed to any ideas that they might dislike or disagree with is insane. Keep in mind, the tolerance paradox says that intolerant ideas shouldn’t be tolerated, it doesn’t say that you should go full 1984 censoring and controlling information and turning authoritarian on anything you deem intolerant. The whole point of the paradox is to demonstrate that if a society wants to remain free and democratic, then it needs to oppose intolerance and authoritarianism in all its forms… via democratic processes. Otherwise, it’s another society that has become corrupted. The principles of liberty and democracy, as well as their universality, should never be abandoned.
I hate you. I despise you so deeply that I will use all my capital to move the democratic process. I am going to use the freedom you have given me to manipulate everyone into thinking you are the scum of the earth, unworthy of existence. I will demonize your actions on every turn. I will destroy you, your culture, and your very existentce. I just have to yell it long and hard enough and people will flock to my voice that I have been given on your platforms. And you will do nothing about it, even when you manage to expose my lies. It is you that is the cause of all our problems we face. Soon enough people just repeat what I say and believe me over anything you might utter. I have just convinced people of what you truly are. And their vote will sign your death warrant.
My point still stands. You can’t use hate, ignorance, and authoritarianism to defeat hate, ignorance, and authoritarianism. The only thing that will end up happening is you turning hateful, ignorant, and authoritarian. We have already seen this happen time and time again. It’s time for people to learn from history for once instead of just repeating it. Censorship NEVER works, authoritarianism NEVER works. The very reason why the people you described ever get into power is because of people like you who fall into a brainless cycle of purity tests, arrogance, and exploitation of power. You want to see bigots stop being bigots? Try talking to them. Not talk down to them, not convince them of anything, just try to understand why they think the way they do, how they came to be, and how they perceive the world. By understanding them you can find some common ground and from there you can introduce to them alternative ideas like tolerance, justice, coexistence, and peace. You can’t ban bigots, you can’t censor them, you can’t genocide them, and no amount of power abused will make them go away. Talking them is the only way. Keep mind talking to them isn’t a sign of weakness or a concession. Virtue signaling means fuck all when it makes things worse. Talking to people, having them exposed to new ideas and views, and treating people you don’t like (even if they’re vile) as humans is how a black man in the US managed to convince dozens of KKK klansmen into giving up their robes.
wrong
Because those people who gave up their robes saw that they were misguided and were open to new ideas. But some still have kept their hearts closed because some are just unwilling to have their convictions changed. KKK is still a thing, after all that talking. Raceism is still an issue, even when we tried giving them space.
Sometimes it is more than misguidence. Sometimes people just hate, and grudge. And when these people are given power they are able to spread their hate and misguide once more. And then we might have another Nazi Germany, where it will take a war to have it corrected. We didn’t get the Nazi’s to stop with just words. Are we able to have China stop doing it now, with just words? Are words helping in Palestina?
And in this day and age of the internet, even when we show those people the world that they can access. Show them how misguided their hatred is. They still choose to hate.
These words I wrote are in their hearts. Outside they tell sweet veiled words like ‘we must protect our children’ and ‘they are taking your jobs’. They will convince people against all facts, that the others chose this. That something genetic, is chosen. Never will they tell in those clear words what they truly want, because any sane moral person would see it for what it is.
At some point they manage to convince their followers that they are the truth, that anyone trying to guide them away to sanity is lying to them. And then the cycle completes and new unchangable hate-ist is born to spread the infection. See anti-vaxxers, see Q, see any conspiracy group that convinces their members everyone else is lying.
So, would you rather have a tyranny where people are allowed to just be. But where ideas of raceism and exclusion is censored.
Or a tyranny of the hateful that will one day knock on your door for telling the lies of inclusion?
Because those people who gave up their robes saw that they were misguided and were open to new ideas. But some still have kept their hearts closed because some are just unwilling to have their convictions changed. KKK is still a thing, after all that talking. Raceism is still an issue, even when we tried giving them space.
How can you miss the point this badly? How do you think those klansmen were able to see that were misguided and wrong? It wasn’t done by magic, it was done by this one man who actually took the time to talk to them. He didn’t try to lecture them or convince them or try to show off how morally superior he is. No, he just sat down with them and tried to understand why they think the way they do. All he did was ask questions and listen. The klansmen were just as scared of him as they he was of them. But guess what? By talking to them, this man managed to expose these people to new ideas. His questions helped challenge their own views, his presence helped break down stereotypes that they held, his curiosity and sociable attitude made him likable and relatable. He showed them that they can be friends with someone of a different race, that coexistence with people from different races can work, and that being a different race doesn’t make you any less of a man. That’s how they came to the realization that their racist beliefs weren’t right and gave up their robes.
This man, Daryl Davis, didn’t endorse the views of the KKK, he didn’t support the racism, and he wasn’t a klansman. Talking to them didn’t change his views and it didn’t make him supportive of the KKK. This rotten mentality of guilt by association is stupid, especially when it’s coupled with the equally as stupid mentality of trying to achieve political purity. If you actually care about making a change then you have to put aside the theatrics and reflect on why this man was so successful in making people change their minds and why you’re not. By casting off and segregating people into rigid categories, you’re turning yourself into the thing you claim to be against. This type of mentality is what led the KKK to think the way they do. The kkk thought that associating with a black person made you a race traitor, that their communities needed to be pure of any interracial mixing, and that their views are the right ones no matter what and any white person who disagreed with them is either ignorant or evil.
Keep in mind, the point of talking to people is to have them exposed to new ideas and to establish a common ground that can be used as a foundation for understanding. That’s how you have people shift from blind ideological fanaticism to pragmatism. That’s how you have ignorant bigots turn into empathic people. There will never be a 100% conversion rate or a complete eradication of anything. Some people will be bigots no matter what, and that’s fine. If talking to bigots manages to turn half into not being bigots anymore that’s a win. Actually changing the mind of just one bigot into not being a bigot is a win. If you approach people with an open mind and develop an understanding, you are much more likely to give them that experience that would lead them change their minds.
And you didn’t answer my question. And didn’t adress my points. And I got your point:
There will never be a 100% conversion rate or a complete eradication of anything. Some people will be bigots no matter what, and that’s fine.
You are even admitting there is a limit to this approach. Mind, I am not against having a talk. I am not against having an open mind and guide people to a healthier mindset.
But as you said, there are some who don’t wish to change. And these unwilling people should not be given a platform. Because these unwilling people will poison hearts and form a new KKK or a new Nazi Germany when left unchecked. Words have limits when power has been given to those unwilling people.
Answer me this: Did we stop Nazi Germany with just words? Are words helping in China for the Uyghurs?
Are you for a tyranny that censors people who spew raceism and unbiased hate?
Or are you for a tyranny where you will get a knock on your door for telling the lies of inclusion?
But as you said, there are some who don’t wish to change. And these unwilling people should not be given a platform. Because these unwilling people will poison hearts and form a new KKK or a new Nazi Germany when left unchecked. Words have limits when power has been given to those unwilling people.
I think there are two separate issues being discussed here. The first is should we engage with these people and the second is whether or not we should platform these people.
For the former I think it’s in the best interest of society as a whole to give everybody engagement no matter how vile their views are. Even if we assume there’s a theoretical limit, we can’t determine who will and won’t fall into that category. It took Daryl Davis years to change Roger Kelly’s views about the KKK and racism. Kelly is the type of person that we would assume falls into this category. He was a grand wizard for the KKK, and he had a notorious reputation which is how he climbed the ranks… yet with enough effort and persistence, Davis managed to change his mind. My point is that if we want to effectively decrease bigotry in general, then engaging people in good faith regradless of their views is a path that has proven to work. It is what Davis did, but on a societal scale.
As for the latter, I think there’s inherent value in letting these people express themselves freely. For staters, they have the right to do so. We have to respect our principles and stand by them. If values like freedom of speech really are rights, then they have to apply to everyone no matter what otherwise the whole concept loses meaning because if rights can be taken away at a whim then they’re not rights, they’re privileges. I think that’s a pretty dangerous path to go down. It creates a precedent for those in power to feel comfortable enough to abuse that power to their advantage. That’s what censorship is, it is officials abusing the power given to them to push their agenda. This sounds good when the people we like are in power and they’re censoring the things we don’t like, but politics is not static. Sooner or later, the political makeup of the government will shift. If the government now has people in office that we don’t like, then guess what? They now have the same tools and justifications that the people we like did. If they decide to treat your political views the same way we treat racist views, then they will be coming after you. They will try to censor you. I don’t our society to ever be in that position. That’s why rights must be universal and untouched. No matter how offensive, no matter how controversial, no matter how vile everyone should have their right to free speech fully protected. They sanctity of these rights serve as a line of defense against tyranny. Keep in mind, I’m not talking about private companies or individuals not wanting to platform people, I understand that freedom of association is a thing and I respect it (although as citizens we should adhere to the principles we deem as rights). I’m talking about the government refusing to allow these people to protest or to hold rallies or launch their own media.
Did we stop Nazi Germany with just words?
We didn’t go to war with Germany out of the goodness of our hearts or because of the actions of the Nazi regime. We went to war with because they declared war on us after Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
Are words helping in China for the Uyghurs?
They are actually. Spreading awareness about China’s ethnic cleansing has actually been making a real impact. It has helped put pressure on the CCP, it has helped some people in China see what’s going, it has countered Chinese propaganda, and so on. We could, should, and must do more but talking about what’s happening to the Uyghurs is sure more helpful than saying nothing.
Are you for a tyranny that censors people who spew raceism and unbiased hate?
Or are you for a tyranny where you will get a knock on your door for telling the lies of inclusion?
False dichotomy, I’m against both.
deleted by creator
cryptosporidium140, 8 hours ago
Your strawman sucks, I’m not buying it
That’s what you plan to do on the internet all day? Just use buzzwords without understanding what they actually mean lol? Or do you genuinely believe that isn’t the root of most right wing estranged, convoluted, self-deceptive arguments? Because the Republicans being elected have been saying the quiet part out loud for almost 8 years now.
Gish gallop! Fallacy fallacy! Sealioning!!! And no, citing multiple sources is not gish gallop. I’ve been hit with that accusation in a personal chat recently too lol.
deleted by creator
cryptosporidium140
What do you think a strawman is? Did OP say any of that?
replyAre you referring to yourself as op or did you forget what account you were logged into lol?
deleted by creator
And no, citing multiple sources is not gish gallop. I’ve been hit with that accusation in a personal chat recently too lol.
Yes… yes it is. If they’re shitty sources, it takes times to research to debunk each one.
Ehm… calm down, friend. You are reading quite a bunch into my post. It is exactly this stupid finger-pointing of 18-year old know-it-alls that ruins lemmy.
Are we though? Because I think we know exactly what you meant to stir up lol.
This isn’t limited to lemmy users.
While there’s definitely some of that going on, the people I usually see complaining about this kind of thing are not interested in the fair exchange of ideas. Rather, they’re upset that one of their dumb opinions got made fun of in a public forum.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Beef Stroganoff.
True.
no you dont understand!!! my opinion is correct, and anyone who dares to question it is automaticay one of the bad guys!!!
You are mistaken. MY opinion is the truth, always.
Actually, you’re both wrong.
yeah, im this 🤏 close to unsubscribing from any news related communities. the comments are mostly repetitive circle-jerks and antagonistic in-fighting. it’s really affecting my time on here.
Ngl same
So many people seem to genuinely think they shouldn’t need to pay rent or work. Or that their employer should pay for their commute.
With how unnecessary it is sometimes to be in the office with teleworking and losing my time commuting, that would be a way for employers to think twice before asking someone to come in, and give some kind of compensation to those who can’t work from home.
I mean. Both of those things seem like pretty reasonable positions to discuss. They way you write that seems to imply that rent and work are simply facts of life, but they don’t have to be. Or at the very least, they could look a lot different to how they do now.
Rent is an economic concept that doesn’t have to exist. In fact it’s not hard to make the economic argument that it should not exist. Rent-seeking is generally considered a bad thing, because it removes value from a system.
Work is harder to get away from. But there’s no reason work has to look like how employment does today. And there’s a productive discussion around how much work is reasonable, especially as automation continues to advance.
I came here to be entertained, not lectured.
Personally I don’t think that companies should be responsible for taking care of people… because that’s the governments responsibility. We are rapidly approaching a situation where people will be automated out of work faster than we can invent new arbitrary things for them to do. UBI is inevitable it’s just a question of when and how
deleted by creator
The top part of the meme is actually a reason I like instances that don’t defederate from other instances. It allows me to see what those I disagree with and/or just don’t like might be saying/thinking at a certain period.
I too am an enlightened centrist, I must see both sides, for neither is annoying enough without the other
Hearing other perspectives doesn’t make somebody an enlightened centrist, it makes them knowledgeable and more aware. There’s nothing wrong with gathering perspective and context before judging something, that’s what people should always do. It’s a sign of wisdom, not ignorance. You would have to be mind numbingly ignorant to actually believe that being in echo chambers is a good thing.
In order to see the balance in all things I must accept the holocaust deniers and the Holocaust believers.
Exits NPC Dialogue
I’m the main character, how could I ever be on the bad side?
You’re not, boss. You’re my childhood friend that saved me from a gang of rabid wombats and I would follow you forever using my unique skills to defeat your enemies in turn based combat.
it’s simple, the guys I like are the good ones, and the ones I don’t are bad.
For people who don’t want to click on the link:
Oh dear, someone’s mad that others rejected their fascism again
You are not sharing my opinion? You must be a FaSciSt!
Straw man
My favourite part of Lemmy is seeing enlightened centrists posting to Lemmy.ml thinking it’ll be sympathetic to any other ideology than socialism/communism.
