I thought it might be helpful to post the current site (lemmy.world) rules here to remind you nice people what they are. You can see them by following the link in the side bar.

General guidance on posting and participating:

  • Do not post about inflammatory, controversial subjects without a Content Warning. Ideally, you would not post about inflammatory subjects at all. However, it may be acceptable to do so in some cases, but it is never acceptable to post inflammatory content without hiding the content behind an appropriate Content Warning.
  • Do not post any type of nudity without a Content Warning.
  • Regarding Spam: We are not your free advertising platform. If you are here only to sell your products or services, you will be removed. Occasional posts of commercial links are OK, but when the vast majority of a user’s posts are commercial in nature, we regard the account as a Spam account. Moderators will evaluate reports of Spam on a case by case basis.
  • Do not engage in name calling, ad hominem attacks, or any other uncivil behaviour. Criticize ideas, never people.
  • Do not report every post that upsets you. Please report posts that violate our rules but for others that you may find distasteful, or just don’t like, use the tools available to you. You can block the user or mute the conversation.
  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]English
    1•1 year ago

    I’m not asking people to stay in their lane, which is about disregarding their opinion based on their own circumstances. But I think its possible to argue an opinion without adding ad hominem attacks (e.g. well, you’re just an idiot ) or poisoning the well ( Anyone who disagrees with me is insincere about their convictions )

    I assume you don’t mean to imply the internet population on average is incapaalble of discussing serious matters without popping off like the Midnight Bomber What Bombs At Midnight. Granted I have a background in tech support but that should not be a step up from the average regarding basic civility.

    • @TheBananaKingEnglish
      1•1 year ago

      First point:

      • High-stakes, polarising issues by their very nature raise strong feeliings, making them ‘inflammatory subjects’ by definition.
      • However, censoring discussion of these issues would lead to a bland, feckless environment where activism and even the discussion of social justice issues is hidden, and the status quo is tacictly endorsed. Which, when the right of marginalised groups is on the line, is horrible injustice by default.
      • Censoring discussion of certain issues because other people might potentially yell about them is even worse. If I go into /c/chess and start yelling in everyone’s threads, would that make chess an ‘inflammatory subject’ that people should avoid talking about?

      Second point:

      • The tone argument is routinely abused by privileged groups.
      • It’s easy to have smug, civil, all-friends-here armchair debates on a purely intellectual level, when it’s not your life and the welfare of your children that’s being actively threatened by the outcome.
      • As such, this forms the basis of a highly disingenuous tactic: Calmly discuss the merits of some hideous proposal, then when you get a lot of angry responses from the people affected by it, point out that it just proves your point: these subhuman oafs aren’t even capable of rational or courteous discussion!
      • (the above is exaggerated for effect, but not a whole lot - see chapter 5 of The Witch trials of J. K. Rowling (though the entire video is fascinating and you should watch it).
      • I too am a sysadmin. Fuck the tone argument, alexa play 70s punk rock.
      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]English
        1•1 year ago

        I’m one of the crazy, disaster-queer anarchist pinko commies defending the marginalized, and its usually the outraged privileged losing their shit and showing poor tone, in my experience. This might reflect more consistent value on the other side of loyalty before principle such as when they accuse us of snowflakery while at the same time taking offense when common behavior subjects them to ridicule.

        You and I are on the same side, I think. And yes, while I can’t fault someone for losing their cool when someone is suggesting they should be persecuted / annihilated / forced to follow a silly religious faith, I’ve found I reach more hearts and minds keeping my language civil, especially in the face of boisterous bigotry.

        But then, I’ve also studied a bit, so my opinions and methods might be on more solid ground than most.

        • @TheBananaKingEnglish
          1•1 year ago

          I’m with Natalie on this one (seriously, watch that video, all her stuff is excellent): there’s merit in winning hearts and minds, and there’s definitely a place for it - but you can’t deradicalize all the bigots, and you don’t need to. As per her example, there are still homophobes aplenty, yet gay rights have come an enormously long way in the last few decades despite their best efforts.

          Solidarity and setting a baseline are just as important, and sometimes moreso. Punching nazis may not convince them, but it does empower others and give them some backup, and the Overton window can slide a bit from the impact. The right expletive in the wrong place can make all the dif ference in the world. You hold the line, and you be seen to hold it.

          Not all sealions need feeding, not every argument should be dignfied with a response on its own terms, and emotion should not be disparaged in ethical discourse.

          Ethics is just a system to predict outrage, and outrage is an emotional response to (plausibly generalised) threat perception. Lose the emotion, and you’re left with an empty, inauthentic shell. And that’s precisely what the bad actors want: they want an abstract parlour game they can disqualify you from, while they remain comfortably insulated from the stakes.

          Fuck that, fuck them. I’m a ‘drag the dead kids into the room where everyone has to look at them’ kind of guy; I get tutted at on a regular basis from people who are offended by this, and honestly I’m good with that, because I get results anyway, in my line of activism.

          But then, I’ve also studied a bit, so my opinions and methods might be on more solid ground than most.

          That comes across as hugely condescending; I’m likely misinterpreting, but I’m not clear as to how.

          • Uriel238 [all pronouns]English
            1•1 year ago

            I have watched it. And Sean’s take, and Jessie Gender’s. I followed the wizard game boycott as well as Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull’s tour and debacle in Australia and New Zealand.

            Normally I don’t engage with those in the movement at all, (whether we’re talking about the anti-trans movement in the US and UK or the white Christian nationalist movement and fascist takeover of the US federal and state governments). I am used to being confronted by them in response to a comment to a third party. And when hate or allegiance to the movement reveals itself, I feel obligated to confront it. Hate movements thrive when left unchecked to fester and grow.

            That said, it wasn’t my intention to brag, more I was pondering if my studies (of the Holocaust, for instance) have dulled its visceral effects on me so I may be expecting a degree of impartiality that isn’t normal for most. I’ve predicted and grieved over the fascist uprising in the US back in the aughts, so today I see it as a near inevitability. We will have to be very lucky for the US to evade autocratic fascism during the next decade.

            But it wasn’t my intent to offend, and I get it if you want to assume I’m as incorrigible as much of the internet. My own disposition is neither cheery nor sociable.