Is there a more politically and ideologically diverse alternative for Lemmy?
I know the real answer is reddit but I really don’t want to go back now that I’ve already grown used to life without it. I was hoping for Lemmy to be a viable substitute but it isn’t. I can see how this place is wonderful for the certain type of person but that person is not me. My experience during the past 6+ months has been a net negative and I’m pretty much ready to move on. I just don’t know where else to go.
I’m sure this will come if the wrong way but if you’re genuinely concerned about discovering diversity of thought, you’re going to have to tell us what your positions are for example.
I’m all for finding diversity, but so often what people who post these are looking for is an echo chamber. Like if you’re really wanting to be challenged, and you’re a conservative, go to socialistworker.org and read up.
But if what you’re concerned about is the nerds in Lemmy seem to be left leaning, that’s just the nature of smart creative people. We value skills and creativity over hierarchy and structure.
You don’t need to know their views to know what a diverse community is. Lemmy is a heavily-biaseebiased echochamber, they want something that’s not a heavily-biased echochamber.
Yes, kinda. It’s a go-to for white nationalist types to complain about a lack of diversity in opinions when they really mean they’re mad everyone hates bigotry. They feel that all conversation is biased simply because the people don’t seem to want to be haters as much as they are. So it’s not really that they want more diversity, it’s that they want the conversations to be diverse enough to accept their views.
The amount of tankies and idiots with idiotic opinions is way to high on here. And in general I realy get what they are saying. Other platforms with a bigger user base don’t have that big of a problem with diversity. It bothered me too, it seems like the whole of lemmy has a very idiotic position on a lot of things and saying anything that is even in the slightest against that gets you down voted. That is something that sadly developed over time. In the early days everyone was way more friendly and less radical people were on here.
that’s just the nature of smart creative people
Well. No. Say that to yourself, but ideology and belive is a lot more complex than: I am smart, so I am left. Your believes mostly stem from influences in your childhood, like parents, friends, people you trust. It’s dangerous to lift yourself above others with different believes.
Like if you’re really wanting to be challenged, and you’re a conservative, go to socialistworker.org and read up.
The problem is that a socialist worker doesn’t realy have a place to go to challenge their own opinion. Lemmy sadly has gone the way of an eco chamber. And for political discourse you need other people that have an opinion like yours that support you in your arguments. Currently it’s more like “this guy has a bad opinion, downvote him to hell”
It’s not enough for me to leave, because in general I realy like it here and with enough comunitys blocked it has become bearable.
“America does bad things, so I should support china/russia instead!”
“Stalin/mao were (anything besides utterly reprehensible dictators)”
“Communism could’ve worked if-“
Honorable mention to thinking this coy “I’m going to act all hyper respectful and yet also like I know more than anyone about anything” bullshit gets you anywhere.
There’s a bunch of very active non-ml users that always turn any political discussion to “both sides are terrible, don’t vote for genocide”.
Once you start recognizing names (or blocking), it gets less depressing. But it does feel like there are a lot more fascist enablers in the political communities than there really are, just because of how fervent those few users are.
One of my favorite features of the Boost app is they allow you to tag a username with whatever label you want. It really helps to highlight the users that regularly argue in bad faith, troll, etc.
Though to be honest, tankies spouting #1 and #2 get heavily downvoted. I don’t even see them anymore, guess my instance defederated them, but they were never strong positions here.
Perhaps it’s the defederation, but my experience here does not resemble yours.
They’re mask off on hexbear/lemmygrad, they try to be subversive on lemmy.ml. I have in fact instance blocked the first two, you can usually dodge them on .ml. Lemmy is far less enjoyable if you have not blocked them.
Commune-ism sounds like a lovely idea on a small scale, you gotta solve a lot of political problems to make it work on anything bigger. Social democracies like the scandinavians seem to be the best way we currently know to run a humanitarian society.
That’s neither exclusive to communism nor has it been achieved in most purportedly communist states (I hear Vietnam’s actually been having a good run of things but I can’t speak to specifics).
“Socialism will transition to communism” is just a communism thing. Social democracy is different. It doesn’t involve communism. Because communism is cringe.
Communism isn’t cringe, wtf are you talking about. And yes, if we want to discuss communism, we need to take into account that it was suggested to start with socialism beforehand.
Social democracy has jack all to do with socialism, if we want to keep being pedantic. And social democracy does not fare all that well in poorer countries, even after massive EU funds. Which is the real cringe.
That is not an unthinkable scenario. The universe is so vast yet there is no sign of life anywhere else. Why? Perhaps intelligent life simply isn’t intelligent enough and they always end up destroying themselves. A so called “great filter”. Is it behind us or ahead? Who knows.
Right now I don’t see how our current society can survive. We are doing nothing at all to stop burning fossil fuels (renewables go up, but so does fossil burning), the richest find more and more absurd ways to waste energy (bitcoin, LLMs), everywhere more and more people go poor even in developed nations (prices skyrocketing, mainly food and rent), and we are just starting to see that climate is starting to change, and not to our optimistic scenarios.
For me it’s more about the political climate. I don’t see the actual climate change as an existential threat to the human race in a way something like nuclear war, a pandemic, asteroid or AI could be. It’s bad but it’s not that bad. I never really understood why so many seem to think this way when I don’t even hear scientists making such apocalyptic claims.
Maybe I understood the situation too bleakly, but my impression was, that we are losing topsoil (used to grow almost all our food), biodiversity is plummeting (which can trigger chain reaction of massive die-offs), the ice is melting (blue ocean event, likely irreversible) causing billions of people to lose their homes, and depleting aquifies (drinking water). Hotter climate will cause runaway effects, that will multiply all of this, which could lead to decimating most of life in the oceans (food for majority of people), meaning more hungry people inland, politically already unstable, now without soil, water, and getting severe droughts and much more acidic rain. There are possibilities of new diseases appearing from the thawing permafrost, as well as newly mutated ones.
Everything will be made worse by the current trends in politics, but I suspect those politics are trending because some people are aware where are we heading.
Much of those things will to some extent surely happen but despite it still being really bad, it’s still not going to make us go extinct. That atleast is my current understanding of it. The worst case scenario rarely actually happens and given enough motivation we humans are pretty good at problem solving aswell. I have a strong feeling, that if we’re going to end ourselves, it’s going to more or less be an accident and will happen rather quickly. I still tend to be (techno)optimist about it. It’s all I’ve got.
Complete wipe? Certainly not. Reverting our society in standards of living and numbers? Heavily and quickly. People as a species may survive, but will pale in comparison to what we as a society are and can do now. Unless we get cheap fusion power distributed all over the world in the next 20 years, we are gone.
I don’t see the actual climate change as an existential threat to the human race in a way something like nuclear war, a pandemic, asteroid or AI could be. It’s bad but it’s not that bad.
Beyond that threshold, scientists have found, climate disasters will become so extreme that people will not be able to adapt. Basic components of the Earth system will be fundamentally, irrevocably altered.
The report reveals thresholds in how much warming people and ecosystems can adapt to. Some are “soft” limits — determined by shortcomings in political and social systems. For example, a low-income community that can’t afford to build flood controls faces soft limits to dealing with sea level rise.
But beyond 1.5 degrees of warming, the IPCC says, humanity will run up against “hard limits” to adaptation. Temperatures will get too high to grow many staple crops. Droughts will become so severe that even the strongest water conservation measures can’t compensate. In a world that has warmed roughly 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) — where humanity appears to be headed — the harsh physical realities of climate change will be deadly for countless plants, animals and people
Nothing in your post indicates an existential threat. Sure some places will become unhabitable but not the entire earth. I also don’t understand why you need to include the passive agressive ad-hominems and belittling tone instead of just making your point. People like you is why I’m considering leaving this platform. You make the experience worse for everyone.
Because you’re a willfully ignorant dolt, that’s why the tone.
People like you is why I’m considering leaving this platform.
Good.
People like you make the world worse for everyone.
So you think AI is more of an existential threat to humanity than climate change? This informs me that you really think some Skynet type of shit is more likely to happen than extreme weather phenomena. Do you know what an ice-age is? Do you have any idea what it means when we don’t have enough water to grow crops? You think Alexa will hunt you down because you programmed it poorly, but you can’t understand why a category 4 hurricane is deadly af.
Please, the faster you leave, the better. Head to Wikipedia to get rid of some of that ignorance. Here’s a few bit of material to get you started.
Perhaps you’re more of a… ehm “visual learner”. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change#/media/File:20200118_Global_warming_and_climate_change_-_vertical_block_diagram_-_causes_effects_feedback.svg and here’s some examples in a video form Europe’s climate in 2050
There’s a reason the deserts of our world aren’t populated, and I’m sure you can figure out what that reason is.
“I don’t see an existential threat in permanently and majorly fucking up the only known world to support life” - You
I’ve seen a LOT of strawman attacks. It usually seems to be honest miscommunication, but underneath that… It looks like predisposition to combative and somewhat-dismissive hot takes.
And it works. Certain members have swung entire conversations and down votes by implying a person said something they didn’t.
It’s not unique to online fora, but the concentration seems off here.
Some of this just looks like people feeling like big fish in this small pond and finding a degree of confidence or even righteousness from the voting patterns.
The amount of tankies and idiots with idiotic opinions is way to high on here.
On an internet site?! I’m shocked! Shocked!
I mostly sign jokes and shitposting communities, but the people there are surprisingly calm and diverse. I mean, surprisingly for an internet community; most could pass just as a very weird group in another context.
But if you go signing for politics communities on the internet, you’ll get the expected result.
I like hearing both sides of every argument even when I don’t agree with it. On reddit I could read the top comments first and then sort by controversial to hear the opposing arguements. Here I can’t do that. There usually are no opposing arguments or if there is they’re made in bad faith. It’s almost like I need to choose a team and then subscribe to the ideologies of that team when in reality I’m more of a pick and choose type of person.
you’re going to have to tell us what your positions are for example
There are very few “positions” I hold. When it comes to most subjects I’m not informed enough to form strong opinions so I generally float somewhere in between. For most hot topics I see on Lemmy every day I can usually make good arguments for both ways. I may lean to one side or another but I’m often just a few well written comments away from tipping to the other direction.
I think some mods are a bit too happy to use their mod tools. I’ve seen opinions get moderated away because they anger people, not because they are wrong.
A mature society is able to discuss things without banning opinions they don’t agree with.
Most users actually wants Lemmy.world to have harch moderation, because they don’t want to be exposed to things that upset them.
I think it’s always like that. The big popular platforms are always heavily moderated. And most people are happy with it.
There are always smaller alternatives for others who feel comfortable reading things we don’t agree with sometimes in exchange for nobody controlling the feed.
I’m a bit in between. There is a Swedish site called Flashback that is really good for finding out what actually happens. The media often gives one view and leaves out many details, and it’s very fun to go read what actually happened on flashback afterwards.
I haven’t really seen that … maybe I’m just in a way “biased” because I do have some comments that meet the “your opinion is clearly highly controversial in this room” threshold but I generally keep my composure.
There are definitely a few times where the other person has made it personal and it’s been difficult to not retaliate in kind.
you’re going to have to tell us what your positions are for example
There are very few “positions” I hold.
The “positions” term is usually a shorthand for the eventual distillation of your values. If you haven’t arrived yet at your positions, have you examined on your values? Values are usually far more primitive in the sense they don’t conform exactly to specific public policy, but there is usually public policy that encompasses specific values.
While its certainly possible for a person’s values to change over time. We usually arrive at what most our values are in our 20s. These are things such as:
Your belief in the value of life; Your own vs everyone else’s in society, in the world.
Your adoption or rejection on any specific religion or faith
Where you decide the right balance is between individualism vs collectivism
Your belief in personal responsibility and autonomy vs societal responsibility and obligation
I believe it is very important for each of us to examine who we are, what our values are, and then use our intellect to decide/craft which positions can be arrived at with guidance from our values.
When it comes to most subjects I’m not informed enough to form strong opinions so I generally float somewhere in between. For most hot topics I see on Lemmy every day I can usually make good arguments for both ways. I may lean to one side or another but I’m often just a few well written comments away from tipping to the other direction.
This is where your responsibility comes in. If you’re not informed enough, become so. Listen critically to arguments, don’t simply accept on face value what other proclaim is true. If you’re hearing a logical argument that seems to contradict your understanding, yet aligns with your values, challenge yourself to explore it. The phrase “steel sharpens steel” applies here. If you have healthy and strongly defined personal values, the arguments of your positions should be equally strong and stand up to scrutiny. If your positions are found faulty by your own examination, adopt all or elements of the argument that knocked your position down because its is the right one for your values and ability to critically apply logic with all the information you have available.
You made other statements about choosing a side, but realistically it isn’t just two sides. Its dozens or hundreds of nuanced views, and every single one could be flawed in some way, or incomplete. Accept that in many situations there isn’t a “right” answer. All sides represented could be wrong and the best you can do is admit this choose the least worse. This constant reexamination and frustration is both the beauty and the horror of being human.
Accept that in many situations there isn’t a “right” answer.
This is pretty much the essence of what I was trying to say there. The more you study a subject the more you realize how much nuance there is to everything so it’s near impossible to land on any clear conclusion on what to think about it. People often act as if it’s all black and white but it almost never is. Even in cases such as the war in Ukraine where it’s a pretty clear which side is the good and which is the bad one you should still be allowed to examine the alternative perspective too to better understand the “enemy” as well as realize that the good side isn’t wihout a fault either and critizicing them doesn’t automatically make you a Russian troll.
The more you study a subject the more you realize how much nuance there is to everything so it’s near impossible to land on any clear conclusion on what to think about it.
Take this just one step further: Understand that indecision, is a decision. That inaction, is an action.
On every topic, you can’t just look at all the arguments and say “none of these are good enough, I select none” forever. By choosing to opt out forever, you allow the voices and actions of those you disagree with to stand in your place. In these situations where there are no good choices, is where you must eventually make a choice (at least for now), and that choice isn’t going to be the best because there isn’t a best choice. Its going to be the least-worse. This is why its so critical to have explored yourself to decide what values you hold. They are your guideposts to how you evaluate and arrive at what path you choose forward.
Keep looking for better, but don’t let that paralyze you to the point of indecision and inaction.
I think OP would be good to watch the first season of the Good Place. There is a character on there that is obsessed with making the correct decision and argues so much with himself and others over every tiny nuance that could shift the balance that he never acts on anything at all unless forced.
As you said, fence sitting is in an of itself an action, almost always to the detriment of the topic at hand.
Very few subjects are the kind of where one absolutely has to pick a side. That’s kind of like saying you can’t just enjoy football but you have to choose a team to support to. No I don’t.
Just because one thing is slighly better than the alternative that doesn’t mean I’m all for that one thing then. Israel - Hamas conflict is a good example. I don’t support either side and the more I study the subject the more confusing it gets.
First, I said you can’t be inactive/indecisive forever, that is, if you want your values reflected in the world. If you’re content to having the world be whatever someone else decides for you, then I suppose you can, but that in itself is a choice.
Very few subjects are the kind of where one absolutely has to pick a side. That’s kind of like saying you can’t just enjoy football but you have to choose a team to support to. No I don’t.
I’m talking about subjects where you have an opinion for a preference. When you’re a passive watcher of football, there is no outcome that will be against your values. You have no effort to impart with watching football that will affect its outcome.
Just because one thing is slighly better than the alternative that doesn’t mean I’m all for that one thing then.
Of course not, but to affect change you may need to accept a chunk of negative with your path to get a larger chunk of positive. Again, there’s no “best” solution, only least worst.
Israel - Hamas conflict is a good example. I don’t support either side and the more I study the subject the more confusing it gets.
Its a great example! There are zero good choices here. I’m in a similar position, however what I have concluded is our inaction (yours and mine) is causing the continued deaths of the civilians of Gaza. I value the lives. The most number of lives of the civilians that are the most risk right now are those of Gaza. So I have to ask myself, what can I do to preserve as much of civilians of Gaza? It gets even more complicated in the USA where I can advocate to my representatives for support for civilians of Gaza and try to stop the continued flow of US weapons causing the harm. However, our current politics are tying military support to Taiwan (which I support), Israel (which I do not support anymore), and Ukraine (which I do support) all as one package. To stop Russia from seizing Ukraine (where Russia will eventually use the Ukrainian people for further war against others) do I have to let Israel commit genocide against Gaza’s civilians? Again, there are NO good choices here. Only least worst, and the subjective nature of which one is the least worst is guided by your values.
You will have to come to your own conclusion, but make not mistake, without you using your voice others are taking a path one way or the other and your values are not being represented.
You know you’re allowed to make comments in threads challenging people if you think their comments are too one sided?
If you suspect there is an unexplored side to something, you can ask about that, and you’ll very likely get an answer, at least as far as I’ve seen. But usually if no one does that then yeah, like you say, you’ll only see “one side”.
You don’t have to be a passive observer, you can get the discussion you want by guiding it.
You know you’re allowed to make comments in threads challenging people if you think their comments are too one sided?
Saying “I’d like to hear a different perspective” is generally interpreted by others as “Your perspective is wrong” and then the assumptions begin, which lead to accusations and bickering.
I was speaking of something substantial and specific, not just some abstract stuff. For example, idk, "why not halt all arms deliveries to Ukraine? We need the weapons/money ourselves. I.e. some actual question about the topic. Because if you can’t form a question like that, then it doesn’t even make sense really to “hear a different perspective” as this different perspective will have no meaning for you.
But it seems anyway, after reading OPs responses to this thread, that they don’t really care about diverse viewpoints, just about their own viewpoints not being disregarded/dismissed/argued against.
It gets quite tiring after a while that instead of having to defend the point you’re trying to make you instead have to defend yourself as a person. Ad-hominem is what a huge portion of active commentors here reach for when ever someone says something that they disagree with.
Views to the right of centre are almost entirely missing from Lemmy so the problem is lack of diversity. Or perhaps I should say one of the problems. Incivility on social media on the other hand is not an issue unique to Lemmy.
People right of centre usually have no problem at all with companies like Reddit behaving like it is, like going for an IPO etc, so they haven’t attempted to switch off it yet. I’d just go back to reddit if you want to see these right-wing viewpoints. You haven’t really explained why you don’t want to go back, it seems suited to solve your problem.
Your analysis is far too shallow to determine Good vs Bad, even in something that should be as clear cut as the Ukraine war. Morality is next to impossible to assign unless you pick a very specific basis on which to analyze it.
Your starting assumptions matter a lot in morality, like how much you value human life. There are people in this world that do not value life highly because they believe in afterlife situations that are preferable to life on earth as long as you meet the criteria for entrance. Who’s to say they are wrong from a moral perspective?
If Putin actually believes that the people in eastern Ukraine are being persecuted, and Russia is rescuing them, is that immoral? Would it be immoral for a solider to fight under the belief that they are helping people even if they are not?
Morality often comes down to belief because it’s not an objective concept.
Me, I think Putin would look better with a few more holes in him. Is that immoral? Would I be willing to sacrifice myself to kill him? No. Would I be willing to let members of my country’s armed forces sacrifice themselves to kill him despite us not really being involved in the conflict? Probably. That’s some really messy morality right there.
The thing you need to realize at the end of the day, is that morality is completely personal, and yet it’s entire purpose is to allow societies to get along. At the same time, you need to realize that you didn’t come up with your own ideas of morality, you grew up being indoctrinated (for better or worse) towards a particular type of morality.
If you had been born somewhere else, to a different family, or even just had different events happen to you in life, you would have a different set of morals.
I believe OP is young and just more into philosophy than politics… ot maybe a combo of both. I know a time when I was like that, so it’s perfectly normal.
But, unfortunately, yes, there are very few individuals out there that communicate on that level.
I wrote more comments here to express my confusion with OP and their goal.
The more I read the more I think the problem is from their inability to explain themselves, or perhaps lack of any cohesive want in the first place. Philosophy is fine, controversy is fine, nuance is great, but I get none of the above from OP. It is possible they are young and searching themselves, yet to understand how the world and online discussions work.
I’m agreeing with this conclusion. When all of us were young, we were told what to believe and how to act. As we enter adulthood we carry that conditioning with us, but for us to grow to we need to explore what we personally believe instead of just accepting monolithic fully formed prepackaged beliefs given to us by others. It looks like OP is learning that.
OP, if this is true and you’re looking for where to start, start with examining different ethical systems. Look up Kantianism vs Utilitarianism as they are very different from one another but are both logical systems. As you grasp the concepts it will be slightly uncomfortable, but that is part of growth.
It’s almost like I need to choose a team and then subscribe to the ideologies of that team when in reality I’m more of a pick and choose type of person.
This sums up my feelings lately very nicely. I’d say I am generally well aligned with the culture on here, and share most leftist views. However there are certain topics, and even just sub aspects of certain topics, that will net you a lot of downvotes very quick and condescending proselytizing comments if you even slightly differ from the general consensus in your views.
I’m not sure what could be done about this though, I certainly dont want Lemmy to be more welcoming towards alt right bullshit and such. But talking with a bunch of queer leftists about queer leftist things all the time is like that old south park episode where the parents become pretentious wine snobs and start getting high on their own farts. Boring, pointless self aggrandizement.
I’m a queer leftist but get kinda sick of the three topics on lemmy: linux good/america bad/Rust sometimes OK.
I want like…aquarium subreddits that are active. I wanna see mountain bike subs with good advice and live threads. I wanna see local subs that have the hottest details on obcure things like the best nude community gardens or some shit, haha. I wanna see Subaru forums where you can learn how to add a better sound system or replace an intercooler. Hell, even local city subs, where they talk about the best protected bike lanes now that summer is approaching.
We will have all that, soon enough. Reddit has size over Lemmy and with size comes monetization. They’ve gone full corporate, selling our data and our content to make a profit. We’re here to stand against that. Hopefully over time we can support enough basic communities that this place will be able to grow over the years.
Until then, help implement the barebones stuff. Make sure you’re subbed to those 4 communities and make a post or two in them. And it’s really not that big of a deal if you browse Reddit from time to time, but don’t neglect the barebones communities here if you’re gonna do that.
Demonstrate deez nutz. I've seen the OP's post history, and they can go to hell.
As suspected anyone who moans about "ideological diversity" always wants right-wing bigotry to be accepted and not called out as the hateful tripe it is.
This place is plenty diverse already, it just hates fascists.
I’ve skimmed some of your comments, and honestly it looks like you’re already getting a diverse experience considering your political and ideological way of thinking. That’s not a condemnation, but a quick observation.
But why? What is being said is what matters, not whose saying it.
“Israel is killing innocent Palestinian civilians by the tens of thousands” is a factual statement and will get upvoted because it signals that I’m on the correct side of the issue.
“Hamas is indiscriminately targeting Israeli civilians while using their own population as human shields” is also an factual statement but will get you downvoted because it sounds like the kind of noises the “others” would make.
In most topics like this it’s less about wether what you’re saying is true or not but rather about who we think you are based on what you’re saying. Prefacing every message with “I’m really against what these people are doing and I think person X really is a huge asshole but…” is not something I’m interested in doing.
I thought you want diverse opinions and nuanced debate, but when you want to just engage in opposing comments and not prefacing statements with ‘I understand X, but wanna discuss Y here’, the result is just trolling, detrimental to your proposed goals.
I have yet to understand what exactly do you want, or what is missing here.
Regarding the prefacing; it probably won't even work because people will read it as a "I'm not racist, but" kind of statement.
Regarding the problem you're stating; I've quickly after joining installed a tampermonkey script which allows me to hover over the name of an instance, magazine or user and display a small context menu where I can block them. Blocking certain magazines made all the difference for me.
is also an factual statement but will get you downvoted because it sounds like the kind of noises the “others” would make.
That’s because people don’t say things just randomly, they usually have a point or a conclusion they are trying to get to. When someone sees something like that, they don’t downvote because it’s not factual, but because of the implied point.
Your implied point here is that both sides are equally at fault. You didn’t say that and I would bet you don’t think that, but that’s not how your comment reads.
It’s similar to the BLM and the all lives matter response. Yes that is factually correct, but saying it in this context and time implies less or no attention should be given to the topic at hand.
“Israel is killing innocent Palestinian civilians by the tens of thousands” is a factual statement and will get upvoted because it signals that I’m on the correct side of the issue.
“Hamas is indiscriminately targeting Israeli civilians while using their own population as human shields” is also an factual statement but will get you downvoted because it sounds like the kind of noises the “others” would make.
In most topics like this it’s less about wether what you’re saying is true or not but rather about who we think you are based on what you’re saying.
If you’re not offering enough of your own position in a post, then yes, those you’re posting to will make assumptions. To combat that, put your complete positions in your post and remove any doubt so people don’t have to assume. The reason both of your quoted statements would get strong responses in isolation is because posting only the one sentence in a post would suggest you don’t agree with the apposing statement that you also posted.
You will still get strong responses from smaller groups that believe one statement factual and not the other, but thats life. You’re not going to convince everyone all the time.
I think I see the problem. You left Reddit, but Reddit didn’t leave you.
What I mean by this is that you care more about the responses of internet strangers than you do having a genuine a discussion. As long as you’re being truthful, honest, and giving good faith arguments, then who cares if people downvote you or call you names. You’ve done your job. You’ve led that proverbial horse to water. You can’t make them drink. Let it go, and love on.
Of course we’re going to form an opinion of you based on what you say. It’s all we have. If you don’t like the opinion being formed, then give us more insight to who you genuinely are so we can change our minds. And before you say it doesn’t matter, it obviously does or you wouldn’t be here making the argument you’re making. Be honest with yourself.
you care more about the responses of internet strangers than you do having a genuine a discussion
No, it’s the exact opposite. I long for the week long debates I used to have with complete strangers about some insignificant philosophical theory somewhere deep inside a thread that’s gone inactive a long time ago and it’s just the two of us there.
About post scores I don’t care because I have them hidden anyway. I do admit though that it does get frustrating when I try to make sense of something but the damn horse just refuses to drink.
We can only know what you show us. The rest we have to fill in based on what you’ve said in the past. That’s how this stuff works. It’s a back and forth. For it to work, you actually have to contribute.
My every single post would be a wall of text if I was to exhaust every possible misunderstanding and make my position absolutely clear and people would still attack me for a stance I don’t hold. My post entire history is there available for anyone to read - that’s the best I can do.
Personally, I’ve found a fairly wide breadth of viewpoints on Lemmy. Perhaps what you’re experiencing is the stress that diversity brings? It’s a well-known effect of engaging with different viewpoints.
As my counselor keeps trying to get me to do: sit with your discomfort for a few minutes before reacting or taking any action. Think about your feelings and where they’re coming from.
Social science research suggests that people tend to react with anger and irritation when confronted about their biases—particularly when those biases are accurately labeled as such. Although such interactions may be unpleasant, they also tend to lead to behavioral change, and so should be welcomed as opportunities for growth. Bias is a measurable condition, but it is not a permanent one, on either the individual or the organizational level. By acknowledging it we can counter it, expanding our pool of potential collaborators and improving financial performance.
Check us out hilariouschaos.com and let me know. Our premise is to shoot the shit,talk shit, shit post, post content you create, talk and have fun.
We’re not interested in being like what you’re experiencing. We’re here to have fun. Shit doesn’t always have to be about politics. I hope you check is out. Thanks
I’m not sure of better alternatives, only different. Mastodon or even Threads might be your solution. I also took a look at the comment history to get a sense of what you mean and I think I get it since I also get a fair share of negative interactions.
I think it’s actually because of Lemmy’s size that you get some pretty fringe views on here. Heck, if anything, the diversity you seek might mostly be all the views in-between that get drown out by the loudest fringe views. I’m sure there plenty of us lurking, since it’s so exhausting engaging with lemmings at times. I’m by no means a moderate, but simply trying to defend a news source as legitimate can feel like a disheartening chore.
Anyway, I don’t really know where to go for that and if you find out, I’d love to know. I don’t necessarily agree with you on your views, whatever they may be, but I certainly can agree that we need a little wider range of views (and perhaps a bit more civility when someone expresses a different perspective).
I don’t even mind the fringe views. I even switched instances to one that federates with lemmygrad because of that. I know there are a diverse group of people here but many of them don’t comment because you get bullied for it. You can reliably guess which types of comment are the most popular ones and which ones are completely missing.
Another thing I have an issue with here is the fact that for the most part it seems that what is keeping this group together is not common ideas or goals but the common hatred towards an outgroup.
If it makes you feel better, I don’t particularly hate an outgroup (like reddit) and I’m not really here for that reason (although I like the app options here too). Maybe that’s a minority view, but hate is just too emotionally draining for me. Maybe I stick around because those Trek and Linux nerds won me over, haha.
But yeah, maybe if you like hearing folks over at Lemmygrad (or even… Hexbear?!) federation is still your best bet because you’ll never get that on the more mainstream sources. If it’s a bad experience, maybe you need to tweak your approach. Just brainstorming though, I really don’t know the ideal platform for open discourse.
Lemmy is a federation of servers. “Lemmy” is not one political group with one viewpoint. If you’re looking for different viewpoints, try different groups, or different servers.
In another comment you said this about the comments you read:
they’re made in bad faith
I don’t think this is true. I think that what you think is “bad faith” is actually “people who disagree with me”. So far, most users of Lemmy appear to trend politically left by American standards, but that’s only because American standards are so absurdly skewed to the right that it appears to stand out. By American standards, “truth” is left-wing.
The problem is that all of the big instances sorta line up the same way and anything that doesn’t please them gets defederated at the speed of light and comments and posts get removed. They have the control.
Absolutely. There's a small handful of sites full of insufferable stalinists. Thank god I didn't discover Lemmy when I was 14, I might have been swallowed right up.
Just block those instances, your experience will be better immediately. And don't hesitate to block individual users, even if they're not breaking any rules or anything. Finding something to be annoying is plenty of reason not to want it as part of your internet experience.
I don’t mind extremists as long as they’re intellectually honest and willing to have a good-faith discussion and don’t just immediately attack you personally when you challenge their beliefs. One of the biggest issues here is that when you bring up a point people immediately draw conclusions about you and then they reply as if you really are this caricature of the “other” that they’re imagining.
And yeah I’m very familiar with the block feature. My blocklist is around 600 users long. I’ve blocked like 3 people already today and it’s only 9am.
I thought we have quite a diversity here with extreme right wing on hexbear, extreme left wing on lemmygrad, center with lemmy.world, (clasic) liberalism on dbzer0, and everything between like blahaj, beehaw, redhat, slrpnk, etc.
Hexbear are also far left. They’re just so far left that they hate the west more than China or sometimes even Russia for some reason. Afaik all far right instances are luckily defederated. Most of Lemmy leans heavily left. I considered myself left wing, and I’m also very much left wing nationally speaking, yet here on Lemmy I constantly encounter people who are so left wing that I pretty much completely disagree with them.
I don’t think there is one, unfortunately. I agree that lack of ideological diversity is a problem with the Fediverse in general, but it’s a problem that likely won’t go away unless the Fediverse becomes mainstream.
What kind of ideology would you like to see more? I mean I’ve stumbled onto the whole left-right spectrum here? Few/no fascists, ultra conservatives I guess?
There’s a few of us further right than that, but when I was forced to cut back on reddit I realized that political discussion online was deleterious to my mental health. I resolved to not seek out or sub any political discussion communities on the new platform. A spontaneous discussion, sure, sometimes, but I can’t do it every day.
That is true, but I did find a lot of people on Twitter and Reddit who I could have productive and interesting disagreements with, even though I naturally mostly followed and subscribed to people and things I did agree with.
I’m on an large instance which doesn’t federate with Grad, so I don’t see the Right-winger playing to be leftist by supporting right wing dictators
Tons of communities don’t get that much political beside the respect basic human rights and sometimes comment the news
Even with the European election ongoing, I don’t see much political discussion on European communities
So may-be try more “casual/fun” communties than the political one.
If you use the “local feed” it may be worth checking another instance. I heard good stuff of Blahaj Lemmy which as no downvote and act mostly as a safe/relax space for queer but is open to non queer people
Though it’s only tangentially related to your inquiry, you should check out improvethenews.org
It’s basically what you are looking for but with news stories, though it’s primarily focused American news. It allows you to read the different narratives without actually visiting cancer news sites like Sky news.
I’m not sure whether there can be an ideologically neutral social media platform at all. I think there will always be a significant proportion of users who are not interested in discussion, arguments and open minded exchange, but rather in seeing their world view confirmed by others or simply being part of a perceived in-group.
What’s more, the sheer mass of content makes an attention economy necessary so that one can deal with this flood of information. In my opinion, the content that is easy to consume will always prevail over content that looks at a topic in all its complexity (hardly anyone is willing/has the time to read up on it). So it’s often not about who has the better arguments or actually knows something about a topic, but about who sells their posts better. In this sense, it seems to me that social media in general is not really social, but to a large extent a competition for attention.
I am not aware of any platform that could solve these problems. In my opinion, this is not really the aim, as pretty much all platforms are not really about objective information, but rather about passing the time and entertainment. Of course, that doesn’t mean that you can’t find good discussions and serious information. But I think that this kind of content will never be the main focus of any social media plattform. The fediverse approach seems like a good try to me tho, because there can be “special interest instances” that can make their own rules to focus on whatever they are about.
I think there's a significant difference between "neutral" and "diverse".
For example, Reddit is big enough that if you find yourself holding an unpopular opinion in some particular subreddit and you're getting battered with downvotes, you can probably find some other similar subreddit that's more friendly to whatever view you've got that's drawing ire. People speak derisively of "bubbles" and "echo chambers", but really, why should I stick around and try to engage with people who just don't want you around? Communities naturally tend to segregate themselves along ideological lines like this.
Here on the Fediverse the population's too small to support quite so many diverse communities yet, unfortunately. So if you've got an unpopular minority view you can end up stuck with either routinely finding yourself serving as a punching bag or just not posting. That's no fun.
Yes, that’s probably true. For me, however, neutrality presupposes diversity - at least to a certain degree. As in the maxim of quality journalism: the assumption here is that a journalist can never be truly objective. This is why an attempt is made to allow opposing perspectives on a topic to have their say, so that the reader or viewer can form their own opinion.
Of course, this principle does not work in an environment in which differing opinions or perspectives are generally unwelcome. This is probably the case with Lemmy and other Fediverse applications for some topics. But I think that this doesn’t just apply to the Fediverse, but to social media in general. It seems to me just as you say: if you only encounter rejection on a platform, in a community or on an instance if you disagree with the majority, you will move elsewhere - which in turn will probably lead to you eventually finding yourself in an environment where the majority of others are of the same opinion.
Of course, it would be highly desirable if people were more open-minded, but I’m afraid that’s a utopia. In any case, I don’t have the impression that the advent of social media has fundamentally brought open exchange forward.
On the contrary, I have the impression that political discourse in many countries, for example, is now characterized by the very strategies that make social media posts successful: the abbreviated presentation of complex contexts, the invocation of enemy stereotypes, sometimes even straight-up trolling. But perhaps this is just a perception error on my part.
What have you tried? There are communities of all types on here. If you say something, there are definitely people who will agree and others who will disagree. Most will express it quite badly and few will give a thoughtful response. Reddit, I find, was much worse at nuance.
/r/askmen for example was open to anybody asking questions while /r/askwomen was heavily heavily moderated and didn't allow diverging views. /r/science turned into a place for science memes. /r/politics was just a battleground for left and right wingers calling each other names, and places about men's health were consistently attacked by other subs. Reddit seemed like twitter's second coming - with communities.
/r/askwomen was heavily heavily moderated and didn’t allow diverging views.
Oh my god yeah, that one was a bit ridiculous. I have a vague recollection of trying to help someone in a thread with like a domestic abuse situation or something and the mods quashed my comments because my comments had an opinion and I’m not a woman (mind you nothing I said was remotely sexist and it was a comment thread on an existing comment).
/r/signal was also a bit ridiculous. Rather than having a discussion on the merits of Telegram’s design vs Signal’s design for the average person, I got temp banned for “intentionally trying to compromise people’s security” or something like that.
Reddit seemed like twitter’s second coming - with communities
I will say Reddit never topped some Twitter Trumpies calling me a caribou diaper baby … that was particularly deranged and such a strange insult lol
No idea, I think they were just that strange… Their entire reply was majorly conspiratorial to the point of complete derangement then it went into this deranged ad hominem “caribou diaper baby” and I think some more stuff I don’t remember.
I think they were probably a Twitter troll … honestly I left that conversation a few IQ points lower, I try not to think about it 😂
Add comment