• quacky@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    I don’t like this framing because it presupposes that I’m in the wrong and the crowd is right. I think inversely. The crowd over there were irrational, and I do not care that I was banned. I do not have a presupposition that I’m acting inappropriately nor do I think those people are like witnesses of a bad guest. I think a more apt analogy is talking about atheism at a christian conservative meeting. I think atheism is a rational position, and an expected negative reaction would be simply an irrational emotive response due to the failings and perverse incentives of groupthink and the crowd. That is what happened at that Lemmy group.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I can’t agree with that - the crowd was right in this case. We can stick with your example to discuss why.

      If a bunch of christians hold a christian conservative meeting and want to discuss christian topics there, it’s objectively wrong to bring up atheism, unless you’re there to learn about their perspective on it. But as soon as you start to argue or defend a position, you’ve broken the rules of that social space, and excluding you is the correct move.

      • quacky@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Yeah ok well let’s agree to disagree. I am not motivated to entertain this conversation. Good game, well played