Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. We try to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are highly encouraged as no-discussion downvotes don’t help anyone learn anything valuable. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
We’re back! Instead of putting a neutral topic in the introduction, I’m placing a bit of opinion on an issue to see if it helps spur discussion. We are also actively seeking moderators and people who enjoy discussion (and understand that being wrong is an important part of being a better person)! Send me a message if you’d like to help out.
This week, I’d like to discuss something that’s been a bit of an issue for me personally.
Lemmy (and Reddit before it) appears to have a problem with overly-aggressive bannings for perceived slights. In the topic linked above there were people permanently banning users from multiple communities (any they moderate - dozens in some cases) for single downvotes, 4 downvotes across a ten-month period, and bannings because a moderator thought they maybe sorta kinda read that a user may have had a negative thought about their pet issue.
I’ve personally been banned from Communities (and sent some pretty vile PMs) for posting in our weekly threads here playing devil’s advocate where I state hard questions that I do not necessarily feel are correct. They think they’ve discovered some secret agenda by finding posts I’ve made here and use them as “receipts” in order to dismiss anything they think they’re reading that may be contrary to their opinion. Any context provided for the post falls on deaf ears.
I’m someone who operates on the idea of “If you can not defend an opinion from scrutiny, you should probably not hold that opinion.”
To quote myself:
It’s pretty tragic that people can’t handle opposing opinions. I think the activist nature of Lemmy is kind of a self-destructive spiral and people need to learn how to live with each other again. But I guess that’s the issue with modern social media as a whole… Nobody has any idea how to convince anyone else, only to yell at them louder.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Are niche Communities correct for banning anyone who downvotes?
- Do downvotes represent a “disagree” button for you (this Community notwithstanding)?
- Most importantly, what would it take to change this?
- Does it help build the Community? What about the platform as a whole?
- Is there a way to build a “safe space” without building an echo chamber online? Is that even a valuable thing to build?
To explain, the priority-shuffling means that I value things in a different order. For example, a strict vegan may value not eating meat more than survival in a starvation situation. I value the survival more and would eat the meat - it’s a different stack order.
I value my family more than your family. You most likely hold the opposite stack order. That’s all I meant. This is where a lot of confrontations come in; people don’t understand or care about the order of other people’s stack and don’t understand that someone values X over Y. Hell, people don’t often understand their own stack.
That’s the issue and speaks to what I was getting at. I value an open and good-faith exchange of ideas, even if those ideas are not the norm. I’m all for people being gay even in the middle of a Southern Baptist church, for instance. It being a transgression doesn’t matter. If a taboo flies in the face of a logical and scientific position, then the taboo should probably go away, which may take tact, time, and effort.
People react poorly to anything position they hold that is morals-based, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. Most worthwhile change is resisted, at least somewhat. You know that saying “You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into”? It’s most often because the position they got into was based on a moral stance, not logic and they’ve reinforced themselves over time (often with echo chambers that misrepresent opposing views).
If a solution requires just enough people to change, it’s may not be an easy solution, but may be a worthwhile one.
Priorities have very little to do with ignorance. Let’s try a different example that has a little more nuance than the church one and happens too often in the real world: touching somebody’s wheelchair without the their consent to “help” them. The person transgressing views themselves as considering the priorities of the person in the wheelchair. This is a problem of ignorance, not priorities. The person in the wheelchair should not have to deal with this let alone try to convince, educate, or care about how the other person feels or what they intended. That is the onus you expect of people that don’t share your opinions, to coddle/educate/etc you because you view your intentions as Right or Good or whatever. They don’t want the interaction and you think you have the right to force them into it. It’s the epitome of egotism. Anybody that disagrees gets labeled as as being in an echo chamber.
Your response to the comment about people is nitpicking. Changing individuals doesn’t provide a good ROI. Expecting them to do so on their own is wishful thinking. It isn’t a difficult solution; it is an impossible one.
Overall, you’re contrary and like arguing more than looking for better ideas. I think I get why you’re having difficulties with mods. I’m done, too. You have no intent to listen or learn. If that’s incorrect, prove it to the next person, not me.
Huh. And here I thought we were having a nice conversation.
I’d ask that you please consider that you may not have been as clear with your intended message as you may have thought, and not that the person speaking to you is just a bad-faith idiot in the future.