this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
783 points (95.7% liked)
Fediverse
17779 readers
30 users here now
A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.
Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".
Getting started on Fediverse;
- What is the fediverse?
- Fediverse Platforms
- How to run your own community
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
Calling out imperialist running dogs isn't toxic. Just like being aggressively anti-racist isn't toxic. If a person upholds capitalism, which is by nature exploitive and anti-egalitarian, they are toxic and deserving of rebuke.
So as long as they don't ideologically agree with you it's acceptable to be toxic towards them, because their "wrong ideology" makes them toxic?
Are you also aware that most of the proletariats unknowingly uphold capitalism? Considering you say they're toxic are you against the proletariat or are you a fake socialist trying to create a class divide, the ones who agree with you and the ones who don't, within the proletariat?
if you asked questions in good faith, you'd know that the community is also aggressively welcoming to such people, even when we disagree. but you don't so you won't.
It's bad faith to automatically assume someone being critical is doing it in bad faith.
being critical without being interested in the response is bad faith.
And how do you know I'm not interested in the response?
it's not directed at you. I'm explaining why we react strongly in general.
Alright, so others are in "bad faith"? How do you know? Just based on one interaction with them?
how they respond to detailed replies or lack thereof, snide, use of thought-terminating cliches, and hostility
Let's forget forget about the rest of our discussion and focus solely on the very first response you wrote to me. Based on that response I could've applied that same thought process you just described, decided that you're here in bad faith and respond in the way Hexbear users tend to reply. And all this current discussion wouldn't have ever happened because based on that response you'd believe I'm here in bad faith and responded in kind. In fact that way no discussion would've happened.
The way we communicate is prone to errors and misinterpretations. It's why I'm focusing on your your first response because it's an excellent example of miscommunication. You used "you" which implies it's directed at me, but in a later response you clarify that it wasn't directed at me. Thus discussions require a certain level of benefit of doubt, because it's actually very easy to misrepresent what was said and just as easy to misinterpret what was said. I gave you that benefit of doubt and we seem to be having a rather civil discussion. And I've already somewhat explained what would've happened if I hadn't given it. That benefit of doubt is crucial if you're wanting to discuss in good faith, because you need to give a chance to correct miscommunications.
And that's why I think the thought process you've described is a bad faith thought process, because it doesn't give the benefit of the doubt. At least that is my general experience with Hexbear users. Someone says something disagreeable in a manner that could be misinterpreted in the way you described and it's very rare to see a Hexbear user give the benefit of doubt. Instead you see, well everything here. One guy says Hexbear is a cesspool and seemingly only one of you gives him some benefit of doubt, the rest very much troll, antagonize, make snide remarks etc. The vast majority of you responded in the same way you'd claim someone else is responding in bad faith. What if he previously had a miscommunication that Hexbear users didn't give benefit of the doubt either? He gets piled on in a manner you've described as bad faith. With those bad faith responses he now believes you are all acting bad faith, hence the cesspool remark. And what is the response he gets? More bad faith responses from Hexbear users because the vast majority don't give him any benefit of doubt.
You think others act out in bad faith so you respond in bad faith which makes others believe you act in bad faith which prompts more of you to act in bad faith. It's a a bad faith feedback loop. Genuine question, what's the goal of such behavior?
my first response was directed at you. the second was not. I was answering the question you asked.
to apply adequate pushback to erroneous understandings of the world. the goal isn't to convince the interlocutor. it's to encourage the people reading to investigate the topic. on many of the topics in question, the history and ideologies involved take entire books to deconstruct - doing so in an internet comment is extraordinarily difficult. the people we're talking to don't even agree with us on the meanings of basic words - there's not even a basis for debate. because such debate is so unproductive, the aggressive tone encourages many people to stop and ask more serious questions. this undoubtedly works because so many of the posters on hexbear responded in exactly that way here or on reddit at some point in the past. and when they asked those questions, they got detailed answers, including links to sources so they could investigate for themselves. in actual fact, many of the people on hexbear received exactly the kind of aggressive pushback you're decrying and ended up eventually convinced that our viewpoint had something to offer.
and as point of fact, when someone starts asking questions, we'll tell each other to stop treating them so harshly cause they're acting in good faith. that courtesy is not extended to people who continue down a path of antagonism. nor is it offered to someone who devolves into racism, transphobia, or other forms of bigotry. one of the benefits of the aggressive approach is that it encourages so many bigots to immediately out themselves.
lastly, civility is not an unmitigated good unto itself. civility is the false peace -- it masks tensions, pretending they don't exist. real peace is not civility -- it's a state in which tensions are brought to the fore so they can actually be resolved. civility is a white, middle class sensibility -- our world is incredibly fucked up and the people affected by it do not owe anyone that masking of the horrors of our world. nor do we owe anyone an education they will neither ask for nor appreciate.
Maybe at one point but if recent events are of any indication that is hardly true anymore. The reason these defederation threads prop up if your aggressive presentation made people inquisitive. It's an indication that people respond negatively to such behavior. And I'm inclined to believe people respond more negatively than positively because the responses I've seen about subject I know about have been less about making people inquisitive and more about just throwing in their face that they don't understand something the same way you do without explaining anything.
I disagree. Yes, there's no space for niceness as you need to be ready for conflict to test your ideas and beliefs. But it doesn't mean we should completely disregard civility. Are you really going to take me seriously if I call you shitstain in this post, bitch lover the next, steamy turd the next etc? I know I wouldn't take anything you say seriously if you came with such disrespect. Similarly I have no problem trolling the living shit out of you, but that already means I have zero respect for you or your beliefs and nothing you say or do will even get true critical examination, outside of how to better troll back. I could easily derail this discussion, drag you down into shit slinging contest and then sling shit until you stop responding but that's pretty far from civil discourse and not at all constructive. Discourse needs to have some mutual respect and if none is given then none is received, which means the discussion will go nowhere. The world is fucked but slinging shit between eachother doesn't really unfuck the world.
And this is probably where we completely disagree. Your stance is that nobody asks or appreciates it so we shouldn't give it unless they really ask. I believe we should give it regardless because it's still a chance for them to open up to something new. I would've never familiarized myself with Das Kapital if not for someone else explaining to me that Marxist understanding of "capital" is not the same as "capital" taught to you in school. Had someone told me "How did they get the fucking money mf?" I would probably still believe capitalism is not that bad. Explaining socialism to someone who won't listen doesn't take a piece out of me, so why should I act like it does? To me it's a net positive. If someone listens and becomes a socialist that's good and if someone doesn't listen then really nothing actually bad happens because as you said, the world is fucked regardless.
Those are good questions that you could get good honest answers to if you wanted. Other hexbearians are much more articulate than me.
We are aggressively welcoming to anyone who's genuinely just trying to learn.
Think about this in the context of, idk, race science or something. Let's say you have someone who is openly a big fan of Charles Murray, owns a copy of The Bellcurve, gets the whole nine yards. Would you deny that such a person is necessarily toxic?
Actually, without any other context, I would. I would label them as misguided. Just because they believe in what I believe as the wrong thing doesn't mean they're automatically toxic. If they're unwilling to even consider alternate perspectives or decide to just be antagonistic then they're toxic.
So if they come in swinging about how they "don't deny" that black people are genetically less intelligent and say that their opposition is either propagandized or propagandists, that would tilt the scales for you?
Why would it? If they're open for discussion there's clearly something to discuss.
We might be running into a Nazi Bar, paradox of tolerance type issue here. If you treat him that way, there's a fair chance that he's just going to use the opportunity to propagandize to whoever will listen.