Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
Okay, and...?
That doesn't negate the point: if they don't want anyone else that isn't already part of their group interacting with their instance or posts, why be federated, and why leave things public?
Because what they want is more likely to stop people with values incompatible with their group interacting with it, while still being visible enough that people who may have compatible values could become aware of it.
Maybe the way they go about pursuing that causes a mild annoyance for many other people, but I think it's a legitimate thing to want.
Sounds to me like they want all of the benefits of being in a society, while shouldering none of the costs. In that respect, they're perfect Libertarians.
As opposed to the people who think it's their God-given right to say whatever they want, wherever they want?
It sounds like you're describing every libertarian I've ever met
Do you think the "cost" of "being in a society" is accommodating the mainstream consensus view? I'm not vegan but I figure if they want to have an echo chamber that isn't all about reacting to my objections and the objections of most other non-vegans to their ideology, that's fine, it's not a "cost", I am not entitled to or being "paid" through such reactions, and I have zero tangible stake (pun intended) in their dietary choices. That abstraction doesn't work, it's not about paying your dues, rather it is an organizational question about how much Lemmy should function to homogenize opinions or to shield minority opinions from adversarial social proof.
While I personally value space for debate and disagreement, I also think spaces for minority views can't really exist if they are just going to be overwhelmed by volume, and they should be enabled to exist lest everyone devolve into regurgitating a reddit hivemind sort of mentality.
Well put
It isn't though. They---specifically one moderator that seems to have been summarily removed---don't want a separate space that's entirely their own, they want to exist within a greater community. They want to be able to provoke--yes, I use 'provoke' intentionally--people without those people being able to directly respond.
If they want their own space, they're free to set up a defederated instance, or create their own message board.
Isn't that kind of the point of the concept of free speech though? Like, sure, you're welcome to your belief that Jews have secret, giant space lasers that are starting wildfires in California (because I guess Jews hate liberal mecca...?), or Haitian refugees are eating pets in Springfield, OH, or even shit like Churchill was the real genocidal maniac that murdered 6M Jews, Romani, gay people, autistic people, and other "undesirables", but if you want to express your minority views in public, you have to expect pushback. If ideas are good, and you can convince people that they're good, then your ideas should eventually be either tolerated, or become mainstream.
But if you don't want to exist in the marketplace of ideas, then... Don't.
It sounds as if you're describing something like a low moderation politics focused imageboard. I would say you are getting it backwards; untrue racist conspiracy theories win out in such an environment, which mostly does not select for good ideas, because the "marketplace" isn't about which arguments are good or anything like that, it's about shaming and demoralizing those who disagree, appealing to people's emotions, and projecting an impression of community consensus through high volume shitposting. Despite that there may not be direct removal of comments, such an environment effectively selects against minority (at least within that space) viewpoints by making it extremely unpleasant for anyone trying to express them, and by making sure it will at least seem like there are a larger number of people mocking them.
Needless to say, there are some problems with this way of doing it, and it's worth considering ways to not be like that.
My brother in Satan, these are literally the ideas that the US was founded on. That's what the 1st amendment is all about. If irrational, batshit crazy conspiracies are winning in the marketplace of ideas, then it's because people that are sane are doing a terrible job of leading people, and helping them to discover truth on their own.
I support and agree with the concept of free speech and the 1st (though this topic isn't really specifically about the US). But a culture of tolerance is important for free expression, which isn't really about overwhelming the "wrong" perspectives with mob rule. Downvoting all the vegan memes to make sure they don't forget people disagree with them isn't what I would describe as truth and leadership.
That isn't how libertarianism works.
Your confusing libertarianism for right wing populism calling itself libertarian. Actual libertarianism is all about voluntary association and contracts. Think anarchism but more structured and property laws.
Oh also, there's probably just as many sects of Christianity as there are libertarianism so we mostly hate each other just as much if not morebthab we hate all the other political parties.
Libertarians don't usually practice what they call Libertarianism, any more than most Christians practice anything that resembles Christianity. I'm aware of what Libertarianism supposedly is, but that's absolutely not the same thing as what Libertarians say and do.
Its more accurate to say vegans are like anarchists as the concept anarchism is popular in the community.
It's more accurate to say that you want to be publicly loud while wearing earplugs.
The situation is like this:
Beaver "I keep seeing Helldivers' posts in my feed maybe I should start commenting on them saying "I don't like Helldivers" because I dont play the game, I'm sure that will get me far in the community."
You know the situation is nothing like that. You're just being dishonest about your actions and disingenuous about your intentions.