OK so if you feel Lemmy has been trending towards hostility in the past weeks ppease here me out, interact in the comments but keep it civil.
Lemmy vs Reddit
We all had our reasons to move to Lemmy. What I remember clearly from the beginning of the summer was that we were all praising the tone. Over the years, Reddit has become increasingly toxic - most of all in the comment section. To me, that was what made Lemmy special. Even with less content, the general vobe was what made me come back every time.
clash of the clans
Due to the nature of the fediverse, we get to interact with people with different backgrounds and dofferent ideas. Potentially an incredibly enriching experience for everyone. Anti-defed lemmings defend staying federated with everyone for that precise reason, which I really get. But lately the vibe has turned sour. Every post that has the slightest political undertone becomes this big us-vs-them show. Please stop
discussion vs. shitshow
I am not arguing for stopping discussing our opinions. I also get the whole they don’t have downvotes thing. But can we please treat eachother with dignity, and when writing comments say ‘I believe’ or ‘in my opinion’ instead of ‘you all this or that’?
I think this is the only way forward if we want to prevent everyone from personally blocking a lot of instances in the furure.
I totally get that, and you're right in that there's some real shit going on.
But what does getting heated about it on a Lemmy thread do? How does it improve the status quo?
If you cannot answer that, perhaps it's best to redirect your energy.
It challenges the stance. Which helps set the tone for the space, and prevents the normalisation and mainstreaming of that stance. Which has value.
For example, aggressively challenging bigoted political takes will show that those sorts of takes aren't well received, and aren't popular. This prevents those sorts of takes from becoming more common in the space, and more generally. It also shows the people who are the targets of that bigotry that the space is welcoming towards them.
Responding politely in opposition does indeed challenge the stance, and indeed such challenge is necessary in natural discourse. Like what we're doing here.
Letting things get heated, however, persuades no one. Anyone who was in the opposing camp will simply dig their heels in and go on the defensive, which is not what you want if you want people, whether it be the one you're replying to or other readers, to actually consider your point of view.
And it is easy to slip into going on the offensive, I catch myself doing it from time to time, especially against bigots. But you'll save yourself a lot of bother by simply saying something like "the basic rights of \ are non negotiable, and it worries me that you do not see them as human as yourself. I don't think continuing this discussion will be productive until you take a moment to put yourself in their shoes."
Because this is something we can, to some extent, disagree politely on. Bigotry is not the same.
You have mistaken my intention. I'm not trying to convince the bigots. I'm trying to tell them to piss off. I'm trying to show that those sorts of opinions are disgusting and not welcome. I'm trying to show that space will not be made for them, and to hold space for the people that they are trying to marginalise.
I could not care less about persuading bigots online.
That's totally fine as well, and understandable. But have you ever noticed that the people you tell to fuck off don't usually end up fucking off?
It doesn't make people feel that they should leave. It usually provokes people into responding defensively. Which is kinda the opposite of what you're gunning for here.
If you're going to shun someone, actually do it. Don't talk to them. State your reason once, if you want, and you can give your opinion that they aren't going to make friends here, but that's it. Let them actually feel that loneliness, that lack of interaction.
Many of these people are like children acting out to get the attention of the parent. To them, bad attention is still attention.
No, I don't believe just letting bigotry stand is the answer.
Just "shunning" them only works if they are actually removed by the admins. Which is the best answer, but it doesn't happen often enough. If one enter a community and sees bigotry ignored, a common assumption is that the community tolerates that bigotry, which will cause many people interested in valuable contribution to leave, leaving a higher proportion of bigots.
Every time someone opens their mouths to spout bigoted nonsense, it should be an unpleasant experience for them. If the admin isn't going to take the trash out, the community should make damn sure that they don't abide the trash themselves.
It can be argued if that is best accomplished by meeting the bigot with "civil" pity as you suggest, or outright hostility. I'm not interested in tone policing. But just letting bigotry stand unchallenged isn't the solution.
What if your negative reaction is what they want? That's how trolls operate. You might think that you're giving them a negative experience, but they love it.
They want me to have a bad time. That's different from people dogpiling a bigot and showing them a bad time.
The problem is, your actions can only ever really represent yourself. You don't have control of the entire room.
The paradox of tolerance. I'm aware of it.
However, intolerance in this regard isn't getting into shouting matches with the asshole. It means to delegitimise that person's views. To ridicule it. To push it aside as though they were the ramblings of a madman. Or to simply leave downvotes and move on. Make them feel that they can scream their message into the crowd and no one would hear them.
This we both agree on.