Do you think the mostly limited range of political views is a strength or a weakness of Lemmy? (For example, in terms of attracting new users.) (feddit.nl)

submitted 2 weeks ago by crimeschneck@feddit.nl to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

257 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sure, there are always outliers and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's just the overall impression I have.

(I wasn't sure if !asklemmy@lemmy.world or this community would fit better for this kind of question, but I assume it fits here.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] fxomt@lemm.ee 32 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Mostly mixed. The way i think it's a weakness is because I'm an anti authoritarian leftist, and i'd like a stronger anarchist/libertarian community on lemmy. Despite hexbear/lemmygrad/lemmy thriving, Solarpunk and dbzer0 feel a little lacking community wise. I'd also like a diverse political community, in general.

Another con is that if you even just disagree with a [bastard] moderator, they'll immediately ban you. Happens on lemmy.world with being anti-zionist, happens on lemmy.ml under the guise of 'rule 1' for literally just criticizing a mod such as dessalines.

But i also think it's a pro due to the lack of far-right content on lemmy. I remember on reddit casually seeing disgusting content, such as blatant racism (Such as arabs being called sand n-rs, Or racism against asians/immigrants in general on r/canada + r/europe) and most of that is obscure on lemmy.

I'm not denying that the Lemmy community doesn't have problems, Lord no. But it's much better than most other platforms.

[-] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 9 points 2 weeks ago

It's a weakness. We need more anti-authoritarians here for sure. And even conservatives if nothing else so they can represent their own opinions rather than just laughing at straw-man versions of what neolibs want to say they think. I have moments I hate it here but there's nowhere good to go and I guess I add a little diversity.

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I disagree with the conservatives part. Their ideology does not deserve a place at the adults' table. It is far too bent on undermining democracy, equity, and egalitarian society.

EDIT: To clarify, this is elementary "Paradox of Tolerance". Those that wish to undermine democracy in an equitable society cannot be tolerated without making an end to democracy inevitable. Not all opinions are created equal. For example: "I think trans people should receive additional state-funded support." and "I think that trans people should be murdered and/or the state should cultivate an environment amplifying their likelihood to commit suicide." (the prevailing view expressed by the far-right through their actions and legislation) are opinions that should not be given equal treatment.

[-] fxomt@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago

Yep, paradox of tolerance. We shouldn't bend over for far-right, or even fascists for the sake of "pure tolerance".

[-] doingthestuff@lemy.lol -5 points 2 weeks ago

Saying, "I don't like what they say so they shouldn't have a voice" sounds a lot like undermining democracy to me. Them living in conservative echo chambers doesn't increase dialog or challenge their beliefs either. Divided media and divided opinions are the tools to take down a nation. Supporting this kind of division strikes me as an example of the main kind of foreign interference this country is crumbling because of. If that was your goal, I guess congratulations?

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 weeks ago

Paradox of Tolerance. Those that intend to undermine a just and equitable society that tolerates the existence of all kinds of people cannot be tolerated.

[-] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 2 points 2 weeks ago

But do we actually wait until we see how people think, or just silence them based on their opinion on one or twy divisive issues as a litmus test to justify our own intolerance? "They don't support trans women in women sports so none of their opinions are valid."

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

It's, unfortunately, very subjective. A statement like that could be from a place of ignorance that they are willing to dig into and grow as a person. Any judgement has to include whether good faith is intended, etc. Conservativism itself is incompatible with motion towards a more just world, as rigid hierarchy is part of its core, and it is also an ideology rife with bad faith actors. Giving extra space for such an ideology that already has a far louder voice than it should have does not result in anything productive.