4 ms·

Just to be clear: in some drama about one year ago the moderation team considered that people could be banned solely based on their political opinions if those

Just to be clear: in some drama about one year ago the moderation team considered that people could be banned solely based on their political opinions if those happened to be right-wing / MAGA / anti-wokism. Then the drama extended because people, even if they weren't right-wing/MAGA/anti-wokism had to agree with the moderators' political opinions. So when TFA writes this: > apparently trying to address perceptions of political bias by making political appointments What they really mean is: "We went so far left our brains left our bodies and we now consider anyone to the right of Stalin to be a nazi".

k__ 1y ago
[flagged]
- zb3 1y ago
  Which intolerance is the "root" intolerance? For me it's not specified and can't be, so both sides use this argument and it means nothing.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Some people just don't seem to understand that 1. Everything is political To "understand" this, it would have to be correct.
  - TehCorwiz 1y ago
    The organization of the government and its actions touch literally your entire life. From childhood nutrition to your job prospects and life expectancy.
    - zahlman 1y ago
      That is completely irrelevant to the point.
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    I used to have a pretty big problem with this claim myself; I'd vehemently reject it for reasons I wasn't entirely certain of. Then I read a comment on here a while ago, something along the lines of "children have political opinions too". It was so utterly absurd, it broke something in me. One thing lead to another, and now I no longer reject the claim vehemently. I reject it trivially. It isn't that it's not correct. It is correct, it's just also stupid. I found that the fundamental anchor of it is that people do not directly observe reality - they interpret it through their senses, so nothing can be truly known. So far, fairly uncontroversial, if a little philosophical [0]. But that means all we have is experiences and opinions about those experiences. Mix this with politics just being a group's opinion, and the fact that there's more than two people alive - what you get is that every opinion can be now considered a political opinion, and since all we have is opinions, "everything" is a political opinion, so "everything" is political [1]. I then find this stupid because it hard-misses the point of the colloquial usage of the word. By being overly universal, it functions either as just a useless segmentation, or as a pointless exercise in pedantry, a rhetorical sleight of hand. It also deals in a good amount of mind-reading, where those considering something a political opinion, rather than just a personal opinion, pretty much implicitly accuse the other person of groupthink, which is a really quite cheap accusation to make with no real argumentational benefit. But maybe this is one of those rare cases where this definition does have its utility. Let's see. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism [1] Except of course the matters of mathematical logic, which by virtue of being inherently axiomatic systems, once again walk away unscathed.
    - mongol 1y ago
      Very well put
    - Akronymus 1y ago
      > It isn't that it's not correct. It is correct, it's just also stupid. I found that the fundamental anchor of it is that people do not directly observe reality - they interpret it through their senses, so nothing can be truly known. So far, fairly uncontroversial, if a little philosophical [0]. It also fundamentally rejects there being an objective reality, which also rejects the possibility of disagreeing on something but still believing common ground to be possible to be found. Which I personally see as one of the biggest reasons why people become less and less willing to allow differing opinions to exist at all. And in regards to everything being political: Politics certainly informs a lot of stuff in how you perceive the world. But most things aren't political statements, unless you make it so. And I really don't enjoy interacting with people who make any one thing their whole personality, and that includes politics.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  They also don't understand that everyone who disagrees with me is trying to eradicate me and people like me from existence, and is also racist (although we are both white and upper-middle class.) /s
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
zahlman 1y ago
I vouched for this comment, but perhaps you could please phrase the last point more gently.
perching_aix 1y ago
> anti-wokism Is that being up in arms about the usage of woks? I always knew it was a fairly controversial piece of kitchen equipment, but this is a concerning development.

k__ 1y ago

[flagged]

zb3 1y ago
Which intolerance is the "root" intolerance? For me it's not specified and can't be, so both sides use this argument and it means nothing.
zahlman 1y ago
> Some people just don't seem to understand that 1. Everything is political To "understand" this, it would have to be correct.
- TehCorwiz 1y ago
  The organization of the government and its actions touch literally your entire life. From childhood nutrition to your job prospects and life expectancy.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    That is completely irrelevant to the point.
- perching_aix 1y ago
  I used to have a pretty big problem with this claim myself; I'd vehemently reject it for reasons I wasn't entirely certain of. Then I read a comment on here a while ago, something along the lines of "children have political opinions too". It was so utterly absurd, it broke something in me. One thing lead to another, and now I no longer reject the claim vehemently. I reject it trivially. It isn't that it's not correct. It is correct, it's just also stupid. I found that the fundamental anchor of it is that people do not directly observe reality - they interpret it through their senses, so nothing can be truly known. So far, fairly uncontroversial, if a little philosophical [0]. But that means all we have is experiences and opinions about those experiences. Mix this with politics just being a group's opinion, and the fact that there's more than two people alive - what you get is that every opinion can be now considered a political opinion, and since all we have is opinions, "everything" is a political opinion, so "everything" is political [1]. I then find this stupid because it hard-misses the point of the colloquial usage of the word. By being overly universal, it functions either as just a useless segmentation, or as a pointless exercise in pedantry, a rhetorical sleight of hand. It also deals in a good amount of mind-reading, where those considering something a political opinion, rather than just a personal opinion, pretty much implicitly accuse the other person of groupthink, which is a really quite cheap accusation to make with no real argumentational benefit. But maybe this is one of those rare cases where this definition does have its utility. Let's see. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism [1] Except of course the matters of mathematical logic, which by virtue of being inherently axiomatic systems, once again walk away unscathed.
  - mongol 1y ago
    Very well put
  - Akronymus 1y ago
    > It isn't that it's not correct. It is correct, it's just also stupid. I found that the fundamental anchor of it is that people do not directly observe reality - they interpret it through their senses, so nothing can be truly known. So far, fairly uncontroversial, if a little philosophical [0]. It also fundamentally rejects there being an objective reality, which also rejects the possibility of disagreeing on something but still believing common ground to be possible to be found. Which I personally see as one of the biggest reasons why people become less and less willing to allow differing opinions to exist at all. And in regards to everything being political: Politics certainly informs a lot of stuff in how you perceive the world. But most things aren't political statements, unless you make it so. And I really don't enjoy interacting with people who make any one thing their whole personality, and that includes politics.
pessimizer 1y ago
They also don't understand that everyone who disagrees with me is trying to eradicate me and people like me from existence, and is also racist (although we are both white and upper-middle class.) /s
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

zahlman 1y ago

I vouched for this comment, but perhaps you could please phrase the last point more gently.

perching_aix 1y ago

> anti-wokism Is that being up in arms about the usage of woks? I always knew it was a fairly controversial piece of kitchen equipment, but this is a concerning development.