You're viewing a single thread.
Simply, stop being dicks to each other. Politically motivated or not, a lot of people are just straight up cunts when someone says something that they don't disagree with.
I can forgive the political extremism, and being heavily biased towards Linux, but you don't need to insult anyone that's to the right of Bernie, or someone that uses Windows and is happy.
Lemmy is small enough that it cannot afford to alienate people, or afford to have a superiority complex over the likes of Reddit or Twitter. The best advert is to be a welcoming community.
Fuck you, no we aren’t
Lemmy is small enough that it cannot afford to alienate people, or afford to have a superiority complex over the likes of Reddit or Twitter. The best advert is to be a welcoming community.
What do you mean by this? Lemmy doesn't need to afford anything, it's free and open source.
Yeah the toxicity of the politics on here is pretty bad. I've read several comments in the UK politics sublemmy in recent weeks advocating for political violence.
Edit: this was a charming recent example https://leminal.space/comment/9489619
Uh, that reply isn't advocating violence, it's stating that they would be unsurprised if an abused trans person committed violence. There is a difference.
Saying that deliberately antagonizing a minority group will lead to a violent reaction that will be used as justification for far more crackdowns is not advocacy for violence.
This is essentially what has happend in Palestine.
In the UK we have had 2 MPs assassinated in the past 10 years. One Labour and one Conservative. Comments that essentially say, "The government should do what I want or there will be more political violence", are inciting violence.
The figleaf of being like "unless X happens, someone will do Y" is the same as 4chan maniacs threatening to commit acts of terror "in minecraft" or whatever.
What an interesting move, shifting the argument from "the government deliberately antagonizing and oppressing minority populations is bad and will see consequences if this continues" to "if the government doesn't do what I want, there will be violence."
You're deliberately erasing the core of the argument to insert your own.
You are being disingenuous here. I'm not shifting their argument. Here is their full comment with annotations -
Sooner or later, a trans woman forced through male puberty by arbitrary rules/culture-war politics will snap
Annotation 1: politicians making incorrect choices are going to force the hand of activists for this cause...
and attempt to assassinate the PM or health minister.
A2: which will inevitably lead to political violence against members of the government
Then the other boot will come down: the Daily Mail will demand a crackdown, and the usual voices in the Guardian will join in, and the government will follow.
A3: Then the media will blame the activists instead of themselves
In what world is that not advocating for political violence?
Let's replace the issue in question and see if it still sounds ok to you:
Sooner or later, a white nationalist forced to experience mass imigration due to arbitrary rules/culture-war politics will snap and attempt to assassinate the PM or home secretary. Then the other boot will come down: the Guardian will demand a crackdown, and the usual voices in the Daily Mail will join in, and the government will follow.
Does the above sound acceptable?
It's simple, the government oppressing minorities will usually lead to said minority group lashing out.
This is what happened in Palestine.
This is not an argument for violence, but for government action to prevent violence by ceasing oppression of minority groups.
Simple.
Your argument here is just saying, "Political violence is justified if a minority are being oppressed."
Maybe you are tweaking it to be, "Political violence is to be expected if a minority are being oppressed."
This is literally the dictionary definition of advocating for something.
Advocate, verb, to publically suggest an idea, development or way of doing something.
Your argument here is just saying, "Political violence is justified if a minority are being oppressed."
I mean, I believe that, but that's not my point. The point is that minority populations will strike back, regardless of advocacy.
Maybe you are tweaking it to be, "Political violence is to be expected if a minority are being oppressed."
That's literally the argument, though. You misunderstood it.
The 2nd argument there, the one you claim to be making, is advocating for political violence.
I don't think you're debating in good faith here.
How is saying "people will eventually fight if oppressed hard enough" the same as saying "oppressed people should fight their oppressors?"
The first statement is analysis of cause and effect, the second is advocacy. You're intentionally misframing it to spread a narrative.