457
Butterfly effect (lemmy.world)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
76 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 43 points 9 months ago* (8 children)

I think it's more something like if you don't confront bigotry it'll grow and eventually crush you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Yeah, my first thought was that it’s a reference to how facism has grown by allowing people to discuss it in anonymous echo chambers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    The irony of this being said on lemmy is pretty special

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    You're here. A fascist from a fascist server, interacting with the rest of us, how the fuck is this therefore an echo chamber?

    Just because your dumb takes aren't tolerated by the majority of Lemmy users doesn't mean it's an echo chamber.

    In the context of news media and social media, an echo chamber is an environment or ecosystem in which participants encounter beliefs that amplify or reinforce their preexisting beliefs by communication and repetition inside a closed system and insulated from rebuttal.[2][3][4] The echo chambers function by circulating existing views without encountering opposing views, potentially leading to three cognitive biases

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    My instance is defederated from a lot of lemmy instances for having unpopular opinions. Ironically I'm also banned for having an unpopular opinion on unpopular opinions. My takes sent tolerated and they are removed thus making the system insulated from rebuttal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    Defederating from known arseholes isn't the same as a closed system with no means of rebuttal.

    If a pub bars known trouble makers but still allows the general public in, then it's still a pub, as opposed to a members club.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Depends how u define trouble maker. If u define trouble maker as starts physical altercations then sure that's fare. But much of lemmy seems to have defined trouble maker as anything further right than whoever happens to have the loudest voice at the current moment.

    Edit: don't quote Karl popper to me go read the paragraph directly after the one that everyone likes to quote and u will get his justification for tolerating my speech. That's ignoring the fact that the paradox of tolerance applies equally as well as a justification for fascism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    A trouble maker isn't just someone who assaults people. A trouble maker is someone who insults other patrons, makes hateful remarks about or to them, or who acts as a sleaze making unwanted sexual advances. All of these things are reasonable to ban people for, to make a welcoming and enjoyable atmosphere for everybody else.

    You clearly view yourself as a victim, which is just fucking pathetic considering the right is the dominant political stance around the world.

    Quit being an insipid hateful toad and people will start tolerating you, engaging with you, and treating you with respect. Continue being one, and you'll just have to continue crying to yourself that nobody wants to talk to you and we're all just a bunch of meanies.

    As for your edit.

    John Rawls, for instance, argued that a just society should generally tolerate the intolerant, reserving self-preservation actions for only when intolerance poses a concrete threat to liberty and stability.

    Do the actions of the Republicans, ICE and CBP not constitute a concrete threat to liberty and stability? Does America look like a free and stable country to you? There are concentration camps, no due process, street executions without repercussion, mass protests, and threats of war upon neighbouring countries.

    How to deal with the paradox of tolerance is therefore clear, no tolerance for the intolerant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Ah, OK I see that. I thought it also looked a bit like it would apply to the downward slope of social media and polarization of everyone into hate-filled groups where "no one is wrong."

    Thanks for explaining your perspective!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent