There is also a dearth of cannibalistic viewpoints here. And Zoroastrians are woefully underrepresented.
I don’t come here to change my views (though it happens from time to time), and neither do they. I’m not ignorant of their thoughts; I’m inundated with them every day. I don’t need to interact with assholes here. I don’t want to come here and watch people scream back and forth at each other, and I definitely am not interested in participating—there is a reason I’ve left other social media.
You don’t have to subscribe to political communities if you don’t want to see political discussion. But the dearth of genuine political discussion here is a problem for the people who do want it, that can’t be fixed by individual action.
You don’t have to subscribe to political communities if you don’t want to see political discussion.
True but it seems like the majority of Lemmys like attaching anything and everything to something political. I saw some post about a squirrel or something, just chiling in the heat. Supposed to be cute. Immediately devolved into how fat the squirrel looked and how it must be a MAGA squirrel. Then the conversation just devolved into “cheeto man”(stupidist overused Lemmy term ever!) jokes over and over.
Also, Lemmy: why the fuck do you all think saying “cheeto man” is so hilarious? It’s something that 2nd graders would snicker at. Once. And you all say it over and over. WTF?! No wonder you all can’t get girlfriends.
Yeah this is something that has got way worse over time. It used to be that most forums would default to “no politics” and then there were discussion areas set aside for that. And now if you criticise someone for bringing politics into something where it doesn’t belong, you will get angry responses declaring that you’re burying your head in the sand. No, I just don’t want lowest-hanging-fruit political comments on every cat picture.
What is genuine political discussion? How do you moderate it? Who is going to come when it’s moderated? How do you deal with both legitimate and legitimate complaints about biased moderation?
I just don’t think it’s a thing on social media. I think it can happen in private conversations, but as soon as it becomes more about winning an argument or posturing for readers, I think any hope of earnest discourse is lost. The more public a conversation, the worse it is. It’s like trying to argue with a bully in front of their friends. You might be able to reach the humanity in them, but not in that moment.
It used to be, in the early days of mass social media (and it was widespread on forums)
Moderation isn’t easy but it also needn’t be fraught - set standards of civility (strict or loose) and basic rules about hate speech, and let people take themselves out of discussions that are within the rules that they nevertheless don’t like.
It works a lot better in small communities where you talk to the same people - you can ignore people you don’t like and not have the same conversation over and over.
There is also a dearth of cannibalistic viewpoints here. And Zoroastrians are woefully underrepresented.
I don’t come here to change my views (though it happens from time to time), and neither do they. I’m not ignorant of their thoughts; I’m inundated with them every day. I don’t need to interact with assholes here. I don’t want to come here and watch people scream back and forth at each other, and I definitely am not interested in participating—there is a reason I’ve left other social media.
Zoroastrians for the win. I never thought I’d see that word mentioned on here!
Saw a documentary on them ages ago and they’ve always stuck with me for some reason.
You don’t have to subscribe to political communities if you don’t want to see political discussion. But the dearth of genuine political discussion here is a problem for the people who do want it, that can’t be fixed by individual action.
True but it seems like the majority of Lemmys like attaching anything and everything to something political. I saw some post about a squirrel or something, just chiling in the heat. Supposed to be cute. Immediately devolved into how fat the squirrel looked and how it must be a MAGA squirrel. Then the conversation just devolved into “cheeto man”(stupidist overused Lemmy term ever!) jokes over and over.
Also, Lemmy: why the fuck do you all think saying “cheeto man” is so hilarious? It’s something that 2nd graders would snicker at. Once. And you all say it over and over. WTF?! No wonder you all can’t get girlfriends.
Yeah this is something that has got way worse over time. It used to be that most forums would default to “no politics” and then there were discussion areas set aside for that. And now if you criticise someone for bringing politics into something where it doesn’t belong, you will get angry responses declaring that you’re burying your head in the sand. No, I just don’t want lowest-hanging-fruit political comments on every cat picture.
What is genuine political discussion? How do you moderate it? Who is going to come when it’s moderated? How do you deal with both legitimate and legitimate complaints about biased moderation?
I just don’t think it’s a thing on social media. I think it can happen in private conversations, but as soon as it becomes more about winning an argument or posturing for readers, I think any hope of earnest discourse is lost. The more public a conversation, the worse it is. It’s like trying to argue with a bully in front of their friends. You might be able to reach the humanity in them, but not in that moment.
It used to be, in the early days of mass social media (and it was widespread on forums)
Moderation isn’t easy but it also needn’t be fraught - set standards of civility (strict or loose) and basic rules about hate speech, and let people take themselves out of discussions that are within the rules that they nevertheless don’t like.
It works a lot better in small communities where you talk to the same people - you can ignore people you don’t like and not have the same conversation over and over.