this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
1730 points (98.5% liked)
Fediverse
32588 readers
439 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The second best thing is remember that tolerance of intolerance breeds intolerance.
i think if someone's intolerant, pointing out that they're wrong is something appropriate, but picking a fight over it is not worth it. it makes you like that person in that meme:
edit: in bad cases, report it and move on with your life.
Call them out so that resistance is visible, then block them to remove their agency to engage you.
I think part of pleasantness is not bringing politics into things that weren’t intended to be about politics.
The problem is politics impacts everything and the word "political" means different things to different people.
To some, talking about being gay is political, even though to people who are in that community, it's literally just talking about their lives.
It did not impact this thread at all before this comment which was my point exactly.
I definitely saw several comments that strike me as political, which is exactly my point, everyone has a different definition.
When every aspect of your life is affected by politics, everything is political.
There are now, this one was the first.
Aight dude
To interject with a somewhat pedantic point, nothing is truly apolitical. But there is something to be said about sensing the proper time and place to start a political argument.
This is a whole different train of thought (mine is, I won't speak for yours) and I don't wanna derail my original thought but that's a thing I've been thinking about a lot lately.
I agree with you, and subscribe to the idea of tolerance as a social contract that, once broken, is no longer owed to the one who broke the contract.
At the same time, I've also learned that very explicitly, feeling persecuted is a requisite ingredient in radicalizing people into hate groups. And that at an individual scale, it's generally undeserved compassion that helps deradicalize them. We know this from the accounts of people who managed to leave hate groups- a little while ago there was really good (and long) interview with someone who used to be leader of a white nationalist group where he talked a fair bit about that idea, since he now works with a nonprofit that helps families and friends support and deradicalize loved ones, but it's far from the only account
At present I'm really not sure how I personally reconcile those two things I belive to be true. The Nazi bar analogy is real.
I know wading into this more specific conversion runs the risk of immediately derailing what I was trying to start a discussion about, but I figured I'd share my thoughts. If anyone reads this and has thoughts to share (though I'd prefer not to get 50 comments just saying I suck for having complicated views on what we do about the predicament the US and world is in with the rise of fascist ideology. I'm interested in what's effective in terms of fixing the problem just like you are) I'd be interested in hearing them. I'm still looking for a way to synthesize my beliefs into a coherent whole.
Edit: thought I'd add the interview for anyone curious. I don't see everything exactly the way he does but I think understanding the problem and exactly how it works is necessary of we're going to address it, and I think his account is a really useful glimpse into certain aspects of how that world works
I agree with everything you said at the top and this comment as well. You don't have to be mean, cruel, or shitty to the bad actors. In fact the best case scenario is to make your case once and then walk away. It's much easier to talk about than to actually do, but it's really effective. If you assume they're not trolls or bad actors, even better. All of these actions curtail flame wars, which is what they're after anyway if you're correct that they're a bad actor or troll.
Thanks for your thoughts, thats a bit different of an approach than I'd really thought about, I feel like my thoughts have kinda been stuck at both extremes
That gives me new things to think about, thank you ❤️
they're going to "feel" persecuted, no matter what. might as well make them actually fucking fear it.
That suggests we should be intolerant of intolerance, which is an oxymoron.
Almost as if the statement is referring to the paradox of tolerance.
By allowing people like Nazis, Christofascists, Tankies, etc. a platform, it only invites more sharing that view to spread their bullshit around. This makes those that don’t share those extremist views uncomfortable they then leave those places. You see it on platforms like Truth Social, X, and 4Chan.
If this is to be a kind place, we must encourage kindness and rid ourselves of unkindness. You can’t tolerate intolerance, lest it spread and take over.
If you allow wolves and sheep into a space, that is a wolves-only space.
(For context, I agree with you.)
it's only an oxymoron if you're a moron. tolerance is a social contract. the intolerant break that contract and are no longer to be protected by it.
Not really. Nazis are scum and deserve to be kicked out.
If you actually had a coherent definition of what a Nazi is, it might be possible to agree with you. But in reality, it's used as a catch all by shitty people to justify their shitty behaviour.
To be clear, I mean people who praise Hitler, get swastika tattoos, blame everything on a Jewish Conspiracy, etc.
You know, Nazis.
That's coherent. Unfortunately most people who use it today literally mean "someone who disagrees with me." It really muddies the water because it's often accompanied by threats of violence. The net effect is raising the temperature in the room on both sides, because it's effectively dehumanising others who have perfectly valid political disagreements, and calling for their death.
That's what you say today because you think it's convenient to your argument, but it actually shows exactly what I'm talking about because the definition you've offered would make no sense at all to anyone a year ago, but people like you were still calling everyone Nazis then.
Bro can't you even follow the premise of the thread for like 2 comments
Paradox of Tolerance - Karl Poppler - 1945
It's a shame that something we already figured out 60 years ago still needs to be learned by most people.
The good news is, this is an opportunity for you to grow and be better right now. It's never too late to improve yourself.
60 years ago? Buddy, I have some bad news for you...
Wdym financial cashes, pandemic, doomscrolling, Trump got the presidency twice??
You're talking crazy it's only 2005 bro, futuristic computer interface means frutiger aero, I listen to music on my iPod and text on my candybar flip phone </3</3
Don't worry, at least 2005 was only ten years ago.
...wait.
Sure, if you think of it as purely semantic, or a zero sum game with no nuance, but it's not.
Gotta be intolerant of those being needlessly cruel to those just trying to live their lives, and gotta be tolerant of those just trying to live their lives that don't affect you, even if you find it cringey.