6 ms·

Moving the discourse further away from the light won't help cure the divide in this country. We need more discussion, not less. We need to get both sides talkin

Moving the discourse further away from the light won't help cure the divide in this country. We need more discussion, not less. We need to get both sides talking to each other not to themselves about each other.

ironman1478 6y ago
[deleted]
- zionic 6y ago
  Could you please delete this? Your post is playing into the right wing narrative that leftists == abused, also: Your username is 10 off of 1488, a nazi number (look it up)
  - ironman1478 6y ago
    I didn't know either of those things. Deleted.
    - zionic 6y ago
      My post was supposed to be over the top sarcastic, sorry for not including the /s
  - bladefire 6y ago
    Communists did far more destruction than fascists, I am sure you are as white as a dove. The oa 1) Freedom 2) War 3) Despotism 4) Monarchy Or Republic 5) democracy 6) fascism Or Socialism Or communism 7) Totalinarianism Or genocide
    - zionic 6y ago
      I should have included the /s, my bad. I thought the whole “10 off from a nazi number” part was obvious. I’m now kind of depressed it wasn’t.
malloreon 6y ago
you're making the incorrect assumption that both sides of the discourse have valid positions. 1. what is a non-racist person supposed to say to a racist person to change their views? 2. why is it the non-racist person's responsibility to talk to the racist person? in the words of office space, "why should I change? he's the one who sucks."
- metiscus 6y ago
  The 1960s and 1970s saw a reckoning in the USA that while not complete, did result in a number of people with substantially incorrect views eventually coming about to a more sensible position. Similar victories have been achieved with respect to drug legalization and "gay marriage". None of these victories are or ever will be complete but a combination of discussion and social pressure did make significant social progress possible.
- haram_masala 6y ago
  Let’s not assume that one “side” is racist and the other isn’t. It’s both wrong and unproductive.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    But racism isn't being attributed to any particular 'side' by that comment, which raises a valid question. Racists do exist in considerable numbers and post prolifically online, so what should non-racists say to people like that?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 6y ago
Do we? Most discussions in comment sections between people of different persuasions tend to be toxic and abusive these days. when moderators attempt to impose standards of civility there's a chorus of complaints about 'censorship'. There have to be limits to patience with bad-faith dialog, otherwise you're just enabling trolls and abusive people.
- metiscus 6y ago
  You and I probably have different political views and yet we are able to remain civil. Everyone in my neighborhood, every single neighbor, speaks different languages, has different cultural origins and most are of different races. We don't support the same candidates or policy positions but we do all support and look out for each other. I guess my point is, politeness even when there are significant disagreements is possible. We need to analyze the communications that do and don't work, find the similarities and patterns and encourage the beneficial ones while discouraging the negative ones.
bastawhiz 6y ago
> We need more discussion, not less. We need to get both sides talking to each other Parler heavily moderates away any non-right-wing content. There was never "both sides" on Parler. If it's actively being used to plan and execute acts of violence (arguably terrorism, given the death, bombs, and more that we've seen this week), how does keeping Parler around bring anyone together?
messick 6y ago
Can you spell Milo's last name without looking up? That's because no one has heard from the fucker since he got booted.
claudiawerner 6y ago
>We need more discussion, not less. Is there any reasoning for thinking this? Besides that, discussion cannot fix harms created by previous discussion - it can only (maybe) prevent future harms.

ironman1478 6y ago

[deleted]

zionic 6y ago
Could you please delete this? Your post is playing into the right wing narrative that leftists == abused, also: Your username is 10 off of 1488, a nazi number (look it up)
- ironman1478 6y ago
  I didn't know either of those things. Deleted.
  - zionic 6y ago
    My post was supposed to be over the top sarcastic, sorry for not including the /s
- bladefire 6y ago
  Communists did far more destruction than fascists, I am sure you are as white as a dove. The oa 1) Freedom 2) War 3) Despotism 4) Monarchy Or Republic 5) democracy 6) fascism Or Socialism Or communism 7) Totalinarianism Or genocide
  - zionic 6y ago
    I should have included the /s, my bad. I thought the whole “10 off from a nazi number” part was obvious. I’m now kind of depressed it wasn’t.

malloreon 6y ago

you're making the incorrect assumption that both sides of the discourse have valid positions. 1. what is a non-racist person supposed to say to a racist person to change their views? 2. why is it the non-racist person's responsibility to talk to the racist person? in the words of office space, "why should I change? he's the one who sucks."

metiscus 6y ago
The 1960s and 1970s saw a reckoning in the USA that while not complete, did result in a number of people with substantially incorrect views eventually coming about to a more sensible position. Similar victories have been achieved with respect to drug legalization and "gay marriage". None of these victories are or ever will be complete but a combination of discussion and social pressure did make significant social progress possible.
haram_masala 6y ago
Let’s not assume that one “side” is racist and the other isn’t. It’s both wrong and unproductive.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  But racism isn't being attributed to any particular 'side' by that comment, which raises a valid question. Racists do exist in considerable numbers and post prolifically online, so what should non-racists say to people like that?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 6y ago

Do we? Most discussions in comment sections between people of different persuasions tend to be toxic and abusive these days. when moderators attempt to impose standards of civility there's a chorus of complaints about 'censorship'. There have to be limits to patience with bad-faith dialog, otherwise you're just enabling trolls and abusive people.

metiscus 6y ago
You and I probably have different political views and yet we are able to remain civil. Everyone in my neighborhood, every single neighbor, speaks different languages, has different cultural origins and most are of different races. We don't support the same candidates or policy positions but we do all support and look out for each other. I guess my point is, politeness even when there are significant disagreements is possible. We need to analyze the communications that do and don't work, find the similarities and patterns and encourage the beneficial ones while discouraging the negative ones.

bastawhiz 6y ago

> We need more discussion, not less. We need to get both sides talking to each other Parler heavily moderates away any non-right-wing content. There was never "both sides" on Parler. If it's actively being used to plan and execute acts of violence (arguably terrorism, given the death, bombs, and more that we've seen this week), how does keeping Parler around bring anyone together?

messick 6y ago

Can you spell Milo's last name without looking up? That's because no one has heard from the fucker since he got booted.

claudiawerner 6y ago

>We need more discussion, not less. Is there any reasoning for thinking this? Besides that, discussion cannot fix harms created by previous discussion - it can only (maybe) prevent future harms.