Argument about why an instance doesn’t want to federate with another instance that’s devoted to political trolling. Apparently that kind of behavior is simply a core tenet of the belief system, and to criticize it is to reject the whole ideology.
Argument about why an instance doesn’t want to federate with another instance that’s devoted to political trolling. Apparently that kind of behavior is simply a core tenet of the belief system, and to criticize it is to reject the whole ideology.
One thing you have to remember about the communists is they see everything through the lens of class. They do not acknowledge any other form of conflict as legitimate, everything else is a smokescreen to distract from their attempts at class warfare. They have an overarching goal in mind, and they work backwards to diagnose the hurdles, placing value only in how something pertains to their goals. They’re zealots, no different from how a religious fundamentalist views everything in the framing of their religion’s worldview. Attempting to remain objective takes a backseat to these goal-oriented perspectives.
The reason I accept the civil ones is they do have valuable input on occasion. While I don’t see class as the central cause of society’s ills, I do acknowledge class conflict as one of many “legitimate” forms of conflict. And in the same way that I acknowledge a theologian viewing the world from some religious perspective and analyzing all problems from that singular point of view, I acknowledge these folk’s rights to do the same from their class-based perspective. At least class exists, where someone’s mythical battles between heaven and hell may very well not.
It really is helpful if you remember that while we may be trained in trying to stay process-oriented through things like the scientific method, that’s not a default way of thinking or anything. So, if you’re going to argue with one, you need to remember they’re not going to see even basic facts from your perspective. What is a fluke/outlier vs what is the statistical trend, is just interpretation until you have the hard numbers, after all. Keeping the focus on actual data and verifiable facts, while pointing out what is merely subjective interpretation, is a good way to keep the conversation somewhat balanced.
I almost agree with this. At least with Lemmy Communists, if you try to get them to sympathize with the Chinese working class and their struggle against their ruling classes, they will all of a sudden become a landlord-supporting cheer squad. I think WistfulNihilist pegged it right, they see everything through the lens of “our team vs. your team” and don’t care very much about the facts or will deliberately twist them around to suit that narrative, because they think that’s what they are supposed to do.
Completely agree. And I sort of agree with the other bit, I don’t really consider them as “enemy” because of that or anything. I’ve had productive conversations with them sometimes and sometimes learned relevant things. But yes, it makes them dangerous, and it also makes it darkly hilarious that they constantly accuse everyone who isn’t uncritically on their team in all things, of being victims of some kind of dogmatic propaganda and say that they’re only banning all dissent on their instances because they’re trying to help everyone see the light.
Doesn’t work, if you source anything they don’t agree with they’ll do mental gymnastics to find a way to discredit it in their mind and for their audience.
It’s part of what you mentioned but it’s deeper. Even evidence is viewed through the lens of my side or their side. They will only every engage with the evidence that agrees with them. People who push this point get ad hominemed, then the communist commentator (there has to be a shorter word for that) will play victim when this person inevitably does it back.
It’s the same playbook every time, and it’s clearly a community thing.
That’s the path to victory though. As soon as you draw out the ad hominem, you’ve forced them to pivot off of the main topic, withdrawing from an untenable position.
You can’t actually expect a zealot to admit they’re wrong (edit: on an issue of core belief), that’s not realistic. You need to be comfortable accepting something else as the conclusion of the argument, by necessity.
Removed by mod
I understand, but I’m not so sure that’s a viable long-term strategy in the modern, digital world. Perhaps you could argue it’s the best we’ve got, but I think the jury is still out on that.
Removed by mod