Happened to me a few days ago, and I just can’t believe how bad this redesign is!!
It’s hard to comprehend what goes into the heads of that dev team, but they basically ruined everything nice about the platform. The API changes were pretty much a fatal shot already, but this new redesign seems to be what tipped the scales for me, and hopefully many more.
It’s a great time to switch to Lemmy, and I think I’m going to make the effort to stick around and abandon the habit of opening reddit multiple times per day.
Do you think forcing this re-design will bring more people here? I’m hoping for that. Reddit betrayed us and I can’t find it me to keep forgiving them for every horrible, anti-user decision.
I noticed in some moderator subreddit, that it is planned to kill new.reddit.com as well. Old will likely stay for longer, but new is what I got used to, and if they take it down I won’t bother getting used to the newer, garbage UX.
You’re probably not leftist if you’re getting banned for expressing your views.
Caveat: I haven’t read your comment history but I’m going to now and I’ll come back and edit this comment with a more informed view.
Edit: I’ve read a lot of your comments and as best I can tell you’re a Social Democrat and that’s probably the issue. Feel free to correct me.
Lmao you’re exactly the kind of person socsa is talking about
I don’t really care one way or another, I have my own political views.
I was more trying to unpack why this person kept getting banned.
A lot of people who claim to be leftist aren’t actually leftist and this can be shocking.
Oh no, they’re merely quite radical in the context of US politics, or mainstream leftist in the context of Scandinavian politics! You’re right – they must be shunned and mocked for this, that’s a surefire way for a fringe group to win hearts and minds…
I don’t think many consider a Social Democrat radical.
Social Democrats don’t wish to dismantle Capitalism. Hardly a radical take.
On the contrary, I think your information bubble is pretty limited if you think that a social-democratic position isn’t on the leftward fringe of the Overton window in America, where large parts of the political spectrum believe “the invisible hand” obviates the need for market regulations, and even the most basic and punitive of social safety-net programs get tarred as “communism!” by the mainstream right.
Yeah America isn’t the world and I don’t listen to the opinions of people who are ignorant on this topic (to be clear I’m not directing that at you) what I’m saying is that people certainly do hold the view you’ve described; that a Social Democrat is radical left, but that simply is not the case when you have some cursory knowledge of political theory (I assume you agree with this).
No… the point I am trying to make is that whether a position can be described as “radical” depends on the larger social and political context. Supporting communism was a radical position in Russia in 1915, but in 1925 it was mainstream. Supporting the monarchy was a mainstream position in France in 1785, but in 1793 it was dangerously radical. You can’t just arrange every political ideology that’s ever been imagined on a chart and then declare them “radical” or “mainstream” simply based on how far away from the center of the chart they are, because what’s mainstream (and how far away away from that you can drift without being seen as an extremist) depends on the larger sociopolitical milieu.
I suppose we disagree then.
I think the case can be made that certain political ideologies are radical regardless of whether the society at large considers them radical or not.
How else do we distinguish what is truly radical and what is not then?
The whole issue is this kind of pigeonholing and purity testing. My most controversial conjecture is first that political science isn’t a static thing, and that so much of “the left” seems more interested in relitigating the cold war and “eat the rich” fan service than actually engaging in pragmatic policy debates. This is why i much prefer to discuss politics in terms of first principles instead of labels, and for whatever reason, this rubs a lot of leftists the wrong way.
I believe that individual liberty is essential to democratic agency, and that democratic agency is critical to the administration of a just state. Any socialist state must rest on this foundation and not route through autocracy. You will find that I am very focused on the human side of socialist praxis - what are so many people skeptical of these ideals? What does modern socialism actually look like in practice, and how do modern socialists win support of a relatively comfortable middle class? I see social justice as a key aspect of this, as it tears down social structures which marginalize and exclude. This is also why I balk at some of the more obnoxious “class warfare” rhetoric on Lemmy in particular, because it serves to divide and exclude, not unite and elevate.
I am very skeptical of overly utopian visions, and liturgical populism, as these are historically distractions which serve to divide workers the same way culture wars do. I actually believe that these are some of the primary roadblocks to the above questions, and the rhetoric in online leftist spaces is often extremely counterproductive in this way.
I would describe myself as something like a democratic socialist, leaning more towards the libertarian/syndicalist side of the spectrum, but again - I tend to see such labels as uselessly modernist. I think material scarcity is a primary driver of economic injustice, and a big part my ideology revolves around substituting capitalism’s role in resolving scarcity with more egalitarian economic structures. Rather than setting the world in fire, this starts with some basic things like mandating worker shares and worker councils for all industries. In general, the idea is to extend and scale the whole “means of production” to a more generalized labor landscape where we aren’t just dealing with factories and machines, via wholesale democratization of the workplace.
Political labels are just a heuristic to shortcut longer conversations.
Sure fidelity is lost but time saved is nice. I wouldn’t be worried using them so long as you know what you mean when you use them.
It sounds like you’re conflating socialism with deprivation of individual liberties, if you can’t conceive of a socialist state where that isn’t the case then I’m not sure what to say.
Modern socialists that aren’t authoritarian aren’t advocating for that.
However a socialist state and maximising individual liberties are in opposition to each other. How can we expect the best outcome for the majority without curbing certain individual rights? Like for example, firearm ownership.
If you agree that capitalism must be dismantled then you’re a leftist in the true sense.
If you think there are redeeming qualities to capitalism then you’re not leftist.
Lemmy in my experience is just leftists arguing with each other about the best way to dismantle capitalism.
Anyone who thinks capitalism is salvageable gets berated, in my opinion, rightly so.
I am not at all stating that autocracy is a feature of socialism, I am very much arguing for the exact opposite of that. And to that end, I refuse to make tyrants into folk heroes, as so many internet leftists do, and acknowledge that this is one of the things which puts me in conflict with many of these communities. Refusing to learn from the mistakes of past socialists isn’t cool, it’s stupid.
When I speak of liberty being a necessary condition of democratic agency, I am talking about things like free expression, civil rights and free assembly. Again, this is pretty simple - you can’t have democracy without the ability to freely engage with political questions. I absolutely agree that if online leftist communities were more open to engaging honestly about the failings of past movements in the regard, this conversation would definitely be extraneous. First principles, and whatnot.
In terms of capitalism itself, it is the manifested corruption of a few organic economic primitives. Capital itself is merely a tool, like markets, and commerce, and fiat value proxies. If you dismantle the corruption and place control of these tools in the hands of the people, you have dismantled capitalism. Good job team. This is the thesis of democratic socialism, and it is far from controversial among actual democratic socialist. It is only controversial among people whose knowledge of socialism is primarily built on edgy revolution fan service.