I said why I don't use Bluesky. I didn't say it shouldn't exist, or that other people shouldn't use it. I didn't pass judgement on people who do use it, or suggest that their having a different opinion on how to deal with bigotry is an issue. I simply said why I don't use it
You then insisted that I am the problem with democracy, despite you being the person insisting that everyone has to do things your preferred way?

Do I understand your position correctly?

[–] JubilantJaguar 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sort of. Essentially I am saying that in a democracy we need to talk to each other, and sticking one's fingers in one's ears and chanting "lalalala I can't hear you" seems like a poor way to go about that. These people can vote too. Like it or not, you have an interest in understanding what makes them tick and what might help them to see the world in a way more conducive to you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Essentially I am saying that in a democracy we need to talk to each other

That doesn't happen on bluesky either though. The moderation approach on bluesky means that people can control who they see, and who can interact with them. So people can still remove bigots from their timeline.

I also take issue with your insistence that bigots have the right to be bigoted and spread hate, and that their targets are somehow in the wrong for not wanting to be exposed to that hate.

[–] JubilantJaguar 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Assuming that "bigots" is not a synonym for "anyone I disagree with", then fair enough.

My underlying point is that technology is making it very easy to wall ourselves off into comfortable echo chambers. Some are even calling that "safety". From my understanding of history, this looks like an obviously slippery and dangerous slope to be on.

But if are talking about what most of your fellow citizens would also identify as "bigots", then fair enough.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Assuming that "bigots" is not a synonym for "anyone I disagree with", then fair enough.

Why would it be?

My underlying point is that technology is making it very easy to wall ourselves off into comfortable echo chambers

Your experience is different to mine. I wish I could wall myself off from people who want to remove my rights and target me with hate, but I've yet to find a way of doing that.

[–] JubilantJaguar 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wish I could wall myself off from

Well this is at least honest!

Perhaps it's a personality thing. Perhaps generational. Technically I'm a member of a minority community but I've never defined myself by that, and "hate" in the contemporary sense (I think its meaning has drifted unhelpfully) is not something that especially bothers me. My experience is that most people are well-meaning, so I tend to be intrigued by the question of why they think the things they do.

Anyway, this is not a debate with a single correct answer. It is of course your right to shut out whoever you want, I won't question that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

There are multiple governments, political parties and hate groups explicitly focused on taking away my rights and ensuring I can't exist safely and openly.

It's got nothing to do with personality. I'm exposed to a barrage of hateful media targeting folk like me every single day, and it's next to impossible to escape.

So finding spaces where I can just not have to deal with that shit is important