I experience Lemmy as a reflection of many of the problems in the world; there seems to be little effort to understand and respect different viewpoints. Instead of being curious about opinions one disagrees with, the community often feels almost aggressive. People end up in their own trenches. What about trying to be more open and curious about our differences instead?
Apparently we believe in freedom of speech—so long as the speech is something we agree with…
As already mentioned, it’s not exclusive to Lemmy/the Fediverse and then, thx to the Fediverse itself, we still can resist:
The issue runs much deeper as, for most people, it seems to not be enough to be able to mute/block someone or some content they disagree with. They want it to vanish for anyone else too. The most… excited even want their author to be removed from the community. So they like to campaign for ban, or worse.
But here again, it’s a much wider issue than with the Fediverse.
It’s people not being educated anymore to tolerate divergence of opinions and, a lot more worryingly imho, not being able, because of that lack of proper education, to listen to nuanced thoughts and ideas and to be able to understand that we can disagree without having to hate on one another. They seem to live in a black or white world, populated with two groups of people: friends, those that are liking the same things and the same ideas they do, and foes, those who dare not like one or more of those things and ideas the ‘friends’ like.
As long as that ‘logic’ is not challenged and put back in its place (trash reasoning) the intolerance to what is different, which hating on one’s values and ideals is, won’t go away. Around here, like everywhere else.
Well said. It is so frustrating when people don’t understand that people disagreeing with them does not mean their freedom of speech is being violated.
Even the banning example, which is commonly pointed to as violating freedom of speech, is typically (not saying it is always) used when the user is breaking civility rules or rules established by the community which the user assented to by participating in the community discourse.
When people try to bully you into silence and complicity, it is very much being violated.
The vast majority of my replies on lemmy here are rarely more than name-calling and threats.
Your free speech is not violated when someone disagrees with you. Your free speech is violated when the government stops you from speaking your mind. “Bullying” may be not nice, but it’s not a free speech issue. That’s just two people having a disagreement in an uncivilized manner.
Right, so when I pull a gun on you, it’s just free speech?
No dude, it’s assault. Lots of people control speech in online spaces by taking out virtual guns. Threats of banning, harassment, doxxing etc.
I don’t know about you, I was involved in a subreddit years ago where members would stalk and harass people over online comments. Like drive to their house and take photos then post them online. That’s not disagreement, that’s bullying and being a psychopath who think they have every right to abuse and silence someone else for what they said.
Here’s a little guide:
In the cases presented:
Does that make sense?
Thx.
Quite a few of them will remain incapable to understand that, no matter what we can try too encourage them, but I want to think the vast majority can’t because they were not educated to understand it.
Schools (as well as many parents, I’m afraid) have failed many of the younger people/generation. Being old myself, as a teen in the early 80s I started witnessing that failure spreading like fire in the few public schools I had friends in (I was lucky enough to be in a private school, a religious one where they insisted on using a… stricter approach to teaching, a more demanding one too).
Public schools have failed so badly it’s hard to realize parents have not been on the streets demanding an urgent reform. But they obviously don’t manifest much for that, like if not educating their kids was no big deal. Those kids, if they were given the opportunity to access some proper education (and to the more… radicals out there: ‘proper’ should not be understood as ‘perfect’ or ‘faultless’) they would quickly learn to accept difference of opinions, and even extremely conflicting ideas. Even more, I have little doubt many would start to value it, realizing it’s an opportunity for everyone.
Alas, we’re far from that. And, as an older person (I’m nearing my 60s), when you try to point out the issue, that catastrophic and dramatic failure of school and adults towards kids… Most will either refuse to listen, disqualifying the remark as mere nostalgia from someone too old to understand the modern world and its many new problems (which is another interesting demonstration of prejudice, btw). Entirely missing the point. Alas.
Being banned from a private space (online or IRL) is not a violation of the freedom of speech (which BTW is mostly an US-based thing, while a lot of the fediverse is not from there), it’s the right of the owner to decide who can and cannot enter in and stay to their place, and what they can do there.
The issue is when that legit right is used to silence dissent ideas and thoughts. Like it can easily be done on X or Reddit, or any other centralized platform. Hence me pointing out that the Fediverse is more resilient to that kind of abuse… even if it is not immune to it and to admins abusing their powers and behaving like miniature wannabe dictators. At least, like I said, one can always switch community or create a new one. Even a whole instance.
What’s most worrying to me is that people don’t even know why they AGREE with the opinions they agree with. For example, most people would agree that bigotry is bad (which it is), but they don’t know how to argue about it.
They’ve got the moral instinct, sure, but zero intellectual grounding. And that’s a problem. Because when people don’t understand why something is wrong, they’re just one propaganda push away from accepting a new definition of “bigotry” that serves whoever’s in power.
We’re seeing it happen in real time. People repeat opinions like they’re reciting scripture - no thought, no critique, just blind agreement. And now, even asking people to think critically about why bigotry is wrong is seen as suspect. It’s an immediate failure of purity testing. You’re not supposed to arrive to the conclusion that bigotry is bad by thinking for yourself, you are just supposed to keep repeating the correct slogans. That’s not just lazy, it’s anti-intellectualism, the exact kind of mental rot that populism and fascism thrive on. That’s exactly the kind of bullshit that got USA in the state it is right now.
I have literally been called a fascist for telling people to think for themselves.
And since we should not trust ‘moral’ anything without at least some understanding of it… that’s not a good situation. At least, that’s how I see it.
Which is funny realizing how most of them are so hostile towards the Bible or anything religion-related while they’re at the same time mindlessly repeating/mimicking (what I consider) the worst of all the religious traits: blind adherence to an ideology/ideal, as well as the refusal to listen to critics.
Can’t talk about the USA myself: the world is a tad larger and also includes a few foreign countries, including my own: France ;)
I have been called many names during my almost 60 years on this planet (fascist not even being the worst), and I learned to not bother: hateful believers will remain hateful believers no matter what, even those who only believe in ‘social something’ instead of ‘god’. They won’t change, or just maybe their believe switching from one to the latest trendy one. Meanwhile, I will keep on refusing to blindly adhere to any type of faith, with or without a god ;)
Yep. the motto here for most ‘free thinkers’ is ‘agree with me or you are a bad person’. They don’t really want to discuss things, they just want to browbeat/bully other people into agreement. They refuse to acknowledge things are complex and that their are various legitimate viewpoints… there can only be their pure and true version of whatever ideology they believe in and anyone who questions their interpretation it is a ‘false’ believer.
It’s idealism and egotism running into each other. So they just feel like going around labeling everything bigotry makes them some paragon of morality and truth and justice. Meanwhile they have no understanding of their own bigotry.