this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
210 points (100.0% liked)
Beehaw Support
2796 readers
1 users here now
Support and meta community for Beehaw. Ask your questions about the community, technical issues, and other such things here.
A brief FAQ for lurkers and new users can be found here.
Our September 2024 financial update is here.
For a refresher on our philosophy, see also What is Beehaw?, The spirit of the rules, and Beehaw is a Community
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
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
I genuinely recommend against re-federation for Beehaw.
My unique take and experience from lemmy.one is simply the number of users who simply seek to stir the pot.
My blocklist is full of people from lemm.ee and sh.itjust.works and lemmy.world as well as lemmy.ca . When I compare the number of blocks to the number I've blocked from beehaw or even my own instance; a paltry one or two; I'm only ever seeing trolls or idealogues coming from those instances to argue with my posts no matter how well reasoned they may be. For context; if I tell someone they are absolutely wrong and they persist; they automatically meet my block list. I won't suffer people who aren't going to discuss things civilly or rationally.
Blocking someone because they don't agree with you telling them they are "absolutely wrong" isn't civil or rational discourse. Unless you meant something different?
Who says that is the objective of blocking and why should I extend that courtesy to people who are behaving neither civilly nor rationally?
If I go to a bar and someone next to me keeps chiming in on my conversations with homophobic takes, I'm going to pick up my beer and move away from them (block them). What moral imperative do I have to give them the time of day, and how does letting them constantly shoehorn bigotry into my discussions undermine "civil and rational discourse"? If that person keeps doing this to people, is the bar owner required to allow them to stay, or can they show them the door?
Calls for civility, free speech arguments, etc. are all cudgels used by people who want to go where they want and say what they want without scrutiny and I for one have no desire to adhere to some arbitrary moral standard imposed on me by people who want to behave that way. If you want to behave like an ass and pursue me, then I'm cutting you out of my life. No one would blame me at a bar, why should they on my favorite gaming forums?
As one of the Bar owners of Lemmy World, we show anyone with homophobic takes the door.
Glad to hear it. I think too many mods/admins fall into the trappings of free speech arguments and "letting healthy dialogue happen" because it's an ideal that we've all sort of internalized, often to our own detriment because we don't want to appear "too biased" or like "power tripping jannies." The reality is it's a pretty simple equation: if someone is sufficiently disruptive that's plenty of reason to remove them.
Indeed, the paradox of tolerance is real https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
At least for me and by the sounds of it, you.
Very real and very much something people need to learn to apply!
I agree with all of this, I was just pointing out that common understanding (read: my own) of civil and rational discourse doesn't usually include immediately blocking people who don't agree to you telling them they are wrong in absolute terms.
I could be wrong however, happens a lot.
Edit: that is not to day I don't personally block people I think are being arseholes, i 100% do, I just don't claim to be doing so in the defence of civil or rational discourse.
Each to their own, I too have pre-blocked on occasion.
I probably wouldn't hold myself responsible for angry internet people, if I'm engaging in good faith and they get angry that's not on me, trolls gonna troll, but again each to their own.
Telling someone that they are "Absolutely wrong" is within my right and is also a very polite way to indicate to someone to shut up and listen without saying it; and that attempting to talk with me further on the topic will not be civil or fruitful.
Blocking people who persist is a simple mechanism to weed out anyone who refuse to listen to logic or feelings on a matter when they don't align with their own.
Would you rather I be blunt and simply tell idiots to "Shut the fuck up"? Because that's definitely not civility. Don't try to argue semantics here; it's ugly and unnecessary.
Absolutely within your rights, depending on the instance you are on and if the rules are enforced i suppose. Same as anything anybody else says. One of the main draws of the fediverse, no ?
I doubt "Absolutely wrong" would be read as "shut up and listen" in most contexts but i could be in the minority here.
Agreed , i do it too, frequently.
i don't have an opinion on how blunt you should be with people, your call.
Arguing semantics is ugly when done in bad faith ,but i'm not trolling or baiting you , i just happen to think word choice is important in some situations. (for a given value of important, i mean it's not life or death here or anything)
In this case i (personally) read it as "I block people who don't agree with my very well reasoned opinion, even after i graciously explained it to them, they just won't listen to me and keep replying".
and most of that comes from the use of the term "Absolutely wrong" which is an absolute, by definition and leaves no room for other opinions or options.
As you said, you can use whatever words you like, at least one person thinks your use of absolutes in statements detracts from your otherwise cogent arguments, do with that what you will.