this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
190 points (75.3% liked)
Lemmy
2172 readers
109 users here now
Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.
For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to [email protected].
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well I think that is strength of Lemmy, everyone can have space on their own without anyone shutting them down, of course if crimes are commited this is a question for law authorities. If you don't want to see their content, you can either defederate or block their community.
I really don't understand this thinking that you cannot tolerate people with different opinion than yours to exist on the internet. Again if they break any laws, you can report it to authorities.
Everybody likes to preach tolerance to all, until they run into somebody who’s actually different from them
The Paradox of Tolerance as defined by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Well said. Rise above it and all that. Suppression does not make the problem go away. It just makes it broody and resentful. It's better to tolerate, educate and be mindful and a bit relieved that 7 billion people don't all think alike.
On a similar but different topic, Lemmy and Social media in general should be opt in. We subscribe to our communities we want to hear from and choose to block those that may be unwanted. I think the default to show feeds from 'local' or 'all' is a bit counter productive to good discussion as it opens us up to the noise of everything and requires us to filter out things subtractively rather than additively.
In the ideal world I would like my experience to be tailored to me from the get go. A blank slate and a list to explore, Additive following, and grouping my interests and communities into crafted feeds. Local and All should be options but definitely last options. An instance should be able to tag communities into short lists, topics or hashtags that could be local or across the Fediverse, and we should get a wealth of feed syndications at our fingertips as a launch point to develop our own. Trash like The_Donald should be very easy to just ignore unless you go looking for it.
Hopefully Lemmy will eventually work toward this goal. There's no reason to emulate Reddit so closely.