Do you think the mostly limited range of political views is a strength or a weakness of Lemmy? (For example, in terms of attracting new users.)
Do you think the mostly limited range of political views is a strength or a weakness of Lemmy? (For example, in terms of attracting new users.)
Sure, there are always outliers and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's just the overall impression I have.
(I wasn't sure if !asklemmy@lemmy.world or this community would fit better for this kind of question, but I assume it fits here.)
You're viewing a single thread.
Normally I'd say it was a weakness but the right has significantly departed from reality in most countries for way too long now. It's incredibly rare to find a right-winger who can be present in a discussion without spewing a whole lot of vile conspiracy hate fascist bullshit.
So I find their absence refreshing, desirable and a strength of Lemmy.
I find the same on the left wing. Everytime I put out a slightly right wing position I get attacked and a ton of down votes.
Every time anyone mentions on Lemmy right wing positions it is with only to attack a strawman version that is very removed from what most right wing people think/do.
Downvotes can't actually hurt you.
Personally, I'm fine with saying unpopular things and getting downvoted for it. Mods removing a disallowed viewpoint is something different.
They don't hurt, but they still do not feel nice.
Just remember that the first person to say the world went around the sun got downvoted into oblivion… but it is factually accurate and a giant leap towards out current understanding of the physical realm. I’m happy for people to disagree with my views. Fuck, I probably disagreed with half of them, thirty years ago.
Mods removing a disallowed viewpoint is something different.
They will only do that if the opinion actually resonates lol
Haha yes, that's usually the issue. I talked down below about getting banned on slrpnk because of some things I was saying. The comment thread with all the highly-upvoted replies getting removed by the mod, and the downvoted stuff intact, is hilarious to me:
https://slrpnk.net/post/14823401/11895951
The same mod also had a habit of arguing with people, while removing their comments but leaving his own side of the argument intact. He's still a moderator there. In my opinion slrpnk needs to spend less time talking about anarchism and more time embodying anarchism.
Removed Comment I am gratified by the rate of downvotes on this. Greta Thunberg would, I think, be disappointed and angry that anyone would take what she said as a justification for ways to help get Trump elected. Let me highlight the very clearly written part that you seem to have missed: > It is probably Impossible to overestimate the consequences this specific election will have for the world and for the future of humanity. > > There is no doubt that one of the candidates — Trump — is way more dangerous than the other. If you want real positive change, listen to Greta and fight for change outside the system. If you want third parties, support RCV and proportional representation, to make them viable. If you want the end of the fucking world, then don’t vote, or vote for spoiler candidates within the current system that makes them unelectable. Edit: Formatting by PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
reason: Electoralism, liberalism
well you did kinda invade their safe space with common sense ideas, shit lord hehe
This moderator behavior here is exactly what you'd see on reddit lol
"We're anarchists."
"Cool. Here's an urgent problem I see for the world that I think we should work on."
"SHIT COCK GET OUT DISALLOWED We don't say that here. You're receiving a gentle ban, to think about what you've done. Be better."
Oh my god... This is spot on. I feel like everyone here is mostly larping.
That's the current modding situation across any community focused on working class politics... as if people running them are not interested in helping the peasants.
Why would anyone act like that on social media... for free at that
I use solarpunk and disappointed that it happened to you. I felt like solarpunk was the best instance Lemmy has, it feels like it has the least amount of echo chamber. Maybe I'm wrong.
I moderate my own community in solarpunk and I will try my best to not be like the moderator you talk about
I think you will see that these accusations have little substance, are taken out of context and argued in bad faith 🤷♂️
All I've done is link to the comments section illustrating what I was saying had happened, had happened.
Here he is, arguing with people while removing their comments and leaving his comments in place: https://slrpnk.net/post/14823401/11894346
I have no idea why you're defending this guy. Like I said, the communities that try to "protect" their points of view, saying that one viewpoint is permitted in their space but other ones are will get you banned, generally become laughingstocks over time. It's very different from protecting against abuse or racism, when you "protect" your space against people who don't agree with some particular detail the way some particular person has interpreted it, and appoint an arbiter of what are the allowed interpretations, to ban anyone they disagree with. I think you should abandon that practice, and the censorship of ideas you disagree with, if you want to say that you're supporting an instance that respects individual human freedom.
I don't really have a problem with you in general, I was a little bit surprised that you came out swinging to defend this moderator. Maybe this all sounds like sour grapes on my part, but that is usually the result of banning people for disagreeing with you. It sparks a surprising amount of resentment.
We already explained in detail why we supported their moderation decision and you bringing it up again without providing the necessary context in which this happened is just bad faith shit slinging hoping some of it sticks.
That "explained in detail" is your interpretation. In most non-authoritarian communities, nobody has a monopoly on providing the blessed correct interpretation of what happened. I wasn't even speaking to why I was moderated or the interpretations on the part of the slrpnk people that led to it, just what happened. You can provide your interpretation of the events and the reasons why I was temp banned, sure.
https://slrpnk.net/post/14823401
In my opinion, the broader context is that if someone wants to say their opinion, it's okay if they disagree with someone. It's not an "attack" and people don't need to be "defended" against seeing enemy points of view, as long as they're reasonable. You seem to have a different context you like to frame things in, where a post with 10 comments needs to be locked and half the comments removed if they are expressing an incorrect point of view. Like I keep saying, I think you are expressing anarchist trappings while violating anarchist principles in how you run your instance, and also creating a bad reputation for your instance, when you do that. You do you, though.
That thread is wild. I had no clue slrpunk was like that (I only go to some non-political communities on slrpunk).
I don't think slrpnk is "bad" necessarily. The vibe I get is that there's one terrible moderator who the admins are standing up for, because they think he's an anarchist, and they've absorbed the general Lemmy dark pattern that it's okay for a moderator to prune the comments to reflect only the "correct" ideology. But basically aside from that one bad interaction, I really have no problem with slrpnk in general.
I know you're not the same moderator they were talking about, but I just want to make you aware of this: https://ponder.cat/comment/1193264
This is not the first time this is discussed and bringing it up out of context is just bad-faith arguing.
I started out aiming to talk about the issue without reference to any past drama, but then someone specifically asked, "censorship from the mods, are you directly experiencing it? If yes, on which instance?" and specifically as related to anarchist points of view. Before today, I'd pretty much forgotten about the whole thing, but it's a pretty valid and interesting question and so I sent some of the citations about when it happened to me.
I can feel through the screen how much you would like to be able to just order me not to be able to discuss this anymore, since my view is officially "incorrect" according to you. Fortunately, that's not how it works.
What are you talking about... This is the experience of most of us that dare slightly disagree on anything. It shouldn't be this way
You're comparing downvotes with "vile conspiracy hate fascist bullshit". The behavior I'm talking about isn't hurtful in the social-rejection way that downvotes are, it goes way way beyond that. Can you see the difference?
I empathize, as a human being you have to realize that it is YOU that has to use politics as a tool & NOT BECOME a tool of Politics (Do you get what I mean) Use both Right & Left policies, I think it was called Moderatism or Communitarianism
Every time anyone mentions on Lemmy right wing positions it is with only to attack a strawman version
It would help if you would be more precise. You are using a "feels like" statement here, which I have to disagree with b/c it is objectively false: all it would take would be to find a singular example wherein it was not true, at which point "every time" is shown to be invalid.
But often that does occur, yes. Sometimes our choice of wording can impede rather than aid in understanding?
And I say this as someone who seems to be more often misunderstood than not, go figure :-|.
I'm sure a counter example exists, but I've been around for year and not seen it yet. Though I'll accept that the exception probably exists.
Please... this is a serious display of availability bias.
Let's face it: the demographic here is just a hyper concentrated version of Reddit, which itself is mostly middle-upper class tweenagers from affluent countries. They get online and get convinced that everyone is just like them.
The average person that hangs out on Reddit-like forums absolutely does not represent the population at large, and any "right-winger who can be present in a discussion without spewing a whole lot of vile conspiracy hate fascist bullshit" has learned that there is no way one can have a reasonable exchange of ideas in any forum like this.
Your points about social bubbles and echo chambers are true, but experiencing the displeasure of having to routinely interact with rightwingers in person verifies that they have fully-fledged conviction in their “vile conspiracy hate fascist bullshit”. They can’t have a reasonable exchange of ideas because they bring nothing reasonable or empathetic to the table.
There are many right wingers here, not conservatives. Liberals are right wing, and lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works are mainly liberal instances.
What rimu was mainly talking about are conservatives, or even far right users. So he wasn't criticizing the whole right wing, he just used the term right wing to refer to those.
I know it's comfortable to sit and call anything slightly right of ultra socialism as 'right wing' but a spectrum exists.
To conflate republican evangelical dominionist Christians with liberals is peak hubris.
There is a saying: 'when you're a hammer, every problem is a nail'. When you reduce everything to class warfare you're not engaging in an effective discourse to reduce harm in the world. You're just pontificating on the merits of socialism, which yea, we all agree are neat. But so what? You think folding everyone else into a basket gives you credence or helps the discourse in any way?
I wasn't conflating. Conservatives are not liberals. But they are both right wing. (at least, classical liberals are)
And there is more than just class warfare, i agree.
But so what? why does it matter that they are right wing? not everyone has to be a communist.
The term left and right are very ambiguous to define in the first place. Some people argue that leftism is anti-capitalism. Some argue that leftism is just belief in equality. They are all right. Same thing with the right wing.
I think my issue is with the usage of the phrase "right wing" because we need something scathing to label liberals. It doesn't really contribute anything to the discourse except create layers of exclusion.
Liberalism, broadly, is not interested in supporting or enabling hierarchies. The only thing they share in common with right wing conservatism is the ownership of private property -but that's it. So lumping them all in the same bucket isn't doing much for anyone except creating more exclusion at the risk of pushing forward socialist policies. The reality is liberals are probably more likely to favor equality, even if it's just ideological. Shouldn't we strive to bring more people on board and build bridges rather than continue this bizarre war of artrition?
My intent was not to cause division, I originally meant to clear things up for the user I was originally replying to, but things quickly descended into arguing about semantics. I agree that we should all work together to eliminate the rising threat of far right, fascist parties worldwide. That is what we should be focusing on.
I'm tired over me bikeshedding, So i'm just going to forfeit out of this argument.
Have a great weekend
We don't have to have an argument over it. It's ok to have a conversation. I'm familiar with the 'liberals are right wing' talking point.
I'm just trying to understand what exactly it is that defines 'right wing' and how we define 'liberalism' . You're right, it IS a semantic discussion, but clearly the implication is that liberalism is on par with being right wing. So, nonetheless, a semantic relabeling which is not devoid of consequences.
So I'm wondering, at what point do those two overlap (liberalism and right wing politics)? Is it the right to private property? Beyond that, what exactly makes liberalism 'right wing'?
I should have specified, i was talking about classical liberalism. Social liberals are center-left to left wing.
The way i see it, the barebones definition of right wing and left wing is that leftism supports minimization, or abolishment of hierarchy, and equality, both class and social. You don't have to be 100% of all these points to be left wing, just a degree of it.
The right wing believes that hierarchies are natural, and inevitable, or even desirable. They believe inequality is natural, due to social differences. Most of them believe that authority is good (not exclusive to right wing politics, there are authoritarian leftist ideologies) with libertarians and ancaps being an exception.
Classical liberals believe in free market, and generally have negative views on social services, taxes, and such.
Social liberals believe in a mixed economy, and favour social services, and believe in social justice (also class equality, but not a huge talking point for them). I think this makes them center, and at most, center-left (See social democracy or the nordic model). What makes them different than socialists and communists is that they are not quite radical in comparison to them, socialists desire to minimize wealth inequality (and inequality in general. politically, socially, etc) as much as possible.
Another point that you brought up is private property. I think this is also a defining factor on why I think liberals tend to be more right leaning.
You can still believe in markets, and be far left. Socialism, is when the workers own the means of production. It's a pretty barebones definition, which makes it possible to have free markets, AND socialism. See Mutualism, Market Socialism, and Titoism
I agree with all of this. However, and I could be wrong, my understanding of classic liberalism is that it was never directly opposed to regulation or social services. My initial understanding is that it's by necessity tied to free markets and private property.
But if it is then I'm learning something new.
Liberals are right wing
Case closed.
They are? i'm not sure where you live, but most of the world considers them to be right wing.
but most of the world considers them to be right wing.
Yep. I'm fiscally conservative, mildly sympathetic to people who fear and resist change, and fond of the pragmatic pursuit of libertarian ideals, where that's possible.
I also feel that how others do sex is none of my damn business, taxes supporting social services are necessary, and equitably applied rule of law is critical for any real economic prosperity.
On the scale of history, I suspect that makes me centrist or even a moderate conservative.
In my country, and today, somehow, astonishingly, this combination makes me what most would call very left leaning.
I feel that the right has gone insane and continues to alienate people who might otherwise have been allies.
In my country, and today, somehow, astonishingly, this combination makes me what most would call very left leaning.
Let me guess, the US? The only people i've ever heard call liberals something as BS as far-left communists are conservative americans. The overton window in america is so ridiculous it's hilarious.
No. Liberalism is against most things that the right wing of the political spectrum explicitly stands for. Liberalism exists as a counter argument to conservatism. As I mentioned earlier US political language has twisted and distorted what these words really mean.
Liberalism is against most things that the right wing of the political spectrum explicitly stands for
I'm assuming you're talking in a US perspective.
Leftism describes a spectrum of political ideologies that seeks to minimize hierarchies and desires to achieve equality and egalitarianism. Liberalism is a pro-capitalist ideology, and capitalism is hierarchial and is unequal. Thus, liberalism is right wing. Progressivism isn't related to right or left wing. You can be a communist but socially conservative. You can be fiscally conservative and be progressive. In the US, being left wing or right wing is mainly measured on how progressive, or if you support social programs (a little leftist, but still can be right wing, just center-right). Liberalism is right wing. Conservatism is far right.
No. I’m not talking from a US perspective. I’m talking from a political perspective. Liberalism is a moral and political philosophy - that is available in more than one flavour. Many things liberalism stands for are incompatible with right wing governments. Conservatism is far right? No, fascism is far right and there is an enormous difference between being conservative and being a fascist. Right and left are both part of a spectrum and run the whole gamut from dipping your toe in the water to being fully submerged. It’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
The whole left and right label is very ambiguous and hard for me to define. I agree liberalism is an umbrella term for a variety of political ideologies. I was mainly talking about classic liberalism, while it seems that you are talking about social liberalism. Social liberalism, at most, is center left. So is social democracy. I was mainly thinking about neoliberalism, and such.
Again, no. I was talking about John Locke and David Lloyd George type characters - to suggest that the last Liberal party prime minister of the UK was to the right of the political spectrum was an interesting take I’d never heard before.