Steel bands tighten around my heart. My knees knock and my vision wavers. But then I remember I’m not on Reddit, and metacanada has not yet replaced the moderation team with pod people.
What measures are in place to ensure the continuing security of our moderation team? If it won’t compromise them to tell us.
I think in the interest of building a healthy community we can acknowledge that the problem is not “people with right-wing views” despite whatever other problems might be fair to blame on them as a block. We’re talking about aggressively anti-social people who don’t really believe in governance and humanism at all. They appropriate right-wing politics when its convenient but they aren’t really political in that sense. They’re just assholes.
…so, your typical modern conservative?
I say that slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I do stand by that the people you describe are almost exclusively going to be right-wing.
That’s definitely not to say that there’s never been any online communities negatively impacted by left-wing politics. I can’t even remember the number of subreddits I used to enjoy that have been overtaken by tankies/Stalinists/Maoists/Soviet-apologizers.
I would say that they almost exclusively adopt a right-wing persona, but I don’t think that someone who isn’t trying to constructively engage really fits on the left/right spectrum. We might have different values, and we might even disagree on what it means to do so, but ultimately we’re all supposed to be pulling for the common good. I think that anyone who is not working towards the common good is better described using other terms, so that we don’t alienate our allies. A kleptocrat is not left or right. A corporate agent engaging in legislative capture is not left or right. And a bunch of vandals who get a sexual thrill out of upsetting people on the Internet are not left or right.
I see you still believe. Good on you. At this point, breathing smoke from a wildfire brought to us by right wing policy, believed and voted for by right wing people, I can no longer believe. I’ve ran out of benefit of the doubt to give.
I know this is going into the weeds but this thread is all weeds.
What policy are you referring to?
I imagine they’re referring to Fox News and similar outlets describing the current situation with forest fire smoke as “liberal propaganda”, and implying that the dangers of smoke inhalation are false, a leftist hoax.
Honestly, I think this is being a bit generous to the right. Maybe the right thirty years ago was as you describe, but not anymore. Major right-wing institutions have done little to nothing to push back these people supposedly “adopting a right-wing persona”, because they realized these people are an amazing way to push the social narrative to the right and amass more power.
I think respectable right-wing politics are dead (or at the very least, on life-support) in a post-Trump era. The Republican Party was initially pretty hostile to Trump and his style of politics, until they realized they could exploit it to garner more power.
I highly recommend watching Innuendo Studio’s video on YouTube, The Alt-Right Playbook: You Go High, We Go Low. The whole series is worth a watch, but this video in particular shows how good faith attempts to reach across the political spectrum are easily exploited by fascists.
I’ve watched those, they are excellent.
Well, I am trying to be generous. We must.
I totally get and appreciate that, I just want to caution that that generosity can and will be exploited by alt-right fuckheads. A community that wants to be tolerant must be intolerant of intolerance.
And I would once again like to distinguish between intolerant people acting bad faith with bad intentions from people with whom we disagree with politically.
Is there a difference when the people we disagree with politically actively associate with these intolerant bad-faith actors whenever it’s politically expedient for them?
Hate and violence are not acceptable. There are hard lines. Many if not most right wingers are able to stay on the right side.
You and I disagree deeply about some very important things (not mentioned in this conversation), but if I flip the bozo bit, we’ll never understand our differences. Sometimes people don’t have to agree, merely understanding one another is enough for everyone to get what they need and work together in mutual benefit.
I think there’s a difference between real-life interactions and online communities.
Anecdotally, I’ve seen a couple full blown, queerphobic, “I would beat the gay out of my children” type bigots grow into loving and accepting allies of the LGBTQ+ community through exposure, conversation, and mutual understanding. I’m not in any way denying the power of those things, and while marginalized people of all types shouldn’t be expected to be constant teachers (as it’s really quite emotionally and mentally taxing), having open conversations is probably the best way achieve a more loving and accepting society in general. It’s a lot harder to hate someone/something when you’re directly confronted with someone from that group being thoroughly reasonable and maybe even enjoyable to talk with, contrary to what you might believe.
However, in online communities, things work differently. Anonymity, asynchronous communication, the public nature of conversations, with immediate reactions and commentary from an incomprehensible number of people. These are all massive barriers to attaining that mutual understanding you describe.
At the end of the day, if I have a queerphobic or racist or sexist or otherwise bigoted person in my life, say a coworker, I don’t have a choice but to interact regularly with them so I will at least try to steer them towards a kinder perspective. Sometimes you might have to give up on a particular person, but most times we both learn some stuff and both come out of it slightly better.
On the other hand, if I enter an online space and it’s bigoted, I (and I’d wager a large number of not-bigoted people) will just leave. And then you end up with /r/Canada.
All I am trying to say in all this is, don’t say right wing when you mean fascist. Hate isn’t political. When hate is used to influence politics, that’s fascism and terrorism. They try to make us afraid to use the word but that’s what it is. Demonizing marginalized people for power is fascism.
I suppose I am using a remarkably uncynical sense of “political” here. I think that when a person expresses hatred, uses bad faith arguments, misrepresents facts, etc., they are not “doing politics” but rather trying to corrupt politics to use our collective power to harm the common good. I don’t tolerate the intolerant; I see them as outside of all meaningful political expression. But from everyone else, I think we can afford to assume good faith and aught to try.
A key characteristic of fascism is that it attacks left-wing politics, but that doesn’t make fascism right-wing politics! Fascism is really the exploitation of voters with authoritarian personalities by a small number of charismatic personalities who know some basic human psychology.
Fascist voters are scared. They are not really looking for political expression, they are looking to have their psychological needs met. They want to feel powerful. They don’t really have anything in mind to do with that power, because their whole deal is they are afraid of a future they don’t understand and feel like they can’t control.
I think when we blame things on “right wing politics” it needlessly poisons our own perspective, scorns innocent bystanders, and fails to be critical of the actual problems. Bigots and fascists are hateful, and I think we should call them what they are. Yes, most of them are right-wingers, but most right-wingers are not bigots and fascists. They’re Liberals and swing voters.