The best thing you can do for the fediverse is just be kind
-
Not if you ask Republicans. You can be fresh off the boat than you can run to the nearest voting booth and steal the election
-
It’s not about tolerance imo, it’s about discussion. You’d be surprised to learn their reasoning if you actually listened to it. You don’t have to agree with it.
Both sides have this problem right now. Both only converse with their own. Why are republicans not changing? Well if their friends, family and everyone they talk to is a republican, they’ll never be exposed to different opinions.
Don’t forget that both sides can have valid policies depending on how you view the world. I’m not taking about trump and whatever you people are doing out there in the US, but in general, conservatism is the idea that people will manage their money, rather than the government.
Look at Quebec for example. A very socialist government. 2 years ago they invested a ton on money into one electric bus company. Well that company failed really bad and while they aren’t completely bankrupt, they aren’t far. It’s easy then to then see why conservatives would want to vote conservative. If their money had stayed in their pocket instead of going to the government, this wouldn’t have happened.
Same thing with health. The public health system is currently clogged up so a lot of people end up having to pay to go to the private sector to actually get cured in time. So conservatives believe this whole system is a huge waste of taxpayer money. Most conservatives I know aren’t agaisnt the government helping with that, but they’d rather the government just pay the invoice after you went to a private clinic, similar to insurance in the states, rather than try to control a system that clearly isn’t working.
-
One my favorite ways to summarize this kind of thinking is with the Bill & Ted quote "Be Excellent To Each Other, and Party On Dudes" (mostly the first half applies to this post though). The part that applies to this post, Keanu Reeves said he interprets as follows:
I think that the sentiment of it is really just be the best person, the best human being you can be, and if you do that, then you can party on and live life to the fullest, but you’re gonna be safe... You’re going to be supported, you’re going to get the gift of giving, you’re going to get the gift of receiving, you’re going to get to the gift of sharing. We’re all just some humans on a rock in space, and so it’s kinda nice to kind of promote that idea of ‘give a little, get a lot’, kind of bring it in for a group hug."
I'm a member of the Church of Bill & Ted.
-
Ik a few people who lean to the right economically but aren't in favor of all this authoritarian stuff
And they're not Nazis, you cant just generalize so broadly about what should or shouldn't be tolerated.
Ofc if someone is being blatantly racist that shouldnt be tolerated, but economic discussion is totally fine -
Love you guys
Group hug!
-
I can empathize with your anger but I do think it's easy to forget just how much propaganda can shape peoples world views and idea of reality. It's used so heavily because it works
Regardless, I'm not trying to start a fight, I can appreciate having no more tolerance for the increasing cruelty of the state of the world. Take care
️There's a story I heard recently that has really stuck with me. It happened in the Sobibor Extermination Camp during WW2. Basically the camp was structured so that captured Jews would be selected to be Kapos. A Kapo was a disciplinarian that kept the rest of the Jews in line, usually with a whip. A lot of the times the Kapo would repeat Nazi propaganda because the Nazi guards were watching too. The rest of the Jews could understand their predicament. But there was one Kapo named Berliner, nicknamed because he was born in Berlin. The rest of the Jews hated Berliner because he truly bought into the propaganda. Imagine, a Jew... in an extermination camp... talking about how Hitler was a misunderstood savior of the Jews right before he started beating his fellow Jews to keep them in line.
It's no surprise that Berliner's end comes in the form of a lynching by the rest of the Jews he was keeping in line.
-
@[email protected] being nice helps establish the “tone”, but I’m not sure that wouldn’t change with another “API event” on Reddit that results in another, larger mass migration.
The way I see it - the early adopters set the tone of a place and new arrivals are more likely to adopt that approach. So it is important to be kind now, so people will be kind later.
-
I am! Thank you for asking
Ive gotten a lot of assumptions about what I meant and that's a bit frustrating but I really value honest sincere dialogue, if you have thoughts you think would be worth sharing I'd love to hear them my friend!
I thought I had hit reply on your other comment going into more detail (whoops!).
Like I did in this example, ask if people are open to feedback (if you're the one giving it).
Often when I am training groups on how to work together, I always try and frame feedback as a gift.
If someone is giving you feedback, they are genuinely trying to help you grow - and that's a gift. The issue here though, is not everyone is a good gift giver - and we can't control that.
What we do have control over is how we recieve gifts - often all you need to do is say thank you. Don't explain why you're not going to use this feedback (if you plan not to incorporate it). Other than clarifying the feedback to better understand how to incorporate it, saying thank you is the best way to go about it.
As far as delivering feedback I always say "if you can choose to be anything in this world why choose anything other than kind."
It is important to state that "being kind" doesn't mean not having the difficult conversations or delivering difficult feedback - you can still do that without being cruel. Being assertive isn't being aggressive.
A bit rambly but if you're ever working with folx on delivering feedback, I've found that presenting these frameworks with it ste super helpful
-
There's a story I heard recently that has really stuck with me. It happened in the Sobibor Extermination Camp during WW2. Basically the camp was structured so that captured Jews would be selected to be Kapos. A Kapo was a disciplinarian that kept the rest of the Jews in line, usually with a whip. A lot of the times the Kapo would repeat Nazi propaganda because the Nazi guards were watching too. The rest of the Jews could understand their predicament. But there was one Kapo named Berliner, nicknamed because he was born in Berlin. The rest of the Jews hated Berliner because he truly bought into the propaganda. Imagine, a Jew... in an extermination camp... talking about how Hitler was a misunderstood savior of the Jews right before he started beating his fellow Jews to keep them in line.
It's no surprise that Berliner's end comes in the form of a lynching by the rest of the Jews he was keeping in line.
Thank you very much for sharing, I expect that story will stick with me too.
-
I don't think kindness is at all mutually exclusive with knowledge and truth
To be clear I didn't mean "enforcing kindness" as in like forcing everyone to engage in a specific way or they're banned for not being nice enough
The big corporate platforms are, in a lot of ways, designed for hostility conflict and toxicity. Because they're designed for engagement, and anger drives engagement like nothing else possibly can. Facebook did internal studies and found their algorithm made people miserable, and then kept it that way because with respect profit, it was a great design.
I think we should be thoughtful about the mechanics of the platforms we're building and whether they incentivize people to lash out at eachother, or incentivizing healthy social spaces.
I'm not here in support of some dystopian "be positive or else" insincere niceness platform. But I do think it's worthwhile to shape the culture of the space we spend time in intentionally
I wanna enjoy being here. I'm here in pursuit of worthwhile, sincere interactions with other human beings, not shitty internet flamewars where nothing is gained and everyone walks away more bitter and angryThat’s a positive perspective.
I’ve seen a lot of that in leftists spaces lately, way more cautious of it now.
Engagement may not be great but it wins. Imo fediverse needs engagement to live long term but maybe doesn’t need toxicity for it, but addiction is inherently a little toxic.
Yes we should be thoughtful, not everyone is unfortunately.
How fucking dare you seek genuine humanity online.
lolI think letting people say anything (with obvious bannable exceptions like abuse, threats of violence, death, rape, and cp) helps, that fact checking or being wrong should not be bannable, and that people should be given more ways to conflict with each other but in a way that spurns creative debate not pure hostility but that pure hostility has real value to show people whether or not they should change and shouldn’t be shut down outright. Like commenting ‘fuck you’ should be allowed anywhere but not ‘fuck you go kys’ because it’s destructive not constructive.
-
There it is
But if someone didn’t search your comment history, they wouldn’t know from context, that you seem to enjoy telling others what they should and shouldn’t be posting and judging them for being obnoxious and insulting while doing exactly that elsewhere.
-
I think it's worth being warry of making other peoples misery your own entertainment, that's a really good way to end up habitually pursuing cruelty
What you're describing sounds like Ben Shapiro to me. Scoring cheap points through argumentative tactic rather than actual merit of stance. Personally I see more value in legitimate exchange of ideas where involved parties can all walk away with a more well rounded perspective.
I see debate as an opportunity to learn from and teach others, not about dunking on people in pursuit of humiliating them
Just my two cents.
Lol my argument automatically has no merit without you hearing any of it. That's like bigotry or something.
I guess Ben Shapiro argues with people that aren't media trained to make his stance look better, do you want me to say people Ben Shapiro argues make some awesome argument all the time without exception?
I'll teach you that it's not on me to make your arguments, get your evidence. I just put it on myself to communicate my arguments and poke holes in other people's arguments
-
I agree, and like with many of the culture issues we have challenges with, I think the extent to which Lemmy is a echo chamber or political and philosophical monoculture really sets us up to struggle with those kinds of problems
You're not wrong though. Even I sometimes find myself falling into it, it's hard. And a lot of people believe following the behavior their anger drives them to isn't just okay, it's actually a good think and combats the problems they're angry about. Personally I think that usually couldn't be any further from the truth
Regardless, I hope you have a good one
Lol so you agree with this post I made just not the other
-
We do not need all the engagement. Just engagement that most lemming users enjoy. The comments of spam bots for example are also good for engagement but are not enjoyable content. I personally hate being pissed of online cause it caries into my real life and people in general also do so most people come to this general idea that they don't piss anyone of and expect other people to come to the same conclusion of not pissing anyone of. This leads to a less toxic environment which allows them to spend more of their time and energy on more productive stuff. Cause at the end of the day needlessly making other people feel bad for your own entertainment is a downwards spiral if everyone's doing it.
So all your saying is don't engage with bots (even though it's fine because bots can get you information quickly), and that you can't ignore negative people online.
-
Lol my argument automatically has no merit without you hearing any of it. That's like bigotry or something.
I guess Ben Shapiro argues with people that aren't media trained to make his stance look better, do you want me to say people Ben Shapiro argues make some awesome argument all the time without exception?
I'll teach you that it's not on me to make your arguments, get your evidence. I just put it on myself to communicate my arguments and poke holes in other people's arguments
my argument automatically has no merit without you hearing any of it
I did read both of your comments in full and think about them, but if you have more specific thoughts on why you hold the perspective you do I'd be open to hearing them
(full disclosure though, it might take me a bit to get back to you- with how much I've engaged with this thread I'm starting to kinda run out of social energy 
)I guess Ben Shapiro argues with people that aren't media trained to make his stance look better, do you want me to say people Ben Shapiro argues make some awesome argument all the time without exception?
Its a little hard to follow exactly what you mean towards the end, I think there are a couple typos, but no. I just personally see a distinction between productive conversation and making a game of humiliating people buy talking circles around them regardless of the merits of their arguments.
I can't know that you exactly meant the latter, but it's kind of a spectrum and it did sound like you were advocating the idea that it's appropriate to take joy in making people feel foolish for their inability to argue as well as you. I think there's a big difference between the merits of a stance and someone's ability to argue them. That's why I expressed I disagreed. And that's why I made the connection to Ben shapio, he's really good at arguing, and makes sport of trying to make people look bad when they make the sort of arguments I personally agree with.
I'll teach you that it's not on me to make your arguments, get your evidence. I just put it on myself to communicate my arguments and poke holes in other people's arguments
I think I see argument as much less of a zero sum game than you do. I don't wanna score points, I wanna learn about what people think and teach them why I think differently.
You're not wrong to point out flaws in peoples arguments, or to expect them to make their case for themselves, but that's not the same thing as treating it like a game to win. I think the former is appropriate and healthy, I think the latter is destructive and doesn't actually accomplish anything
️ -
I can understand your anger, I'm in the same boat, but I really wasn't asking you to do that
I was asking you to be kind to the people here. That you share this space with.I wish I had left this list of examples in the original post where I had them at first
- Compliment people's art and ask about their process
- Teach people about something you're knowledgeable on
- Give constructive criticism on peoples projects when it's welcome
- Thank people for posting things you're glad you got to see, tell them you enjoyed it
- Tell people you're glad they're here
- Tell people you hope they have a good day
I moved them to a comment because I have a bad habit of being really long winded and I wanted people to actually read the whole post, but I think moving them and leaving "try to approach people you disagree with with curiosity rather than hostility" prompted a lot of folks to interpret what I was saying as "tell the Nazis who want to debate your humanity that all their views are swell, actually"
What I meant is exactly what didn't happen in our interaction with eachother. I'm a queer leftist whose humanity is debated by the right. You don't completely agree with me and that's okay, but I'm not deserving of your hostility.
We may not see things exactly the same way but I care just as much about combating fascism as you do; everyone I love save for some of my family is a minority with a target on their back in the eyes of the current administration.
I wish I could have made it more clear what I meant. I've gotten lots of comments more or less insinuating that I'm encouraging we all complicit in the rise of fascism. And it's not a big percentage, but I'm still a human being who hears 12 people forcefully telling me that, and it doesn't feel great.
That's not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating that when you don't completely see eye to eye with someone, you ask them what they mean (and also lots of other things, but I feel like thats the specific idea in question).
WE don't see exactly eye to eye. You and other commenters here don't see exactly eye to eye. And that's okay. Being willing to talk with them or me about what they think and why doesn't help the Nazis.
(Like I said I'm really long winded
sorry for the wall of text, I know it's not even the first one I've replied with to you specifically )It's specifically the "don't call people Russian trolls/bots"
There are a lot of Right wingers sympathetic to fascist countries right now, and it doesn't matter if it's a troll farm or a regular person pushing hateful ideology it's harmful and unacceptable either way.
-
"Tankies"
The irony with this is that Lemmy was founded by communists and it follows a lot of communist principles.
Tankies aren't communist.
Authoritarianism is right wing.
-
The fediverse is small, and thats both a blessing and a curse - one of its several blessings is that in a smaller space we all individually have a bigger impact on what the culture of this space is like.
On this comm (and on lemmy broadly) there's a lot of discussion about how to grow the fediverse, what to improve, but an easy thing you can do for the fediverse is right in front of us-
-
Be kind
-
Ask people what they think, and why
-
Approach folks you disagree with with curiosity rather than hostility
-
Engage sincerely
-
Ask yourself if there's something nice you can say
-
Make this small space worth being in
A platform lives or dies by what's available on said platform and often we have this conversation in the context of "content" or posts - and we may never have as much content as reddit does. But content and posts aren't the only thing this kind of platform offers- it also offers people. It offers community, and human interaction.
Culture and community is lemmy and the fediverse's biggest differentiator, and we all have a role to play in shaping the culture of this space.
The biggest thing you can do to help the fediverse is make it a place worth being.
This sounds dumb.
- Ask people what they think, and why
Why thats none of my business? Presumptuous to think someone should submit themselves to your inquiries.
- Ask yourself if there's something nice you can say
Better yet, ask someone else because you can't be trusted, obviously.
-
-
It's specifically the "don't call people Russian trolls/bots"
There are a lot of Right wingers sympathetic to fascist countries right now, and it doesn't matter if it's a troll farm or a regular person pushing hateful ideology it's harmful and unacceptable either way.
Personally I don't see calling people Russian bots/trolls or accepting harmful behaviour as the only available options.
I don't think the former is at all productive or helps anything, and the latter is completely unacceptable. But those aren't our only options when we decide how we want to engage with people we disagree with
and again, fascists are not the only people with whom disagreements happen on lemmy. We're literally disagreeing right now, if you called me a Russian bot I think that would be silly and unproductive. That's literally my whole point. Not everyone you disagree with is arguing in bad faith
️ -
my argument automatically has no merit without you hearing any of it
I did read both of your comments in full and think about them, but if you have more specific thoughts on why you hold the perspective you do I'd be open to hearing them
(full disclosure though, it might take me a bit to get back to you- with how much I've engaged with this thread I'm starting to kinda run out of social energy )I guess Ben Shapiro argues with people that aren't media trained to make his stance look better, do you want me to say people Ben Shapiro argues make some awesome argument all the time without exception?
Its a little hard to follow exactly what you mean towards the end, I think there are a couple typos, but no. I just personally see a distinction between productive conversation and making a game of humiliating people buy talking circles around them regardless of the merits of their arguments.
I can't know that you exactly meant the latter, but it's kind of a spectrum and it did sound like you were advocating the idea that it's appropriate to take joy in making people feel foolish for their inability to argue as well as you. I think there's a big difference between the merits of a stance and someone's ability to argue them. That's why I expressed I disagreed. And that's why I made the connection to Ben shapio, he's really good at arguing, and makes sport of trying to make people look bad when they make the sort of arguments I personally agree with.
I'll teach you that it's not on me to make your arguments, get your evidence. I just put it on myself to communicate my arguments and poke holes in other people's arguments
I think I see argument as much less of a zero sum game than you do. I don't wanna score points, I wanna learn about what people think and teach them why I think differently.
You're not wrong to point out flaws in peoples arguments, or to expect them to make their case for themselves, but that's not the same thing as treating it like a game to win. I think the former is appropriate and healthy, I think the latter is destructive and doesn't actually accomplish anything
️Yeah the merit of a stance is different than someone's ability to argue. They're different concepts.
