Following this banned content and this discussion: provide that “fascism-communism equivalence” and “horse-shoe theory” serve only to legitimize fascists, would you (@all) find clearer adding to the policy that this kind of content is not welcome on this instance?

A sibling request here.

  • dioramaOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 years ago

    To clarify: there is no mixing, the topic is the third point.
    If one has a selective political illiteracy - mainly their responsibility tbh - and reads no horse-shoe theory in the CoC, they may start questioning why the theory is so stigmatized and it is grouped with “antifa=fa” equivalence (hot topic in the US) or “nazis=commies” (hot topic in the EU).
    I give some suggestion here about the propagandistic purpose of the theory, and how nazis/alt-right/bigot scum uses it as a crowbar in online communities. I’d wish Lemmy flagship instance will not attract this kind of people to reap the confused (=lazy, to me) ones.

    • nope
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      Thanks for clarifying. I wanted to make sure that we are actually focusing on the same question here.

      I very much disagree with the view that this is a selective political illiteracy and I also don’t think it’s constructive to blame people for not knowing something, even less calling them lazy. The question is, how do people react after being confronted with a clear refutation of their view.

      In my experience the horse-shoe theory is mostly brought up by center-right and not far right people. Especially, people who bring up this theory (again, in my experience) often consider themselves to be against facism. I believe that banning these people will have the opposite effect of what you want to have.

      My experience regarding this topic is almost exclusively non-internet related; so, that might be the point why we disagree, as we draw our experience from different places where a different group of people raise this theory.

      • dioramaOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        Anyone has own on-line and off-line experiences. Analogies btw. on-line and off-line are hard to draw too.

        Selective political illiteracy is an observation, not a slur. Yes, I agree with you about avoiding the use since it is counter-productive.
        Yet, writing comes with responsibility. I do not blame people being ignorant, I blame people when they expose the community to harmful content and community hijacking. When ones insist and they are in good faith, I am quite confident that laziness is the main reason.

        If we add “no horse-shoe theory” on the CoC does not mean instant ban, as it holds for other contents.

        • nope
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          I agree with everything except that “laziness is the main reason”. There’s just a lot of things to learn and do in life and it’s difficult to prioritize.

          Anyway, I’m glad that we constructively made our points clear. :)

          • dioramaOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 years ago

            After insisting on the same concept? What could be instead? Fear of contradiction? I disagree. :)