so if you haven’t come across it, see here , here , here and here .

in short, one side says sources are pro-imperialist, the other side believes they’re legitimate sources. then there is one user thinking we have been targeted by troll farms, one accusing others of being conspiracy theorists and stuff like that. it’s one of the most unproductive arguements I’ve seen on Lemmy, something that looks like one those downvoted-to-oblivian threads on reddit. it’s just a mess.

I think we can do a few things to prevent such pointless fights in the future:

  1. my favoriate response would be creating a community of fact-checker Lemmurs. it’ll function similar to a wikipedia talk page, anyone can request a trial for an article shared on c/worldnews , then they will present evidence and sources to challenge the article, while the other side attempts to do the same. personal attacks, accusing of being a troll, asking for a call on jitsi to debate face to face (like seriously?!?!) will be forbidden. both sides will debate untill they reach an agreement. trying to go off-topic, bad faith arguements etc will be forbidden as well.

each time we reach a conclusion, a positive or negative point will be assigned to news source and to the person who posted it. best contributers who show the least bias will get a point as well. overtime it will help us to see if a source is really good or not.

  1. a much easier approch would be to let downvotes and upvotes decide the fate of each post. I understand that this is the whole point of lemmy and similar platforms, but right now we have the problem of each side using downvotes and upvotes like it’s a battle. posts about internet censoreship and tiny pigs are being downvoted because the person who posts them trusts the Guardian and other news outlets.

  2. we can limit the number of posts on c/worldnews to minimize the amount of personal attacks and arguements.

so what do you think? I personally think as more users come to lemmy, we’ll be dealling with more diverse opinions, and people might just engage in behaviors that harms the platform and benefits no one. this will be a real problem considering that Lemmy leans far-left. in my opinion having a fact-checking community will be neccessary if we don’t want fact-based communities turn into battlefields.

ps: am I going too far and overreacting? to be honest I don’t know xD I just think there’s no chance for productive political arguements if we can’t agree on the facts, and i see no point in what’s happening on c/worldnews right now.

  • Jeffrey@lemmy.ml
    51·
    4 years ago

    I just don’t believe we can bridge divides by refusing to build bridges. It is easy to unfederate if things get out of hand, but I believe to not try at all would be a tragedy.

    People [on Reddit, 4Chan, et al] mass brigade and spout racist shit and do not rely on facts to prop up their agendas. None of this happens on Lemmy, because far left is one domain that largely does not consist of uneducated hypocrites, reactionaries, warmongerers or racists and believes in critical thinking just like some of the conservatives do… you will not see corrupt liberals or neocons leaving their bigotry or agendas at the door for a discussion, and will use every opportunity to leverage their agendas.

    When I read that, I felt a little put off because it stereotypes many of the people in my life and espouses a certain pretentiousness, or holier-than-thou attitude of the Left. The left can be every bit as violent and bigoted as the right: a few years ago my local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America was ransacked by disgruntled communists advocating for violent revolution who were angry with the DSA’s peaceful message and reformist agenda. In fact, one of the problems I have witnessed of the left is that there is often an “all or nothing” attitude which self-defeats incremental progress, and undermines solidarity efforts.

    Personally, I was raised in a deeply conservative evangelical christian community, and I was sent to radical christian camps as a kid, so I have certainly been in the belly of the beast so to speak. My grandmother is an incredibly talented organ player, a wonderful cook, and a civic minded woman with a tremendous heart, but she is also staunchly against unions and socialist government programs. I think of her, and many of my family members & friends who hold beliefs that conflict with my own, and I refuse to discard the opportunity to have relationships with them because they do not believe entirely what I do.

    You are absolutely right that civility becomes more difficult to maintain with wider diversity of opinions, but I also believe the community is made more vibrant by diversity: I was once stuck in San Francisco on Christmas day (the whole city pretty much shuts down), but fortunately Chinatown was bustling because most of the residents & shop owners there do not celebrate Christmas, so I was finally able to get some food. I believe we should have more nuanced control over federation policies rather than “all or nothing”. I don’t think that is naive, I think it is a non-defeatist curiosity to solve problems and make things better. I’m hopeful that as Lemmy and the Fediverse grow they can help erode the perception gap by pioneering policies and practices that build bridges across divides.

    • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
      25·
      4 years ago

      Bridges are established with those that also want to handshake with some mutual agreement. One cannot make bridges while compromising their own ideals.

      You can verify when I tell about the “stereotypes”, people have some common traits and elements. I never say that one should overgeneralise people or things, as they are a pet practice of the neocon or the libertarian. But there should be some identifiable behaviours nonetheless, as we are all humans with some anomalies only so many political thoughts at the end of the day.

      I have been an alumni of a very famous Christian convent school, so I know Christian evangelists pretty well. And it is amazing that you did not get trapped there, o7

      As for family, I have a neoliberal family with some neocon members as well. I am the only one I know who leans towards socialism, even in my distant friend circles and so on. I do not burn bridges, but I always challenge their beliefs and notions, and have been able to tilt them for some towards being less biased. I used to get called “China agent” and “Russian bot” in jest, I sometimes still do, but it has changed a lot. Some idiots still call me that online, but it takes me a couple reply exchanges to expose them.

      It is not simply that civillity becomes harder to achieve amongst diversity, it is that everyone has an itch to scratch for confirmation bias. People have forgotten and discarded ideals and ethics of a genuine discussion, and it always becomes a quick race to win, or a race to the bottom using common tactics like deflection, projection, strawmen, reverse psychology, ad hominems and so on. I love this website and its articles, especially this one on this topic https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/L4HQ3gnSrBETRdcGu/philosophical-landmines (I think @poVoq shared it, grateful to them.)

      There is lots, but the crux of problems to me, from experience, looks like partisan politics and overgeneralisation that keeps from having neutral, civil and fruitful discussions.

      Edit: LMAO funny people downvoting me, do they think I am discouraged from writing these thesis comments? I am a joker card.