Yes, but, see everyone else's statements.
Also, lemmy.ml is widely seen as a very radical instance. The polarization and downvoting for contrary opinions is far worse around here.
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024
-25 points (39.3% liked)
Asklemmy
49406 readers
527 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Just yesterday I read a post about a woman being stalked by a supposed Nazi. At least 5 comments were quite literally 'buy a gun and shoot him', those had by far the most upvotes. When I said I hope theyre joking, I got downvoted and told you dont joke around when it comes to Nazis.
So yeah, maybe Lemmy is becoming kind of radical.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Radical but not logical. Make a post about a violent criminal who murders someone. And then poll the community if that criminal should get the death penalty. And I'll bet the majority would say no and be against the death penalty for all convicted criminals. But those same people have no problem cheering on the murder of someone that they don't like. If a person can live with this contradiction I'd guess that they just aren't thinking for themselves but following a crowd.
I don't understand why people think in these terms, "If you approve of violence being done by your side, you must also approve of violence done against your side." I'm not taking a principled stand in favor of violence for violence's sake. I support that which hurts the enemy and oppose that which hurts friendlies.
Stealing from the rich? Good. Stealing from the poor? Bad. Killing exploiters? Good. Killing the exploited? Bad. There's no contradiction here because my stance is based on self-interest and the interest of my class, not on any sort of categorical moral claim about some particular form of action.
load more comments
(23 replies)