Same with the ACAB crowd. Seems sweeping generalizations are completely fine as long as the hive-mind agrees.
And not that I’m defending cops at all. But I’m just very anti-“all” when it comes to defining issues.
Agreed. Lemmy has exactly one political opinion, and woe betide any poor soul of another persuasion.
Otherwise the community is pretty great. Lots of good conversation with intelligent commenters.
Pratai@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
Bazoogle@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Politics is nearly impossible to discuss with anyone, anywhere… The problem lies in the fact that nobody has the same foundation for discussing such topics. Probably the biggest issue is what people consider a reliable source of information. If you cannot agree that site xyz is stating things that actually happened, then how can you discuss anything political?
Honestly, I think the pain in discussing politics has more to do with today’s culture than anything with Lemmy specifically. It just so happens that Lemmy got popular around the time that “fake news” and misinformation became so extremely prevalent.
tinkeringidiot@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I think you’re making a solid point, but I think the basic problem is a fundamental lack of the willingness to listen and digest someone else’s point of view. Sources of information are important to a debate, but they’re ultimately irrelevant if either side isn’t willing to even consider the possibility that there’s more to learn than what they already know.
Bazoogle@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I did use sources as a big point, but it’s because it’s the easiest to see. Even if we are having a conversation that’s opinion based, a lot of the conversation can be misinterpreted just because of different world views.
I think just about everyone wants what’s best for everyone, but different people see the solution to that differently. What is the “best” for someone? In what areas of their life? Burning fossil fuels offers a lot of jobs, but doing so destroys the planet. Except some argue that it isn’t destroying the planet, and that we’re being lied to. But let’s assume it climate change is real, if one side is saying we need to do away with fossil fuels because it’s destroying our planet, the other side may hear that they want to take away their source of income (how they put a roof over their head, feed their family, enjoy life). And within that conversation, there can be innumerable amount of different understandings based on the people you grew up around, that I can’t even really list examples because it’s too nuanced.
If you want to talk about abortion, the debate is really about when the fetus is a human. It is generally agreed that killing a 1 year old baby, for any reason (financial struggles, the child was the conception of rape, unplanned) that killing a 1 year old child is not okay, regardless of your pro or anti abortion stance. So then you’d be arguing when does the life cross that threshold to definitely not okay? Is it at birth? In which case was the day before it born okay to kill it? Most aren’t okay with late term abortion, but everyone has the line they think it’s okay (with some the line is before the egg is fertilized). Not many people are upset if someone takes a plan B (some people are, but they’re the minority), so stopping the process that early is fine. So then the line would be somewhere between the two, and that’s an extraordinarily complex subject for people without medical degrees to try and discuss (and complex for even those with medical degrees). But of course there’s the aspect of it being the choice of the mother, since it’s the mothers body. In which case you could instead talk about the (obviously) flawed scenario: while you’re sleeping, someone is hooked up to you as a dialysis machine. You wake up to find this was done to you. They need to be connected to you for 9 months to live, and if you disconnect them at any point you will kill them. Is it okay for you to pull the plug? Honestly, I think there’s a lot of valid arguments for either side for that scenario, and both people could be totally right. Both parties have to accept the fact that the other person’s viewpoint has validity to have a peaceful political discussion, but it’s difficult when your own viewpoint makes you feel that they are killing people, or stripping others of basic human rights. Then you get emotional, you become irrational, and you get angry at the other person. It’s just all to likely to happen, we are emotional creatures after all, not machines. And once you start getting irrational, you become more set on your current viewpoint, less likely to hear what they are actually saying, and more likely to misinterpret what they are trying to convey.
This is just two examples of highly controversial topics, but they’re controversial because there’s nuance to it. To be on the same page about all the different parts of the topic is nearly impossible. Not to mention we already have opinions on a lot of it. I’m guessing several people reading this feel inclined to share their opinion on some of the things I said. I don’t think there is anything any online platform can do to have an entirely open discussion. To leave it entirely open for anyone means there will be tension, insults, anger, and whatever else. If you get a few people that can restrain their emotions to have a logical discussion and actually hear what others are saying, you could do it, but then it’s not an open discussion.