What's the best way of dealing with Maga hatred, white power, genocide denial and other things you see a Lemmy user espousing?
-
My conscience. assuaged.
If that's the case, I'd recommend treating them like spam: reply and you'll get a lot more.
Mostly, it's a huge emotional and time investment if you want to change someone's behavior and from what I gather, it's a one on one type of thing and really hard. If you want to stop them from interacting negatively with others, your best action would be to report them.
If you're upset and want to vent, then engaging will be fun for a while, but mostly futile in terms of behaviour adjustments.
-
If I ignore/block them, it allows them to continue unchallenged. I hate getting into it with them, since they are a baseline idiot.
I guess that's it. I saw a person with a 6 month account spouting garbage, was gonna block but thought perhaps that wasn't morally responsible. Wondering what the options were.
I tend to not reply because that will just draw more attention to them. I will post a separate top level comment rebutting their statements without referring to them.
-
I tend to not reply because that will just draw more attention to them. I will post a separate top level comment rebutting their statements without referring to them.
That's a good strategy, thanks.
-
If that's the case, I'd recommend treating them like spam: reply and you'll get a lot more.
Mostly, it's a huge emotional and time investment if you want to change someone's behavior and from what I gather, it's a one on one type of thing and really hard. If you want to stop them from interacting negatively with others, your best action would be to report them.
If you're upset and want to vent, then engaging will be fun for a while, but mostly futile in terms of behaviour adjustments.
If I respond, it's mostly for the 'audience'. I used to argue on r/libertarian or r/conservative, not to change the other person's mind, but to add a different opinion to the thread. I doubt I ever convinced the other person of anything, but hope I got other people to think a bit more about some of the policies being advocated for.
-
If I ignore/block them, it allows them to continue unchallenged. I hate getting into it with them, since they are a baseline idiot.
I guess that's it. I saw a person with a 6 month account spouting garbage, was gonna block but thought perhaps that wasn't morally responsible. Wondering what the options were.
Ignore them, then vote accordingly. Nothing you or I say will have any effect
-
are trying to exclude peoples they consider undesirables
Which is exactly what you and Lemmy are doing by saying conservatives are not welcome here. They are un-desired..ala undesirable. Can't you see the irony of what you are saying?!
Take what you wrote and switch the words around. Change all the liberal words to Repubiclan. Then stand back and read it. Def sounds EXACTLY like how you all assume republicans talk and exclude.
They are un-desired…ala undesirable.
No, their politics are unwanted. That's a huge difference, it's absurd to treat them as equal.
When I used the term 'undesirables', I didn't mean literally 'not desired'. I meant it in the context that reactionaries like NSDAP (Nazi Germany) and their modern fans use it - it referred to peoples like Slavs, Romani, Jews, black peoples, people with disabilities, homosexuals and ideological opponents, and more^[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany, introduction, paragraph 3 and more]. People, just because of their lineage, were considered subhuman (Untermensch) and sent to be deported or exterminated. And it's absolutely applicable to the section of modern US conservatives (including their national leaders) who are currently embracing similar oppression of selected races and conditions. That's the allusion I was making with the borrowed term 'undersirables', not just a person who is being offensive, starting fights and told to leave.
Identifying politically is a choice. One can refine their political positions, or even just be diplomatic and respectful, at any time, by choice. It's very easy.
Being identified as a race, sex, or other similar category, is not a choice. So if you feel excluded because you named your account after two racist cunts and openly identify as 'conservative' in an anti-racist space, that's something you can easily choose not to do if you actually want to be included. Don't expect us to take you seriously when you compare that to the Republic party's form of exclusion, oppressing people for how they were born, not how they choose to act in a society.
-
I have never expected people to immediately agree with me or applaud. But diversity of opinion and thought is supposed the be the cornerstone of Democratic values. But it's not. Not at all. I have seen more bullying and hate in the name of Democratic values here on Lemmy than anywhere else in my entire life. LMAO
I have seen more bullying and hate in the name of Democratic values
I doubt you would see that unless you were opposing Democratic values. Shit, you should see what happens if you suggest there should be living Palestinians.
-
If I ignore/block them, it allows them to continue unchallenged. I hate getting into it with them, since they are a baseline idiot.
I guess that's it. I saw a person with a 6 month account spouting garbage, was gonna block but thought perhaps that wasn't morally responsible. Wondering what the options were.
-
I have seen more bullying and hate in the name of Democratic values
I doubt you would see that unless you were opposing Democratic values. Shit, you should see what happens if you suggest there should be living Palestinians.
I doubt you would see that unless you were opposing Democratic values.
Like what? Because friend, basically I would post an AP News article, and then get called a Nazi and told that I should be banned from the fediverse. My post history is public, see for yourself. lol
-
They are un-desired…ala undesirable.
No, their politics are unwanted. That's a huge difference, it's absurd to treat them as equal.
When I used the term 'undesirables', I didn't mean literally 'not desired'. I meant it in the context that reactionaries like NSDAP (Nazi Germany) and their modern fans use it - it referred to peoples like Slavs, Romani, Jews, black peoples, people with disabilities, homosexuals and ideological opponents, and more^[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany, introduction, paragraph 3 and more]. People, just because of their lineage, were considered subhuman (Untermensch) and sent to be deported or exterminated. And it's absolutely applicable to the section of modern US conservatives (including their national leaders) who are currently embracing similar oppression of selected races and conditions. That's the allusion I was making with the borrowed term 'undersirables', not just a person who is being offensive, starting fights and told to leave.
Identifying politically is a choice. One can refine their political positions, or even just be diplomatic and respectful, at any time, by choice. It's very easy.
Being identified as a race, sex, or other similar category, is not a choice. So if you feel excluded because you named your account after two racist cunts and openly identify as 'conservative' in an anti-racist space, that's something you can easily choose not to do if you actually want to be included. Don't expect us to take you seriously when you compare that to the Republic party's form of exclusion, oppressing people for how they were born, not how they choose to act in a society.
No, their politics are unwanted. That’s a huge difference, it’s absurd to treat them as equal.
So because someones politics are different than yours, they shouldn't be treated as equal. Hmmmm..
Now image a republican saying that about democrats. Imagine your outrage. LMAO
See, regardless of what Lemmy says, not every republican is a Nazi. This is why you all lost the election. Because you don't account for how many different kinds of republicans there are.
And you'll lose the next one if ya don't wake up.
-
I doubt you would see that unless you were opposing Democratic values.
Like what? Because friend, basically I would post an AP News article, and then get called a Nazi and told that I should be banned from the fediverse. My post history is public, see for yourself. lol
My post history is public, see for yourself. lol
Whole lotta brietbart, americanthinker, pjmedia, dailymail.
-
My post history is public, see for yourself. lol
Whole lotta brietbart, americanthinker, pjmedia, dailymail.
Yep and AP News and Newsweek.
-
Yep and AP News and Newsweek.
I figure if they are gonna hate no matter what I post, then I can post from wherever I want.
And the sources you want indicate who you always were.
-
I figure if they are gonna hate no matter what I post, then I can post from wherever I want.
And the sources you want indicate who you always were.
Nope. I was fine with sticking with AP News and Newsweek. But you all called me a Nazi. For posting AP News articles. LMAO
-
Nope. I was fine with sticking with AP News and Newsweek. But you all called me a Nazi. For posting AP News articles. LMAO
-
Yep and AP News and Newsweek.
-
HA HA HA ha ha, you think your own race has anything to do with your nazi status? Nobody called you a nazi for posting AP News. Just look at your conservative posts, you barely post them anyway Dr BreitBart. This is DARVO right out the ass
HA HA HA ha ha, you think your own race has anything to do with your nazi status?
Nope. But it's doubly offense when someone calls me a Nazi, when Nazis would actively seek me out and destroy me if they were around. lol
Nobody called you a nazi for posting AP News.
I was accused of being a Nazi lots when I was only posting AP News. I was banned from Lemmyworld c/politics because of posting news articles from legit orgs.
Now, to post in c/politics there, you can only use approved and verified news sources.
So in order for me to post there, all sources had to be approved. And they were. They don't allow conservative-biased sources. Which is fine, cuz their community so their rules. So I followed their rules.
But in the end, I ended up being banned. Wanna know why? Because they accused me of being a user called Universal Monk. Who I'd never even heard of before the ban.
So they legit didn't like the articles I was sending, accused me of being a nazi using AP News "propaganda," but couldn't really ban me for posting news articles from their own list, so they then decided I was someone else and banned me. For being someone I never even heard of.
Feel free to look up the modlog. It's public. You can see my posts there.
So yeah, fuck all that noise. Now I'll just post whatever I want. People can choose to read or not, I don't care.
DISCLAIMER: Yeah, I know the .world instance is toxic and sucks, but it is the biggest Lemmy instance, so it has a lot of pull.
-
You post bottom-barrel news sources because your high integrity news sources get downvoted? Brother I don't know how to tell you this... It's not who you post, it's what you celebrate.
You post bottom-barrel news sources because your high integrity news sources get downvoted?
Yep! The reality is I get downvoted no matter what. Even non-political science articles.
Which is fine because I don't take Lemmy seriously. But it does show that Lemmy doesn't are about fact, they care about the emotional hit of downvoting someone they don't personally like.
I think it's hilarious that they take it so seriously though.
-
HA HA HA ha ha, you think your own race has anything to do with your nazi status?
Nope. But it's doubly offense when someone calls me a Nazi, when Nazis would actively seek me out and destroy me if they were around. lol
Nobody called you a nazi for posting AP News.
I was accused of being a Nazi lots when I was only posting AP News. I was banned from Lemmyworld c/politics because of posting news articles from legit orgs.
Now, to post in c/politics there, you can only use approved and verified news sources.
So in order for me to post there, all sources had to be approved. And they were. They don't allow conservative-biased sources. Which is fine, cuz their community so their rules. So I followed their rules.
But in the end, I ended up being banned. Wanna know why? Because they accused me of being a user called Universal Monk. Who I'd never even heard of before the ban.
So they legit didn't like the articles I was sending, accused me of being a nazi using AP News "propaganda," but couldn't really ban me for posting news articles from their own list, so they then decided I was someone else and banned me. For being someone I never even heard of.
Feel free to look up the modlog. It's public. You can see my posts there.
So yeah, fuck all that noise. Now I'll just post whatever I want. People can choose to read or not, I don't care.
DISCLAIMER: Yeah, I know the .world instance is toxic and sucks, but it is the biggest Lemmy instance, so it has a lot of pull.
-
You post bottom-barrel news sources because your high integrity news sources get downvoted?
Yep! The reality is I get downvoted no matter what. Even non-political science articles.
Which is fine because I don't take Lemmy seriously. But it does show that Lemmy doesn't are about fact, they care about the emotional hit of downvoting someone they don't personally like.
I think it's hilarious that they take it so seriously though.
