Also consider that you may be the imperfect ally.

Maybe you are on the wrong about something and the other person you think they are imperfect are on the right. One of the things about being open-minded is precisely having the mind open to different ideas (all within reason of course).

I too have been seeing a tendency of left wing fundamentalism where there less and less room to discuss anything each year. I don't think that's healthy. I get that's a defense mechanism to cope with far-right rise, but I think it is a mistake.

I think the thing that made left wing the intellectual's choice and the best choice it's that it's funded on reason and not in indiscutible and inamovible dogmas. In order to keep it this way there need to be giggle room, there need to be people who differ in some topics, there need to be variety, there need to be different opinions from different environments and different social backgrounds.

And it's not that because they are different they are wrong. They might as well be right and you are the one on the wrong. The purest dogma may be wrong. That's why diversity is needed. Without diversity a bad dogma will never get questioned, and thus never will change to something better.

Once again. All within reason, I'm not saying to tolerate the intolerant. I'm saying that not everyone who has a slightly different way of thinking is an intolerant fascist neo-hotler.

So I say. Accept the different but not only with the hope of "converting" them. Accept them because overall you have more in common and because you love people having different ways of seeing the world.

If you do it with the idea of "converting" them I think things are going to go badly. Just accept them, they may convert or you may convert or no one may convert and you both keep coexisting without having to agree 100% on everything. And that's fine.

but some of these examples are just clearly not ok, proton isn't better than gmail, brave isn't better than chrome

this post just reads like "you should accept people doing bad things because otherwise you're being a meanie"

As big Voltaire said: "perfect is the enemy of good".

There's dozens of reasons why the average person can't commit to being the best; most altruistic person in the world. I think even making the minor changes and starting the ball rolling should be seen as a positive though rather than gatekeeping the route to fully embracing a concept - whether it's greener travel; fairer social policies; or sustainable living.

I've had a bit of stick recently for saying I'm trying to reduce my meat intake - purely from an environmental point of view. It's frustrating when you're looked down upon for not taking the opportunity to go full vegan - it's not a goal that I'm against but fuck me, one step at a time!

Same again with purchasing an EV - yes there's issues with the procurement and disposal of rare metals and the increased use of rubbers and micro plastics due to the weight, but motherfucker I don't care about that at present - I'm just happy that my emissions are coming down and I'm saving a bit of cash.

Politically, I've historically voted Lib Dem but get grief for being a yellow Tory. I'm like bitch I can't stand the Tories - but there's no Green candidate in my area, and I just want to start pushing the stats towards the left to make it more appealing for parties to field more social or left-leaning candidates.

The all or nothing approach does my tits in as well but hey ho, you can only do the best with what you've got.

Minor nitpick: Kia is South Korean, not Chinese. Also for your examples this is certainly true, but one should also make sure to not broaden the tent so much that it becomes impossible to have a coherent program. Something like "I support insert good leftwing idea but I also support Israel/deporting immigrants/etc" should be met with a good faith attempt to change the other person's position and, if that fails, rejection. Some lines can't be crossed without fatally compromising whatever you're supposed to be fighting for.

OMG a YouTube link, disgusting. You should never use YouTube, don't you know they are a big tech American firm supporting the Trump regime

• Someone Probably

It's exhausting, I already know all these things, I'm trying my best :(

I think we should be calling out these criticisms, and promote an environment where people can take baby steps in the right direction. It's a marathon not a sprint.

It's tough because "the left" isn't a monolith. There are people who are socially left but economically centrist. Similarly, there are people who are economically left but socially more conservative. Support for an economic system does not necessarily determine support for any one of various social causes.

I would argue that most "leftists" in the West are socially progressive liberals, who are perhaps critical of some aspects of neoliberal capitalism, but aren't necessarily strongly committed to abolishing capitalism in favor of socialism or communism. In that regard, they are not economically left, or only slightly economically left. A lot of Western leftists are far more focused on addressing social justice issues within capitalism rather than completely changing the system.

There just isn't one, singular "left." I think there is a very vocal social justice movement in the West and that is what most of us think of when we think of the left, but that group does not have exclusive ownership of all leftist thoughts and ideas, even if they might think they do and even if they try to police the views of other leftists who might but necessarily agree with them on every issue.

I thought about what to comment there instead of just saying how cute this 'remember the person' post looks in the hostile modern internet, and then I recalled a couple of interactions where digital people in my app took their time and energy to explain me something. That's not reddit/twitter-rare, but it would be nice if it would happen even more often. And, taken out from this one moment's emotional state, I feel kinda bad later for a couple of interactions I had on this platform when I jumped onto assumptions or was in a combatative mood for nothing.

I believe it’s partially due to superiority complex.

” You think you’re good? Well, I’m here to inform you that I’m better!”

I'm as tolerant as the next man but don't use Reddit you disgusting animals.

Welcome to the past three hundred years of labor movements, friend. It sucks in here, but it sure is better than the alternative.

I'll say that your proposed alternatives have all the soul crushing artificiality of a customer service call center. I would much rather say nothing at all. I'm not anybody's parent or marketing representative.

I can tell you what I do for each of those things if you want to hear it, but I won't pitch somebody else's product at you and I sure as hell won't take your pitch unless I asked for it. I find people who try to sell you stuff on the street obnoxious and I'm not gonna do that same thing online.

Most people's goals in commenting is not to change the minds of others. It is usually about alliance building. Essentially breaking people up into groups, looking for others that fit into the group you are in, excluding those why aren't. Polarization really. When lemmy was new, lemmy was the group. So people less often tried to alienate others in order to carve out thier niche. But as it has grown, it has driven people toward fracturing to form groups from the group. This is just how humans evolved to be.

Worse by rejecting an imperfect ally you often get an ally that is even worse for your goals.

YIMBY rejecting possible right wing allies in turn have to find common ground with left wing NIMBY and that often means more zoning that makes building impossible. There are many other examples where reaching across the "aisles" would better meet your goals.

Great that you're pro-trance, what's stopping your from being onboard with XYZ? Maybe I can change your mind

Sure, I've never heard xyz music, so link a song and I'll listen.

Joking aside, wanted to point out the issue must have with Brave isn't that it's Chromium based, it's that they're a VERY shady company.

Between the transphobia, the secret crypto mining at one point, the link jacking, and so on, I'd say it's as bad as Google Chrome, but maybe even less trustworthy than Google (okay, maybe not, but it's close enough that the thought crosses the mind). There's no reason they should be trusted anymore.

Friends don't let friends use Brave.

😄pro-trance is a funny typo

People also care about different things. Say someone cuts out beef because of environmental impact and starts hunting boar instead. Someone else screams at them for animal rights issues that they just don't give a shit about.

I always come back to the voting system criticism that I started in Reddit. Unfortunately, the voting system was brought to Lemmy, but it's less "damaging" the way it's used around here. Moreover, in Lemmy you can hide the voting system, which is the way I use this platform, with a positive effect in my social anxiety.

I believe the voting system is planned, primarily, as an "emotional pit". With this term I mean it's like having a sentiments pool of the community members points of view on some issue. A highly voted comment is ideology and enotionally-charged in a given way, and it's usually read within the context that was provided by the emotional discharge of massively liking or not a comment. Try always to read a comment without the votes context in search of a different meaning of the author than what the community reads. This is also affected by the cultural framework of the participants in a community. Most prominent among these factors is the English language, which is not spoken daily by many users of Lemmy, frequently sending a tone that may sound harsh, flamboyant, ignorant, sloppy, etc. to native speakers.

So, going back to OP's discussion, yes, I believe the voting system exacerbates the differences between the members of a community and casuals looking for knowledge about some issue. Communities are not random and neutral, they have defined affinities that frequently imply others which may remain hidden. When someone unrelated to a community comes with new knowledge for them to share to a seemingly familiar group of people, they are welcomed by the "champions" of the community in case. These '"champions" are just people immerse daily in a specific mindset and discourse, who also receive an overwhelming emotional support through votes, so their confidence is very high. Add to this that sometimes they even have the right to ban you if you don't follow their rules and you get a lot of attitudes like the ones you describe.

Anyway, the use I do of the voting system is something that, I believe, levels the ground of discussions. I can't see votes, I hide which instances are users coming from, and I only vote positive and reserve negative votes to, basically, comments and posts that go against human rights.

I think we should be calling out these criticisms, and promote an environment where people can take baby steps in the right direction. It's a marathon not a sprint.

Supportive and constructive "yes! And.." feedback is a skill lots of people would benefit from adopting.

Online spaces often have purity testing and gatekeeping you wouldn't see in real physical conversations between peers.

Some of it is just people being very focused on their goal, and losing sight of the human meeting them half way.

Some of it is performative, the message isn't for the person they are speaking at, but rather the silent ocean of lurkers who might come along later.

Some of it is good old fashioned elitism "you are doing it wrong"

I imagine a lack of empathy and ability to map strangers incentives when they differ from the commenter. People can do good things for bad reasons, or they value things you dont like, etc.

Empathy would go a long way to making online spaces more enriching for all

Thing is, everyone has their own limits as to where the line is between an imperfect ally and not being an ally at all, and even when that line shifts into an indirect enemy.

I'm relatively liberal in who I'll consider an ally. As long as the goal is similar enough, I'll work with people that differ on the details. As an example, I don't necessarily believe that anarchist details will hold up long term, but would have zero issue working with anarchists to achieve a goal. The goal being a significant change in socioeconomic structure. I accept the fact that compromises will be necessary to achieve that goal, and that they will also be necessary after (if) that goal were achieved. I'm pragmatic in that regard.

That's true for me on prettymuch every front because there's not enough people in any of the movements I could support to make anything useful happen by themselves. It's like how LGB turned into LGBT, then the Q+ got added. You know, apes together amd whatnot. Since I genuinely believe that the struggle for human rights is fully intersectional with those specific groups' rights needing to be recognized as human rights, anyone that's on board even tangentially is an ally.

It's a fuck ton easier to talk a partial ally into compromising and meeting your goals at least short term than it is to conquer enemies.

Part of that pragmatism is recognizing that any ism has zealots. Tankies, terfs, nazis, ultra-radical feminists, whatever; there's always going to be people that will never, ever compromise because it's about their faith, the belief becomes their religion, and they simply can't work with anyone else at all. There's fucking radical moderates and centrists that genuinely believe that middle ground is the only acceptable and allowable form of structure, and will not work with anyone else, period.

But I'd still work with them as imperfect as zealots inherently are, because you use the tools you have.

But that doesn't mean you can't critique. It's just that you have to choose your battles. You have to decide when and where to apply critique as a form of communication. And there's no single answer for that

You don’t change someone’s mind by criticizing them

Sometimes you do, if they are self aware enough to accept constructive criticism. I don't recall ever changing anyone's mind by being polite, they just 'agree to disagree'.

Tone matters of course, but it depends on the person and whether or not they respect the other person's opinion.

This reminds me of this excellent video I watched last month. Among other things, she points out that the right-wing have a saying: "no enemies to the right" and how effective that is. She doesn't suggest we go that far, but she does have some other pretty good advice.