Shared Teddit URL, if Teddit does not work then use this old Reddit URL: https://reddit.com/r/privatelife/comments/k7vngo/2020_special_the_good_the_bad_and_the_ugly_my/
Lemmy has a 5000 letter limit, and my writeup is 11000 letters, hence the direct linking.
I like what you say, a little big centrist for my taste, but I understand that you need to speak like that in those environments or otherwise you get fucked by a lot of comments of other centrists saying stuff like “bUut weE als0_O n33ed frEE speeach for fascissST!!!1!” which is lame. When I once posted about Chelsea Manning, jeez, I received so much hate.
The main objective is to bring people closer and yet still condemn people denying discrimination or acting on their objectively terrible ideologies. If someone thinks they will be accepted into a community even if they can be complete pieces of shit, that is not going to work.
True meritocracists do not sneak in their racist tendencies or care about politicising things. Fake ones do.
Racists often tend to use reverse racism and denial tactics to shield off any criticism and condemnation, and the recent Twitter study showed how disinformation spreads 6 times faster and appeals upto 20 times more.
Agree, although I do not understand what you meant by “politicising things”, I am pretty sure we are politicising things when we say we do not want fascists in the privacy community, and that is perfect.
That can become a problem when the “mass consensus” does not want particular opinions. Now, while fascists spreading their ideology or discrimination is a common trait in them, maybe we should make it clearer that unless one pushes these kinds of things on people, they are welcome to chat. Instead, places like Gab, Parler and Dissenter got created that empower them and unite them even more.
The “consensus” for example tends to believe Apple offers better privacy than Huawei, even though we know Apple is a NSA partner while USA government has not given us any evidence in two years since the ban, it is all propaganda that that USA country produces. Same for Falun Gong’s organ harvest theories, or Adrian Zenz’s Uyghur propaganda.
Now if you were to go ahead and criticise Israel or their government, somehow a bunch of people pop up claiming Israel = Jews = you are anti semite.
This kind of “mass consensus” agreement creates a big loophole into what should be allowed or not, even though there exist facts to prove otherwise.
I do not think many people will be on my side, honestly, but someone has to open up this debate. Me being a democratic socialist, I think the debate needs to be there.
Sure, the only thing I critized was that idea that highly prevails in the privacy community and in society in general that there are events or decisions which are not political, and therefore that some spaces should remain “unpoliticized”. For example, “privacy is something that affects us all, and therefore we should all unite and fight for it”, as if we should allow nazis to participate in any kind of decision making.
Something very similar happens in gaming, I’ve heard a lot of times stuff like “SJWs came and started to get politics into videogames, they are entertainment, it shouldn’t be a matter of politics” as if videogames weren’t a hyper politicized environment, full of mysoginy and male centered.
The same happens everywhere, all arguments are political arguments, I’m not referring when one opinion may seem like a right wing one (saying that what Israel is doing now with Palestine is genocide) when actuallt it is a left wing one; when it is hard to tell if one argument is in one side of the spectrum or the other, just that they are all political.
These things are very hard to deal with. Where misogyny is the buzzword, feminists will ignore misandry, thus people seeing them as authoritarian and ignoring their cause.
The cause of privacy is also politicised in ways. That said, the status quo consensus needs to change, as there is lot of wrong and hypocrisy in today’s version of justice.
