How valid is the claim that people coming or going to blue sky/mastodon/X/Truth Social will cause echo chambers to increase? is it bad?
How valid is the claim that people coming or going to blue sky/mastodon/X/Truth Social will cause echo chambers to increase? is it bad?
You're viewing a single thread.
Nearly all social media is full of
ecoecho chambers.. I still post and follow stuff on several of the platforms. There is very little nuanced conversation.. Seems like it is more and more just an up vote or downvote storm, or people claiming one thing or another without any supporting evidence.And that makes me genuinely sad. When I joined Lemmy, I was a little put off by the leftist bent here, but then I realized that I appreciated being challenged on my views, especially since people here are generally nice about it.
I wish I could find something like that for conservatives as well. Better yet, I wish there was a place like Reddit or Lemmy where all views were respected, provided claims are supported with evidence. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be compatible with the world we live in, and that makes me sad.
Seems like there aren't many centrist communities where you can have nuanced discussions.
Hard to find nuance in anything the current government is doing
I honestly don't care about centrism, I care about diversity of ideas with citations for claims. If a left wing or right wing policy is the best for a given situation, I'd love to discuss it.
But failing that, I'll take centrist over either political extreme any day of the week.
You can probably post on 7.62x54r.ru. Reddit had a decent number of anti-establishment leftists who would join up with conservatives on shared issues. I haven't seen any spaces like that on Lemmy.
Yeah, and that's something I missed about Reddit. I found a few good communities of centrists, open minded leftists, and open minded conservatives, so I could generally join a pretty good discussion. I still needed to watch what I said, because there were some things even open minded people wouldn't consider given their political bias, but a lot of things were fair game.
For example, I could bring up Right to Repair to both groups, and I'd get different reasons for and against it from each group.
Here on Lemmy, I don't get that diversity, either something is compatible with the group's general leftist persuasion, or I get downvoted into oblivion. And that sucks, because I put in a lot of effort to be constructive and challenge the status quo. Fortunately, I usually know before making a statement which way it'll go, and there are no downsides (aside from worse engagement) to getting down votes, so I know what to expect. It does make me sad though.
I'll check out that community though. Not sure what to expect from a .ru domain though as an American...
Being a Reich Winger is incompatible with rational or thoughtful discussion.
Reich wing ideology boils down to subservience and deference to authority, not knowledge.
You seem to have a very specific definition in mind. There's a lot more to the right wing than fascism.
Reich Wing ideology, the entire thing, relies on subservience and deference to authority. The difference in the various flavors of it are just how much and who.
OK, so you're just going to spout partisan talking points instead of having a productive conversation.
Have a wonderful day.
Of course, discussing political ideology is "partisan"... Its exactly what we're talking about.
And no, they're not just talking points, it's literally how we describe the various systems of political ideology... Reich Wingers look to construct a society around control and subservience. And, like I said, the question of "who" to obey, and how strictly people are to be controlled are what differentiates the various Reich Wing ideologies.
Reich Wingers look to construct a society around control and subservience.
This is a talking point, and you're basically implying everyone on the right believes this, and that's patently false.
That is literally what makes up right wing ideology... Prove me wrong. Because, yes, every Reich Winger thinks that some level of control over others is a requirement of society.
Control of women's bodies.
Control of immigrants.
Control of health care.
Control of religious views.
Control of other countries.
Show me a Reich Winger who doesn't believe that someone needs to control others, and I'll walk that back.
First of all, I want to point out that I'm not registered Republican and haven't voted for a Republican for any executive position for nearly two decades (last time was McCain, though I would've voted for Romney had I voted in 2012). Also, I have voted Republican for other positions very rarely in the last decade or so. In 2020, I voted for Biden because I thought Trump legitimately had a chance of losing my state (still carried it by ~20%), and I voted mostly Democrats for legislative seats this time around because I'm pissed at the gerrymandering my state did recently.
With that out of the way:
Control of women’s bodies.
Not universal, and something like 36% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
Control of immigrants.
Something like 15% believe immigration should increase, and 37% believe it should stay the same. Believing immigration should decrease is a minority opinion among Republicans.
Control of health care.
Not sure what you mean by that, Democrats also want to control health care, that's why the ACA exists (they want everyone enrolled in health insurance, which gives the government more control over health care).
If you can be more precise, I can look up some statistics.
Control of religious views.
About 41% of Republicans believe religious Republicans have too much control over the GOP, and about 27% of Republicans are unaffiliated with any particular religion, 13% are atheist, and 34% say "nothing in particular" (I guess that means areligious).
Control of other countries.
Trumpism is isolationist, which is the opposite of wanting to interfere w/ other countries. There are a lot of anti-Trump Republicans (in 2019, though they're probably not going to be as vocal this term.
So if you're looking for anti-interference Republicans, look no further than Trump. There are also plenty of anti-interventionist Republicans in the anti-Trump crowd as well.
So yeah, there's a bunch of stats for you. I'm also guessing we'll see those numbers go up quite a bit after Trump's term is up, because a lot of those answers are likely colored by recent rhetoric.
I could list specific politicians if that's what you're looking for, but I find that much less interesting than statistics.
Not universal, and something like 36% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
But all of them voted to ban abortion, so they can sod off with "Well, it's not what I believe"...
Something like 15% believe immigration should increase, and 37% believe it should stay the same. Believing immigration should decrease is a minority opinion among Republicans.
And yet, they voted to eliminate all non-white immigration. So, again, they can sod off.
Not sure what you mean by that, Democrats also want to control health care, that’s why the ACA exists (they want everyone enrolled in health insurance, which gives the government more control over health care).
The ACA regulated health insurance, not health care. Reich Wingers want health care choices controlled, while de-regulating corporations.
If you can be more precise, I can look up some statistics.
Look up the percentage that voted for Trump, and that's your percentage of people who are Reich Wingers and want to have the state tell humans what health care they can get like:
- Hormone therapy
- Mental healthy care
- Reproductive health care
About 41% of Republicans believe religious Republicans have too much control over the GOP, and about 27% of Republicans are unaffiliated with any particular religion, 13% are atheist, and 34% say “nothing in particular” (I guess that means areligious).
What percentage of them voted for Trump?
Because that percentage voted for a Christofascist system of government.
Trumpism is isolationist, which is the opposite of wanting to interfere w/ other countries. There are a lot of anti-Trump Republicans (in 2019, though they’re probably not going to be as vocal this term.
Trump is an isolationist. Unless it's:
- Israel
- Russia
- North Korea
- Anywhere in the middle east with brown people living there
- A place that has oil, or real estate he can profit from
So if you’re looking for anti-interference Republicans, look no further than Trump. There are also plenty of anti-interventionist Republicans in the anti-Trump crowd as well.
Sure... "Anti-interference", unless it's a friend of his like Putin, or Assad, etc etc.
So yeah, there’s a bunch of stats for you. I’m also guessing we’ll see those numbers go up quite a bit after Trump’s term is up, because a lot of those answers are likely colored by recent rhetoric.
Those stats are meaningless. The only stat that matters is who they voted for.
I could list specific politicians if that’s what you’re looking for, but I find that much less interesting than statistics.
Sure, find me a Reich Winger who isn't what I described. I'm sure they will be a lot like "Trump is really anti-interference!"
Happy to see the word “nuance” being used… wish there was more of that too. This whole binary with-me / against-me mentality will bring us all crashing down.
Eco chambers sound like a good thing.
Absolutely not. If for no other reason then you lose the ability to actually argue for your ideas if you're in an echo chamber.
The person was referring to the eco typo in the original post.