No. Hearing and understanding opinions with which we disagree is part of being a functional adult.
If we end up having a situation where they spam with hate speech etc, that's different but just being conservative? I'd like to hear what they have to say.
John Stuart Mills put it better than I can:
He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.
I took a glance at their post history, didn't see anything too horrific or hate filled. I strongly disagree with their stances on immigration etc but at a glance, didn't see anything terrifying.
Sure. Any chance to get his audience to hear an alternative version. The number of conservatives with whom I chat in real life who have just never heard of various things kind of blows me away. My good buddy was on the "yeah but the Left is more violent" train, we talked about it, I showed him things he hadn't seen and vice versa. We both learned, grew and revised our opinions.
Red-hatters enter non-red-hat spaces for the purposes of intimidation, feeling superior, and sowing discord. Then they pat each other on the back for “owning the libs” and continue the cycle.
It’s perfectly reasonable to not want to federate with relentless trolling and become a Nazi bar by means of association.
Declaring what they'll do before they've done it is pretty silly. Sure, if that instance starts becoming a problem, defederate. But maybe we can hope for the best first?
I dunno, a quick look through the admin seemed like they were open to stuff with which they disagree. (Looks like one of us was already there trolling and the admin seems to have responded in good faith.)
it’s a hate-driven cult. We already know their reasons, they have nothing else to contribute to a meaningful discourse.
You know, they say much the same about us.
Almost like the way to resolve the situation is actual dialogue rather than just seeing the worst of each side getting thrown up on social media.
For every asshole in MAGA gear that we take as a fair representation of the group, there's some kid talking about how the only good MAGA person is six feet under and making it look like everyone on the Left is ready to kill anyone who disagrees with them.
No, I'm just confident in the power of reality and facts. It's why I admire Pete Buttigieg for going on and making the Liberal case on Fox news. We're not converting anyone who disagrees with us here.
You can't empathize with anyone unless you can see them face to face? That seems worrying.
I think a lot of people empathize without meeting people, witness y'know, the mass complaints and protests about Palestine. I don't think that many folks have actually been to the Gaza strip.
You know we just elected a 34-time fraud convict and adjudicated rapist to the Presidency here, right?
Exactly the point. When things are so bad half the country is willing to say "yeah, but we trust him more than the fucking Left" something is seriously wrong.
If we don't work to figure out how to win folks over, things are going to get much much worse.
My life will be fine kind of regardless but I worry for others.
Your goal here isn't to listen to anything I have to say or trust that I have literal decades of experience arguing on the internet at this point, your goal is to defeat me and gain upvotes. I'm not real, I'm just something getting in your way.
That's a wild assumption. If I cared about upvotes, I have trouble imagining an approach more destined to fail than arguing for MAGA on Lemmy.
I also don't think everything has to be a debate. I love those and am always happy for it but really, just getting MAGA folks to interact with people whom they wouldn't otherwise is healthy. I think more good and possibly understanding our shared humanity comes of sharing memes or common interests.
Similarly, if we see the news or the things that are animating them, it's helpful. (A trivial example from years ago but that opened my eyes, I was pretty on the "cancel culture is a stupid made up complaint" and then while reading the National Review, they referenced "so you've been publicly shamed" which broke my heart when I read it. Then my opinion changed a bit.)
Yelling at people on the internet is rarely actually debating and even less often convincing.
Edit: ahhh, sorry, I'm on a phone and see I've got a note about you. I'll end this here.
Yeah it worked out so well for America that they elected Trump twice and his style of politics has become more popular.
Oh, I hadn't realized America was secretly not super polarized and has plenty of actual spaces where people meet, interact and talk with folks with whom they disagree.
And so far, no one has given an example of the harms or bad behaviour that would warrent defederation. It's just been "I disagree with them so defederate."
Show me where that exists in anything published by the trump campaign or project 2025.
As far as I understand, neither have said "we will murder all trans people."
These sorts of claims are exactly why I'd like to hear what MAGA has to say. It's just the same as people who claimed Harris was going abolish private property; undoubtedly some of her supporters were from our crazy Left fringe but to conflate them with her was, at best, mind numbingly stupid.
Otherwise, yay, we're just in our own obnoxious echo chamber being angry that people don't agree with us instead of talking with those whom we need to persuade.
Honestly, this is an age where we really need to be working on deescalating as much as possible.
I fully agree. And I would hope part of that de-escalation would be finding common ground with those with whom we disagree.
Instead of forcing the individual users to come and be yelled at one at a time, I'd love for them to have a place so we can start some sort of talks, even if it's just stupid shit like what video games they like. I dunno. If we can't find common ground then it's just two sides trying to destroy each other until it's too late to solve our actual problems.
I'm not calling the paradox (or the constitution) silly, I'm saying they don't apply in this scenario.
From the snippet above:
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 imwise
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.
In other words, yeah, if that instance starts getting people to be assholes to everyone etc, sure, tolerance does not mean we should let them do so here, that's the point of the paradox. But, as the author states, suppressing them without cause etc would be most foolish. Far better to try and discuss with rational argument first before resorting to "well, we don't want to talk to you because my MAGA uncle is a dick."
I'm sorry, this sort of hysteria and screaming genocide is partially why people discredit the Left even when there are actual, real problems.
Is the treatment of illegal immigrants under Maga awful? Absolutely. But screaming genocide because it's the worst thing you know, well goddamn, now we just sound dumb. This ain't moving us to a place where we can figure things out. (You probably can't have everyone in the world who wants to go to America in America. Conversely, they are still humans and even if they are illegally in the country, sending them to an El Salvadorean prison is heinous.) If we aren't there to make the reasonable case, no one makes it.
It's like how the right complains that Christianity is under attack etc and they are persecuted for it. Is that true? No and it makes them sound insane. Are there actual arenas wherein things are harder or tricky for religious folks? Sure! (If you believe the Pope and feel abortion is murder, pretty hard to reconcile that with funding abortion etc.)
Admittedly, the Lemkin institute is being pursued in court for misusing the Lemkin name and fragrant misuse of the word genocide. (They are also claiming there's now a genocide red alert in the UK for trans people.)
You could cite multiple groups like the heritage foundation etc that would strenuously deny anything of the sort is taking place.
The short answer is media. Or as the kids like to say, “propaganda”.
Ehhhh, I think blaming a problem happening simultaneously in almost every democracy on "the media" feels a bit like putting our heads in the sand and avoiding the issues. But to each their own.
Unless you mean something like social media, then I'd probably agree. But any research blaming traditional media would have to answer three large issues that seem to stand in direct contradiction:
Germany has a wildly different media ecosystem than America, which has a wildly different media landscape than the UK, which has a wildly different media ecosystem than Italy, which has a wildly different media landscape than Austria, which has a very different one than France, which is very different from Poland etc. But the same phenomenon is happening across the board.
Traditional media is no longer where most people get their news. So either it's really radicalizing a smaller group or?
Traditional media consumption among age groups seems to indicate quite the opposite happening, ie, in America at least (I can't recall the age related shifts across Europe) younger voters are, relative to historical norms, lurching Right, whereas older voters are moving a bit to the Left. Yet, the younger groups are much less likely to get their news from traditional media than older voters, so if media were the culprit, you'd expect the shift to have happened the other way.
To each their own. I agree with Chomsky that yeah, media blinkers people and frames the terms of the debate. But, this has been true for decades. Something has fundamentally changed in the last 10 - 15 years and we're watching those changes ripple across almost every society.
Again, you're free to share any relevant research. But, I think blaming the Rightward swing that we're seeing across the world on just "the media" is, at best, over simplistic.
Like I said earlier, if you mean something like social media, then I agree. When I say social media, I also mean our new ways of ingesting media, eg short form text, memes, podcasts etc (though should probably use a different term.) I think there are a bunch of pernicious effects and incentives which have made seeing the humanity in those with whom we disagree difficult and compromise impossible. We don't need propaganda, people in general are just not able to handle the information landscape that's been created.
But, if you're really talking about even the spread of more independent written media etc, then I just don't see their limited readership being the fundamental game changer that we've seen.
When you hear a wild claim like that, it's worth double checking a primary source or, failing that, a reputable second hand source.
From page 3 of the full memo:
Note that this designation does not apply to all persons that are
transgender, or their allies. It applies to those who: (1) believes that any opposition to
transgender ideology is a violent and existential threat to the right of transgender people
to exist and amounts to an imminent threat to physical safety; (2) believes that this fear
justifies violence against those who refuse to affirm transgender ideology; and (3) takes,
incites, or promotes violent action based on that ideology. All three criteria must be met.
Individuals cannot and will not be investigated solely based on 1st Amendment protected
activity alone.
While I don't particularly agree with their take, what's actually being proposed is adding transgender based violence to existing categories. The current categories are: race based, anti government/authority, animal rights/environmental, abortion and other.
Now, as far as I understand, vegans are not being locked up for being vegan, racists are still allowed to be racist, environmental activists are still okay to protest etc.
Could this be abused? Absolutely! And that is why it is stupidly important to be accurate. When we claim hysterical untrue shit, it makes everyone less likely to listen when things are actually dangerous. (We spent 4 years screaming fascist starting in 2016 and now when shit's actually getting scary, it is much harder to get people to listen because they've tuned us out. Boy who cried wolf etc.)
Edit: And like a goof, I forgot to link the primary source!
Why else would they also seek a blanket revocation of our right to bear arms?
Is this an actual serious proposal by the administration, or more "well, a couple of the lunatic fringe in Congress have put it forward" or "well, I could seeeee this happening."
who are currently pushing for the FBI to define all transgender people as terrorists and lock us all up.
So, when you wrote this, did you actually mean "okay, they aren't doing it now but they might in future!" or did you not know what was actually being proposed?
Because this is the key. There is a huge difference between the worst case scenario I can imagine and what is happening.
Consider the flip side. When the Right says that the Democrats are just one step away from communism because folks like AOC say there shouldn't be billionaires or Mamdami wants to run government grocery stores, I would imagine you see those as pretty nonsensical claims. But, they're doing the exact thing you are, where they're taking a handful of proposals, grossly misrepresenting the content and saying it's a path to ruin. So, we tend to tune them out.
Or, you could look at trump 2016. There were some worrying parallels between him and fascist beginnings but at the end of the day, an election was held and, despite his best efforts he left. And now, the mainstream is pretty suspicious of us when we scream fascist at the actual scary stuff.
By the way, by admitting that what I see happening looks a lot like historical examples of the steps towards genocide, it is possible to paint me as a terrorist under the proposed TIVE categorization.
Read the section I quoted again and you'll see this isn't the case unless you ignore a large swathe of it. Again, being able to imagine something is not the same as it being true.
For those who won't read the article, this is an article from 2001. (Similar thing actually played out, albeit the White House not the FCC, leaned on ABC who dropped Maher after some 9/11 comments/joke.)
Do you mean flights that fly directly to Mexico from Canada?
Otherwise, you should be fine. ICE doesn't have jurisdiction over the FAA and can't just order random planes down. Especially planes from one country to another with no intervening stops in America. What on Earth would the rationale be? "Hey, citizens of other countries who had no intention of entering the US, we've kidnapped you and now you're stuck here!"
There are plenty of valid concerns and fears about America but having them ground international, non US bound flights would be a nonsensical international incident with 0 gain.
Because laws governing the United States actions within the States are very different than international law.
There are actually mechanisms, enforcement, oversight and so on. ICE taking control of the FAA would at least be a lengthy court battle first. It's why Trump hasn't been able to fire Lisa Cook, why Kilmar was brought back etc.
There is no similar restraint on American military actions outside of America.
No, just a reasonable assumption of risk and reality.
If we're going by nonsense at the outer bounds, trump could just nuke whateber country tomorrow. Oh, you're still going about your life? Guess you have faith in nazis.
As much as we rightly villify ICE, this just doesn't make much sense.
Even operationally, you'd have to assume they have guys just sitting around waiting. And then, for some reason someone alerts them to an international flight landing so they bust through the apart to detain people who had never intended to visit?
What I could see happening is sure, you have to use a motel or something while they figure out alternate arrangements, the hospitality industry being legendary for a not entirely legal workforce means there's a chance you get raided there? But this is stretching the bounds of credulity pretty gosh darned far.
I finally caught this in a theatre this year, amazing to watch it with a hundred people all roaring (admittedly, at various times as some people remembered jokes before they happened, but that just added to the charm.)
B.C. has recruited more than 140 health-care workers from the U.S., minister says ( www.cbc.ca )
It's not enough sure, but it's heartening to see we're at least gaining something from the mess down south.
Should Lemmy.ca defederate from Maga Place?
https://fedidb.com/servers/maga.place
White House keeps heat on ABC's Maher ( variety.com )
Comments
Any flights that bypass US airspace from Canada to visit Mexico?
Imagine if ICE ordered your plane to land and they arrest all the passengers and flight attendants to bring into their torture facilities.
Some American travelers are ‘flag jacking’ and Canadians are livid ( www.cnn.com )
Last mainstream studio movie as funny as the Naked Gun remake?
Finally watched it the other day and I still giggle thinking about a few of the gags. ...
Post truth world
Montréal Could Moves Toward Proportional Representation |A Breakthrough for Canadian Democracy. ( www.youtube.com )