EDIT: no, I don't sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they're losing an argument ;)
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
573 points (68.8% liked)
Memes
45901 readers
1806 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If the 'thing you dont agree' with is hate speech or shit promotting violence for example that's the only sane option you have lol
Yes. Tolerance should not extend to intolerance, and intolerance should never be a thing we tolerate.
If it were that simple, then it would be fine.
But the point is, people just start to label anything that whiffs of a different opinion as "intolerance".
So the solution is to just kick them off all the mainstream platforms and ensure they go to their own echo chambers where they are isolated from any reasonable counters to their ideology, which will just ultimately make the problem worse? Brilliant.
It’s like the war on drugs. If we just ban it then surely the problem will disappear…except it just gets worse.
How can people be this shortsighted?
Nazis/extremists don't respond to rational arguments against their ideology.
You ever hear of that black guy who makes friends with KKK members? Sometimes they give up their bullshit and they become friends. I will accept the risk of having futile arguments with many if there is a chance that logic and reason breaks through to a few.
That's different than arguing with people on the internet. Daryl Davis shows these people their shared humanity face-to-face. All I've ever seen from letting fash "debate" people on the internet is them slowly spreading their ideology to vulnerable people who are viewing the same conversations. Saying stuff that sounds reasonable on the surface like, "not everyone you disagree with is a nazi" even though they want to kill minorities as if that motive vs not wanting that to happen/doing everything in your power to make sure it doesn't happen is a simple disagreement.
I admit you raise some good points. I have always thought that people susceptible to extremism will eventually find it online, but maybe they won't, and maybe exposing them to those ideas in rational conversation on mainstream platforms is too "risky." My gut tells me that is not the case, but that is just my gut. It seems worthy of some kind of study.
I did that for years. Many years. It burned me out and made me much more of a thin-skinned and intolerant person with those around me in real life.
I love places where they willingly come to redeem themselves (like r/IncelExit) but otherwise I just stray very, very far. It took a heavy toll on my mind.
It is a noble thing but one that shouldn't be required of most users.
Cheers. Not everyone has the constitution to engage, and that’s fine. I do not think hate should be tolerated, but I think it must be confronted with reason. The only alternatives seem to be more isolation, extremism, and violence.
Honestly I still discuss online but it's very rare. Mostly with teenagers since they are usually more open.
There is a problem of even where to confront with reason. Most of the time you hinder more than you help on mainstream social media, because more comments on a post will boost it on the algorithm and distribute the original poster's message further while they remain wilfully ignorant.
Hear hear
Well whenever regular people go in to their communities they get ridiculed and have their comments removed or even banned, so what's the difference?
Maintaining the moral high ground is crucial when attempting to fight extremists with reason and discourse.
MLK understood this tactic and brilliantly deployed it with his non-violent movement, and he defeated extremists with reason and discourse.
You can call me naïve, but wouldn't have been a shame if MLK gave up when he was called naïve?
-Michelle Obama
I wish we lived in a functional democracy where you can go "high, when they go low". The only thing that has resulted in is eroding the democratic system by ceeding power that undemocratic individuals will keep for themselves.
Edit: To add, I believe that Michelle Obama was right when we said that, but the world has radically changed since then.
No way this isn't a bit
Yeah because normalising fascism in 2016 so that actual nazis came into the light and the mainstream sure helped make them less destructive and made them have less of an echochamber! Oh wait..
If you have the choice between an eco chamber where 10% of people are nazis and say nazi shit to other nazis and normalizing nazism to the point where mainstream gathering places are full of crazy nazi babble and having 15% nazis I would chose to contain the poison.