• Zink@programming.dev
      22·
      3 hours ago

      The person making the argument could just be naive too.

      I could see myself 25 years ago making such a statement in completely good faith, trying to see both sides and all that. But I was naive to think that both sides were also arguing in good faith.

      But to be fair, that naive messenger would still be repeating an argument that originated in bad faith.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      1·
      38 minutes ago

      Yeah, you can plant seeds… But you won’t win anything. And the seeds, you plant will be absorbed by others looking on mostly.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      849·
      6 hours ago

      Maybe assuming you are the only one with reason in a conversation is the problem. You don’t have to agree with someone to understand their point of view or reasoning.

      Its definitely easier to ban or block if all you want is a circle jerk though.

      • Jojo, Lady of the West@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        6·
        3 hours ago

        I’m with you, but understanding someone’s view sometimes means acknowledging that it is, in fact, irrational. There are reasons some give as to why they think that cis women need protection from trans women, but those reasons are either not rational since the vast majority of evidence is to the contrary, or they are founded on the extreme minority of evidence that confirms them (meaning the search for evidence was conducted irrationally).

        If I try to understand someone’s point of view, restate it to them in a way they accept, and present overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and their response is to say the evidence is irrelevant because it’s possible some of it was biased, that’s irrational.

      • femtech@midwest.social
        381·
        6 hours ago

        There is no debating with people that believe in mythology as real life. Who says there is a lake of fire I’ll go to because I’m queer, who vote for someone their religion says is the anti-christ. Blocking is just avoiding stepping in shit.

        • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
          11·
          4 hours ago

          One could spend the enegry to spin their own beliefs to demostrate their contradictions… but their cognitive dissonance will cause them to just dig deeper to maintain their world view… people have to have an open mind before any rational debates can be made.

          • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
            1·
            17 minutes ago

            For most of my life, I was pretty quiet about being an atheist, and literally all of my friends were Christian; *they assumed I was too, and it was easier to let them. Eventually I stopped caring who knew, and finally told a few of my friends that I’m atheist. In every case, the response was ‘you can’t be atheist – you’re too nice’.

            A couple of them flat-out refused to believe I’m atheist, telling me that I’m actually Christian, I just don’t go to church or pray, and that’s okay. Utterly refusing to accept I don’t believe in their god, and trying to convince me of all the reasons I’m acktuaaly a believer, even if I don’t think I am. It’s been confusing and maddening. Some of these conversations have gone on for more than a decade.

            Many people will straight-up refuse to see anything that doesn’t conform to their worldview, and there’s not a thing you can say to break through it.

            e: *

    • turtletracks@lemmy.zip
      11·
      4 hours ago

      So is anyone rational actually leaving Godot? I saw that Redot, last I checked they were 52 commits behind, and their only 4 commits were changing any references of “Godot” in the code to “Redot”

        • turtletracks@lemmy.zip
          2·
          33 minutes ago

          The community manager posted something about Godot being woke on Twitter in response to someone saying using a game engine is “woke”, and a bunch of repliers were banned, some bans were reasonable, some bans weren’t. The official response from Godot was pretty lackluster too.

          Posting anything progressive on Twitter is just stirring the pot at this point, and it’s a little funny, since the majority of game devs I’ve met have been incredibly leftist, a lot of the folks getting pissy weren’t game devs, but just capital G Gamers

      • burghler@sh.itjust.works
        91·
        4 hours ago

        Personally I don’t think it’s wise to abandon Godot for a fork that will always lag behind and also just seems like a crude protest in retaliation. I think using Godot is fine as it is and unfortunately a con to the engine is we have to deal with silly politics from them being unfortunately in control of the Godot loudspeaker. I had to leave their discord because of the circlejerk they have going on was unbearable.

        I wish we could just have a professional space.

      • Zement@feddit.nl
        82·
        6 hours ago

        To avoid bigotry is really hard nower days. I don’t like Israels genocide but don’t think all Jews or even Israelis are monsters. I absolutely hate the Iranian politics of murdering women for getting raped and similar stuff, but I don’t think war is the solution. And suddenly someone jumps out of the woodwork blaming you “for support of genocide”… am I the bigot? I don’t know any more…

  • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
    32·
    8 hours ago

    An open society that doesn’t want the intolerant to undermine and topple it must be ready to defend itself - by reason and argument if possible, but these may fail because the intolerant reject reason itself. Force should be the last resort, but if all other means prove fruitless, it should be a resort still.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      440·
      6 hours ago

      Step 1: label people you don’t like as intolerant

      Step 2: skip diplomacy because of course

      Step 3: use force on intolerant people

      Exactly what makes you any different than this group of “intolerant people” you are talking about?

      • Seleni@lemmy.world
        13·
        3 hours ago

        See, this disingenuous argument works better when you just generalize it, because when you get into specifics it looks very different. Example:

        Step 1: label the people that hold the belief that ‘trans people are subhuman trash that need to be excised from society by violence if necessary’ as intolerant

        Step 2: skip diplomacy because they refuse to engage in actual conversation

        Step 3: use force on them because they are actually attacking trans people.

        Although really even parts 2 & 3 are disingenuous, because there are plenty of examples of people trying to engage the intolerant in debate, far beyond what would really be reasonable even. And you’ll also notice that force is rarely, if ever, used against those intolerant folks either, even as they use force, even deadly force.

        Hell, even the law won’t do more than slap their wrists in many cases. I use trans people as an example because until recently, ‘I went on a date with this lady and then found out she was trans, and I was so shocked I killed her’ was an actual legitimate legal defense and several people used it. If we’re being pedantic, that defense is still perfectly acceptable at the national level, as several bills banning it have been introduced, but none have been passed.

        • Jojo, Lady of the West@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          31·
          3 hours ago

          Step 1: someone says trans people are bad and wrong

          Step 1.5: live in a world providing plenty of evidence to the contrary. (No action required)

          Step 2: attempt diplomacy by saying that statement is probably false and its use will be reacted to with force. (Often a previously stated rule and therefore no action required)

          Step 3: use force.

          The fact is, saying that anyone has “skipped diplomacy” is also disingenuous. The discussions bigots are trying to have aren’t novel, they’ve been had to the extent that they are solved. No one “decided” they are bigots and have to get kicked out, it’s a conclusion.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        4·
        2 hours ago

        Step 1: label people you don’t like as intolerant

        Step 2: skip diplomacy because of course

        Looks like you’ve already completed steps 1 and 2…

      • turtletracks@lemmy.zip
        17·
        4 hours ago

        Well, I’m not homophobic, transphobic, or racist. Seems to be the general group that’s being blocked.

        If someone wants to argue economy with me, I’ll bite. If someone wants to argue about whether or not trans people deserve rights, I will block

      • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
        14·
        6 hours ago

        A contest of ideologies is nothing new nor inherently despicable. To declare an opposing ideology an enemy is nothing new nor inherently despicable. That’s how war has always worked, and defending yourself against those seeking to overpower you is nothing wrong. In that respect, both sides are the same, and that is the nature of opposition.

        But I did not skip diplomacy. I did a lot of arguing, online and offline, and still do. I tried reasoning, and still do.

        What makes me different is that I don’t think people should be oppressed for things they can’t control. I don’t think being poor makes you a worse person, nor rich a better one. I don’t think people born in marginalised demographics that are denied the same opportunities to prosper, tautologically lacking the prosperity to improve their lot, should be stuck in that cycle. I don’t think civilians should be bombed by imperialist fascists for their ethnicity.

        More critically, I don’t think a burger flipper working full time should make less than I do. I don’t think people should have to fear for their existence. I think we all - you included - deserve a happy, pleasant life. You shouldn’t have to worry about affording medical care, having a roof over your head or having enough food to survive. Luxuries, we can talk, but bare necessities shouldn’t be an issue.

        This is what separates me from the people spreading bullshit about Haitians, inciting racial violence, privatising healthcare, propping up the oligarchy while bleeding the people for every last ounce of labour they can get away with:

        I would rather have people I hate live comfortably, if it means that all the decent people can live comfortably too, rather than seeking to tear down everyone else for my own benefit.

        I want you to be happy, along with the rest of us.

  • BluesF@lemmy.world
    258·
    12 hours ago

    I appreciate this, I really do, but you do have to be careful not to end up like certain leftist Reddit subs where I got banned for the heinous crime of suggesting that voting for Harris might produce better outcomes than voting for Trump. Some level of discussion that goes beyond what the majority (or, lbr, the mods) think has to be allowed or you just have an echo chamber.

    Granted, that isn’t what is happening in the comic. The apologist here is genuinely advocating tolerance of Nazis. This situation is appropriate.

    • angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.comEnglish
      111·
      7 hours ago

      In my experience, most self-identified centrists, at least in the US, are to the right of what anyone reasonable would actually consider center. And I don’t mean that in an “um ackshually the Dems are center right” way either, I mean they’re often just Conservatives who don’t hate gays (but do hate trans people) or something.

    • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
      1·
      4 hours ago

      I think I got banned for replying “?” to someone saying NATO was bad because I’d literally never heard anyone say that. The context was about the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. I’m glad I’m off Reddit and modlogs are public here.

    • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
      22·
      13 hours ago

      You kind of can, but for the most part, it is better to just not engage unless they are showing themselves to be an open and honest interlocutor.

        • Hadriscus@lemm.ee
          2·
          3 hours ago

          I’ve been trying to find an alternative to interlocutor because I didn’t think it made sense in english. Life is about to get much easier !

  • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
    9·
    15 hours ago

    The apple fell somewhere completely devoid of apple trees and scientists could not trace it back to the tree of origin.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      34·
      6 hours ago

      The uncommitted/third party vote is what caused biden to drop out of the race. It could also very well cost the democrats the election.

      When a minority group has outsized power due to circumstance, they should use it to affect the change they want.

      The point isnt to make democrats lose its to put pressure on them to drop their worst positions, which happen to include genocide.

      You can argue that you think it won’t work, but its a prediction. Noone knows, which is why even among Muslims this debate has people on both sides.

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
        31·
        4 hours ago

        None of what you said is how anything works in US government. Biden has some crazy takes on the war in Gaza, but it’s rooted in them being our allies and something else that I have no idea about.

        3rd party in a 2 party system just takes away votes from another person. You have to calculate who that’s gong to be and assess the risk to the people and government.

        When a single party is in charge of the both the house and senate and there are no assholes that can be bought off, that’s the only time things can be changed.