Skip Navigation

Unlike previous attempts at trying reddit alternatives (like Voat), kbin and much of the lemmyverse doesn’t seem to be plagued with extreme far right buffoonery.

It’s one thing to have differing views, but I’ve seen enough attempted reddit migrations to be relieved that the popular communities in the fediverse so far haven’t been about crazy racist stuff or other extreme right bullshit.

I am also glad that I’m getting away from reddit’s general political shitposting, which was more left leaning. You couldn’t have any proper discourse on there, and even I with my generally more left leaning views recognized that.

375 comments
  • "The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxoftolerance

    I for one welcome our intolerant of intolerance server admins across the fediverse.

    • I like to think of it as tolerance as a social contract. If you aren't tolerant, you break the terms of the contract and are not privileged to benefit from it.

    • Nice, though the very first panel misspells "intolerance".

    • I like the comic.

    • I get why you're posting this comic and I contextually agree with you. However, the comic itself is bad, and it distorts quite a bit what Popper said.

      The quote in the Wikipedia link that you've shared is considerably better:

      Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

      • Sorry, but what comic are you referring to? Some other users also referenced panels of a comic, but I don’t see any comic—or any link other than to Wikipedia.

        Has the user edited it out?

    • you are the intolerant one, so we should not tolerate your intolerance? do you support yourself being banned from the fediverse entirely, due to your intolerance?

  • this partisan nonsense is the biggest threat to the fediverse rn. when will people understand that the real fight is down vs. up, the little guy vs the elite mafia. left/right as an endless blamegame they use to keep us fighting each other, while they steal from everyone. the old divide & conquer, still works like charm. every other platform is already infected with it. if it gets to the fediverse, we're just gonna end up with a bunch of oppressive echo chambers much like reddit. if that happens I'll be gone

    • Little guys lapping up right wing propaganda sure make it extremely difficult to fight the elite, tho.

      They become merely another instrument of the "up" of suppressing the "down" when you're feeling frustrated, helpless, and hopeless all the time.

    • While I agree with you, class Co sciousness and warfare requires unity. I cannot stand with someone, be our situations as similar as they might be, if their stance is 'but not the brown/gay/whatever people'

      All or none. I will not stand for discrimination. Not overt, not veiled as 'discussion', not ever.

    • I always love it when people reduce debates around whether the public existence of LGBT people is actually pedophilia or whether Black people being routinely murdered by police is an actual problem to being nothing more than a mere distraction against the Real Fight against the evil elite lizard people.

      Listen, it's cool that these are the kinds of issues that obviously don't affect you or the people around you. But not everyone actually agrees that literally every issue ever can be reduced to being a sideshow of a greater class-based conflict. Do you not see how deeply patronizing it is to be told that the debates about your core identity are meaningless distractions that we need to stop talking about? I can see it being easy to believe that if your core identity isn't routinely made to be a political issue that can be debated, but not all of us are so lucky.

      • What OP doesn't seem to want to understand is that Left vs Right is Up vs Down.

        The origins of Left vs Right as terms come from the days of the French Revolution. There was a vote called to ascertain the power of the King. Those who wanted to grant the King an Absolute Veto were asked to sit on the right side of the speaker's podium, those who were against, or wanted no king at all, were asked to sit on the left. There were many such votes.

        Thus left vs right was born, the left represented the power of the people, and the right represented the power of the nobility.

        Then conservatism was created, replacing birthright nobility for those who were merely rich and powerful.

        Right and Left then became shorthand in the press for Conservatism vs those with more Democratic ideals, be it communist, socialists, or merely those who believed in taxing the rich and using that money to improve the lives of everyone. The press in Europe used the terms from almost the beginning, but it took a while for those terms to reach America.

        Sadly, the Right figured out pretty quickly how to suppress and demonize the Left. They also figured out how to turn hatred to their advantage, to expand the ranks of the Right Wing supporters at the expense of the Left. Because you don't personally need to be super rich if the people you're taught to hate are super poor.

        The thing is, the Left cannot abide attacks on those people. Which is why minority and lgbt+ rights are such a big part of the platform. Because those people are in fact part of The People, and the Left is the Power of the People. The goal is to lift everyone up, to protect everyone equally under the law.

        After all, as Frank Wilhoit said;

        "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect"

    • Left vs right is literally the same thing as down vs up.

      • The way I see it, is that they are not exactly the same, but there seems to be a greater tendency in the "up-directed" people to be also right-leaning, also a greater tendency in the "down-directed" people to be also left-leaning, which makes sense, since many elements in those pairs of tendencies/ideologies almost line up, or are at least very compatible.

        However, there IS also right libertarianism, and left authoritarianism, but those seem to be less probable than the opposites.

        Take a look at the Political Compass mappings of famous politicians and political parties in different parts of the world: The up-right and down-left quadrants are almost always the most populous, while there are dots in the other two quadrants.

        (See the "Elections" section on the left column, click on several elections in different locations.)

    • left, right. up, down. it's just a way to divide us so we aren't united against the common enemy...

    • I would argue the up vs down is left vs right. Because it's ultimately a fight against capitalism and fascism. Because while it is ultimately rich vs poor, they're using the bigotry to get people to follow them, and simply ignoring genocide in order to hopefully get poor people put of poverty just means millions die along the way. We can't just say fuck it let the trans people die cause I'm poor. Then you're no better than the people you claim to be against.

      So it should just be rich vs poor, but it's not, because too many people fall for their rich's tactics.

  • The demographics being pissed are different.

    When Voat, and then Ruqqus, were formed, people leaving Reddit were

    • a minority of informed people, smelling the bullshit from a distance, and genuinely concerned about freedom of speech; and
    • a majority of clowns, who don't really give a damn about free speech - they were pissed that their specific discourse was being banned.

    That is not what is happening now. The ones leaving are not doing so due to "I can't say slurs any more! ;;" like that majority, or "I'm concerned about deeply abstract matters" like the minority. The ones leaving are the most contributive people, who know that the boat is sinking, are seeing it sinking, and want to get away ASAP.

  • The difference now is that Gab exists and those people have been going over there for a few years now. As long as the fediverse doesn’t become an echo chamber like Reddit I’ll stay happy.

  • This exact thread down to the comments could've been on reddit and no one would've noticed. It's the same rehashed arguments and discussion ad nauseum. If you don't like some instance/magazine/whatever just block it yourself and be done with it.

    • I have no desire to have fascists exist on this platform "out of sight" any more than I have any desire to have a festering pile of dogshit swept under my rug instead of properly cleaned up.

      If someone was planning to kill your family on an instance, would you just "block and be done with it?" What if it was anyone who looked like you, spoke your language? That's what needs to be eliminated; threats to innocent people that you've decided just aren't worth your time.

      • 'When there is nothing to complain about just make up an enemy'
        Whatever enemy you're projecting doesn't exist except in your head.

  • As long as it doesn't descend into extreme far left buffoonery, I think I'm happy. Then again, I've come to realize that regardless of personal political beliefs, it's the buffoonery that's the big issue. People who can do nothing to make real change take things entirely too far in arguments with others who are similarly powerless. The problem is that we've been so manipulated and driven so far apart that what seems like common sense and basic human decency to one side of the aisle is radical buffoonery to the other. I don't see a fast solution to that. Rebuilding connection across the country will take elections that everyone trusts, electing officials who work towards bipartisan solutions and the service of the public good rather than an agenda. Too bad I don't see the major parties being interested in that.

    Then again, I'm of the opinion that we should go back to at least one element of our original system - the president shouldn't have a slate in place for election, so that whoever takes #2 in the popular vote becomes VP.

    • In a two party system like we have with very far opposed parties, going to a system where the rival party gets its person in the top spot if the president dies unwise, as it creates a very strong incentive to political assassination and means that the country can have dramatic policy swings without election in the event a president dies or has to leave office for any reason. Plus, the president and VP do have to work together to some extent and that is much more difficult if they are completely opposed to eachother.

      • See, I don't think it's likely to work out that way. I think a lot of people think we're more divided than we are - and the President & VP will both work to their own profit before their party line (hopefully), and that should lead to cooperation. Granted, it's cooperation that screws the little guy, but there's at least a hope of visible bipartisanship.

  • I will fully admit that I went to some of those alternatives, and left because I'm just not interested in seeing extreme hate for people I don't actually hate.

    I think the difference right now is that the people being driven off of Twitter aren't just the lunatic fringe, it's a lot of normal people.

    Tmi, but when I was young my parents got a divorce, and so I end up in a situation where I was walking on eggshells because if I said the wrong thing to either one of them it would cause a civil war and I would have to deal with consequences of that. I ended up constantly watching every single word that I said, and it was really bad for me. It wasn't until much later on in life that I realized that I could open up to people and I wouldn't get in trouble when they saw who I was. For that reason, I'm extremely sensitive to free speech issues. Not because I want to go off and hate on anyone, but because I'm here to explore ideas, and sometimes when you're exploring ideas you have to step away from the orthodoxy. I don't want to go back to those days where I was carefully calculating every word to make sure I didn't piss somebody off and start a civil war.

    On the other hand, a lot of the people who left don't have my story, and they left because they weren't able to talk shit about Jews anymore. And because of that, not only did freedom of speech get a bad name but those websites weren't really very nice to be on. If you're being totally honest, you ended up with the exact same problem because instead of watching out if you are starting to criticize a minority, you have to start watching out if you are about to praise a minority. The world is a complicated place you might have to do both you, you know?

    So I think it's a good thing that finally the spaces are starting to get filled up by people who yearn for freedom, not so they can be a jerk but because they just want to be free to be themselves and to do so using the tools that they desire.

  • The beauty of the fediverse is that those people exist in their own servers and you can simply join servers that defederate from theirs.

375 comments