8 ms·

> NOT an alt-right hive. Lemmy is the only alternative I have seen so far that has learned from the failures of Voat. But the userbase is tiny, and smaller th

> NOT an alt-right hive. Lemmy is the only alternative I have seen so far that has learned from the failures of Voat. But the userbase is tiny, and smaller than even niche subreddits.

ranger_danger 3y ago
Lemmy is openly politically hostile: https://0x0.st/HbDc.jpg https://0x0.st/HbDc.jpg Also there are some people who detest it based on the fact that it is written in Rust.
- wwfredrogersdo 3y ago
  If you think having slurs filtered is “politically hostile” you and I have a different idea of what political discourse is.
- 7jjjjjjj 3y ago
  Based.
- Daeraxa 3y ago
  Oh no! Anyway...
- tomstockmail 3y ago
  They removed that filter a long time ago, so "never" didn't quite stick. You took a screenshot of an issue from 2020.
- krapp 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Mezzie 3y ago
    Oh no, not degeneracy. But seriously, that's a giant slippery slope and anyone claiming to be on the left should see that. (Unless you're an authoritarian leftist who's for economic centralization but socially conservative). Speaking as somebody who remembers when my existence was considered 'degenerate', I'm wary of any attempts to put degeneracy on the same level as hate speech.
    - krapp 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - Mezzie 3y ago
        [flagged]
        hayst4ck 3y ago
        I think your heart is in the right place, but I also think you fail to see that might makes right. You can only win when those with liberal (in the social contract sense) beliefs have might, when liberals can credibly provide consequences for conservative attempts at dominance. I think you understand this on a subconscious level. Syndicalism (feel free to correct me, I am probably ignorant here) is an ideology that laborers should collectively bargain as a show of force or political violence. You don't unionize to reach "consensus." Syndicalism is consistent with the 2nd amendment. If you don't have a strong belief of the 2nd amendment and a good idea who the 2nd amendment is to be used against, you probably have a contradiction within your belief system. Anarchism is a politically immature ideology that is self-contradictory in the same way that communism and libertarianism are. Anarchism has no answer to a foreign invader or a genocidal next door neighbor. Anarchism is a contradictory ideology at a philosophical level. Anarchism denies institutions. Ukrainians did not get to decide whether they were at war. War was thrust upon them. Trans people don't get to decide whether they are at war with American conservatives or not. American conservatives have already declared that war. I don't take issue with anti-trans viewpoints being called degenerate. I don't take issue with calling federalist society court packing degenerate. I don't take issue with calling Clarence Thomas degenerate for saying "this is a lynching" in response to sexual abuse allegations against him. I don't take issue with the catholic polity protecting their priests from consequences being called degeneracy. I don't take issue with calling people who force rape victims into giving birth degenerates. Your post, on a philosophical level, amounts to the idea that in the game of prisoners dilemma, one should always cooperate. You shouldn't do unto others what you wouldn't want done to you. You shouldn't have rules for others, that you aren't bound to yourself. This is the paradox of tolerance. "If I do not cooperate, I cannot expect someone to cooperate with me." That's true and seems like quite the paradox. However the social contract of tolerance says "If someone does not cooperate with me, then I must not cooperate with them." It's important to understand that in the game of prisoners dilemma, if you let defection be a winning strategy, you will create more people with a strategy of defection. So if you have a rule of "violence is bad," but someone uses violence against you, is it a "rules for thee but not for me" situation to want to use violence back? If you have "rules for us," and someone violates them, how do you propose dealing with that? I would encourage you to play this game and mediate on the consequences of it for your political belief system: https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ > These approaches suggest that whomever is making those calls has figured out the 'one true value system' and if we all just adhere to that system, it'll be sunshine and roses. I think you believe in speaking truth to power (which is respectable and important), but I think you are mis-applying it. > how much choice does someone born in Iran have about being Muslim? How much choice did a 1930s German have in terms of becoming a Nazi? Does it matter that much once the furnaces are loaded? Are you trying to argue that a Muslim decapitating a woman for getting raped is an innate quality? I think you believe in speaking truth to power, but I'm not sure you believe in the idea of objective truth. Without objective truth how can truth be spoken to power? I think you would find Timothy Snyder to be a very interesting speaker who you agree with on a values level, but will alter the way you think about things by questioning the frame through which you analyze things. His readings of "On Tyranny" is probably a good place to start (this is lesson 10: believe in truth): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdHkkfB_7X0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdHkkfB_7X0
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    Neutrality means supporting whoever has more power to dominate. Neutrality means support for injustice because the cost of enforcing justice is too high.
    - xigoi 3y ago
      There's a lot of conflicts in the world. I bet you're neutral on many of them (because you don't even know them). Does that mean you actively support the winning side?
      - hayst4ck 3y ago
        I think that is weirdly pedantic and an abuse of the word neutrality. Would it help if I said "taking a position of neutrality implicitly supports the more powerful and therefore neutrality supports oppression?"
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  Liberalism is an ideology that contradictions are wrong. Conservatism is an ideology that authority is right. These are core axioms that define belief systems. This manifests itself as liberal spectrum people having to adjust their beliefs with new information, while conservative spectrum people mold new information by their currently existing beliefs. That's pretty black and white, and the truth is much more grey, but if you take this as a model for political conversation, I don't think you'll be disappointed very often. Someone who thinks their priest is the ultimate arbiter of truth will never be able to come to terms with someone who sees contradictions as the ultimate arbiter of truth. So it's not that it's politically hostile so much as an enforcement of a core axiom of how truth is arrived at and how disputes are resolved -- in particular that contradictions are wrong. "We aren't going to tolerate conservatism where truth comes from priests and godkings or some ecclesiastic structure" seems fine, if not appealing to me. Liberalism is a walled garden ideology, and conservatives frequently want to enjoy the garden, despite littering the garden with their efforts to dominate rather than reach consensus. So "politically hostile" while it sounds like a negative isn't. I mean I am politically hostile towards nazis, rashists, and tankies and don't really want to share a forum with them. American conservatives and "y'all qaeda" in particular are rapidly approaching these ultimately fascist and authoritarian political movements.
  - xigoi 3y ago
    Yeah, liberals never stick to dogmatic beliefs. That's why they all insisted that Johnny Depp was the abuser because he's a man.

> NOT an alt-right hive. Lemmy is the only alternative I have seen so far that has learned from the failures of Voat. But the userbase is tiny, and smaller than even niche subreddits.

ranger_danger 3y ago

Lemmy is openly politically hostile: https://0x0.st/HbDc.jpg https://0x0.st/HbDc.jpg Also there are some people who detest it based on the fact that it is written in Rust.

wwfredrogersdo 3y ago
If you think having slurs filtered is “politically hostile” you and I have a different idea of what political discourse is.
7jjjjjjj 3y ago
Based.
Daeraxa 3y ago
Oh no! Anyway...
tomstockmail 3y ago
They removed that filter a long time ago, so "never" didn't quite stick. You took a screenshot of an issue from 2020.
krapp 3y ago
[flagged]
- Mezzie 3y ago
  Oh no, not degeneracy. But seriously, that's a giant slippery slope and anyone claiming to be on the left should see that. (Unless you're an authoritarian leftist who's for economic centralization but socially conservative). Speaking as somebody who remembers when my existence was considered 'degenerate', I'm wary of any attempts to put degeneracy on the same level as hate speech.
  - krapp 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Mezzie 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - hayst4ck 3y ago
        I think your heart is in the right place, but I also think you fail to see that might makes right. You can only win when those with liberal (in the social contract sense) beliefs have might, when liberals can credibly provide consequences for conservative attempts at dominance. I think you understand this on a subconscious level. Syndicalism (feel free to correct me, I am probably ignorant here) is an ideology that laborers should collectively bargain as a show of force or political violence. You don't unionize to reach "consensus." Syndicalism is consistent with the 2nd amendment. If you don't have a strong belief of the 2nd amendment and a good idea who the 2nd amendment is to be used against, you probably have a contradiction within your belief system. Anarchism is a politically immature ideology that is self-contradictory in the same way that communism and libertarianism are. Anarchism has no answer to a foreign invader or a genocidal next door neighbor. Anarchism is a contradictory ideology at a philosophical level. Anarchism denies institutions. Ukrainians did not get to decide whether they were at war. War was thrust upon them. Trans people don't get to decide whether they are at war with American conservatives or not. American conservatives have already declared that war. I don't take issue with anti-trans viewpoints being called degenerate. I don't take issue with calling federalist society court packing degenerate. I don't take issue with calling Clarence Thomas degenerate for saying "this is a lynching" in response to sexual abuse allegations against him. I don't take issue with the catholic polity protecting their priests from consequences being called degeneracy. I don't take issue with calling people who force rape victims into giving birth degenerates. Your post, on a philosophical level, amounts to the idea that in the game of prisoners dilemma, one should always cooperate. You shouldn't do unto others what you wouldn't want done to you. You shouldn't have rules for others, that you aren't bound to yourself. This is the paradox of tolerance. "If I do not cooperate, I cannot expect someone to cooperate with me." That's true and seems like quite the paradox. However the social contract of tolerance says "If someone does not cooperate with me, then I must not cooperate with them." It's important to understand that in the game of prisoners dilemma, if you let defection be a winning strategy, you will create more people with a strategy of defection. So if you have a rule of "violence is bad," but someone uses violence against you, is it a "rules for thee but not for me" situation to want to use violence back? If you have "rules for us," and someone violates them, how do you propose dealing with that? I would encourage you to play this game and mediate on the consequences of it for your political belief system: https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ > These approaches suggest that whomever is making those calls has figured out the 'one true value system' and if we all just adhere to that system, it'll be sunshine and roses. I think you believe in speaking truth to power (which is respectable and important), but I think you are mis-applying it. > how much choice does someone born in Iran have about being Muslim? How much choice did a 1930s German have in terms of becoming a Nazi? Does it matter that much once the furnaces are loaded? Are you trying to argue that a Muslim decapitating a woman for getting raped is an innate quality? I think you believe in speaking truth to power, but I'm not sure you believe in the idea of objective truth. Without objective truth how can truth be spoken to power? I think you would find Timothy Snyder to be a very interesting speaker who you agree with on a values level, but will alter the way you think about things by questioning the frame through which you analyze things. His readings of "On Tyranny" is probably a good place to start (this is lesson 10: believe in truth): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdHkkfB_7X0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdHkkfB_7X0
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  Neutrality means supporting whoever has more power to dominate. Neutrality means support for injustice because the cost of enforcing justice is too high.
  - xigoi 3y ago
    There's a lot of conflicts in the world. I bet you're neutral on many of them (because you don't even know them). Does that mean you actively support the winning side?
    - hayst4ck 3y ago
      I think that is weirdly pedantic and an abuse of the word neutrality. Would it help if I said "taking a position of neutrality implicitly supports the more powerful and therefore neutrality supports oppression?"
hayst4ck 3y ago
Liberalism is an ideology that contradictions are wrong. Conservatism is an ideology that authority is right. These are core axioms that define belief systems. This manifests itself as liberal spectrum people having to adjust their beliefs with new information, while conservative spectrum people mold new information by their currently existing beliefs. That's pretty black and white, and the truth is much more grey, but if you take this as a model for political conversation, I don't think you'll be disappointed very often. Someone who thinks their priest is the ultimate arbiter of truth will never be able to come to terms with someone who sees contradictions as the ultimate arbiter of truth. So it's not that it's politically hostile so much as an enforcement of a core axiom of how truth is arrived at and how disputes are resolved -- in particular that contradictions are wrong. "We aren't going to tolerate conservatism where truth comes from priests and godkings or some ecclesiastic structure" seems fine, if not appealing to me. Liberalism is a walled garden ideology, and conservatives frequently want to enjoy the garden, despite littering the garden with their efforts to dominate rather than reach consensus. So "politically hostile" while it sounds like a negative isn't. I mean I am politically hostile towards nazis, rashists, and tankies and don't really want to share a forum with them. American conservatives and "y'all qaeda" in particular are rapidly approaching these ultimately fascist and authoritarian political movements.
- xigoi 3y ago
  Yeah, liberals never stick to dogmatic beliefs. That's why they all insisted that Johnny Depp was the abuser because he's a man.