You must log in or register to comment.
Anger is sadness that had nowhere to go for a very long time.
I think I needed to hear this, this one is new to me. Thank you.
Anger is a “secondary emotion” usually masking fear or sadness, https://healthypsych.com/psychology-tools-what-is-anger-a-secondary-emotion/
It is also the emotion that happens right after confusion but before fear after someone punches you in the face.
“Whoever needs to hear this” is Reddit mods (especially of political subs) in my experience. Sooo much sealioning and other “polite” disinformation left unchecked, while angry comments calling it out got censored for “incivility.”
And .world mods! Civility politics are a tool of the status quo and no one who espouses it should be respected.
There are mods on Lemmy? Most of the subs I’ve seen have like one rule and I don’t see any mod activity. Not I believe there isn’t, but it’s my personal experience.
Incivility is always just a transparent excuse to censor content someone in power doesn’t like. It happens to me all the time on Lemmy, of all places. It’s not a platform problem, it’s just the human condition.
People need to keep their worldviews stable to keep the narratives of their lives straight, and toppling them over causes extreme psychological damage, so I actually don’t blame them for doing that. It is just self-protection for them, even if it is harmful for everyone else.
So much for the tolerant left … 🙄
/s
I’m glad that us leftists (which I prefer to think of as progessives since we’re not really just all on one side) are leaving the “tolerant of everything” label behind us. We’re not robots, we have prejudices the same as any other human. And there are limits that anyone with ethics would question and not tolerate.
Every online community demanding “civility” is confused and dangerous.
Sometimes blunt rejection is appropriate. Sometimes blunt rejection is necessary. Sometimes actual physical violence is necessary, in response to politely-phrased threats. There is no concept so horrifying that the English language cannot convey it gently. If a human moderator cannot be bothered to distinguish justified vitriol from unprovoked abuse, why bother relying on humans for moderation? If you remove cautious trolling assholes instead of their conversationally vulgar targets, guess who your community is for.
Demand and protect the ability to say “fuck off” when it matters.
Polite conversation has prerequisites. Polite conversation has limits. Once they are violated, pretending it’s all in good faith is what trolls want. Calling bullshit should be up-front, crystal clear, and safe from finger-wagging reprisal. And if you think that can’t extend to accusations about intent, you must imagine bad intentions simply do not exist.
There is no greater gift to trolls than announcing their sincerity must never be questioned.
Things people in the real world need to accept, numbers 1-45
Eloquently stated! Perhaps a caveat here or there, but well reasoned for sure.
I might add a couple points:
1: a healthy amount of self doubt can be helpful
2: try to remember good old Hanlon & his razor
Web visits are ever increasing. Many visitors are regular users, but we expect to encounter astroturfing marketers, coordinated activists for moral and immoral causes, state funded shills, and Large Language Models. But outside of an obvious paper trail in someone’s comment history, (self doubt + stupidity over malice).
If it’s possible to make a great clear point without getting angry, it may have a better shot at converting an idiot or someone yet-to-be-educated to your side. Other times you’ll waste your effort on bad faith actors. It’s a balance and nobody’s perfect. And in the right communities and at the right times, there’s no need to even really try. It’s all what we make of it, but adding this small shoutout to the potential benefits of civility.
/late night ramble I can clear up later 🌚
Hanlon’s razor, while useful, absolutely cannot be used as a blanket policy these days, because many (if not most) bad actors will plead ignorance if you really logically nail them on something.
The discerning factor is their historical behavior. Basically, checking chat history to see if they try to rehash the same arguments with the same levels of (not actually) “good faith” and confusion over time.
sound reason, understandable
Words
I love and agree with the sentiment here. Anger can be a useful tool when its energy is turned into outrage at injustice. But where the internet is wrong is in assuming an injustice has been done by limiting angry people from being turds to each other.
There can’t be any way forward if all parties are calling each other names just because they disagree. And all free speech must have guardrails because there are many fascists and abusers who would try to bully us into letting them berate anybody they choose just because that person’s appearance, beliefs, lifestyle, or habits are not something they support.
You can be blunt without being an asshole, and physical violence is never going to be a good end to anything. Ever. You have to live long enough to understand what it is I’m saying, if you’re under the age of 50 you probably don’t yet have that level of understanding.
You had me in the first half, not gonna lie
That’s better than most people achieve, I’ll take it.
Fair
