Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. We try to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are highly encouraged as no-discussion downvotes don’t help anyone learn anything valuable. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
We’re back! We’re testing the waters with the new influx of people to see if this is valuable or not. We are also actively seeking moderators and people who enjoy discussion (and understand that being wrong is an important part of being a better person)! Send me a message if you’d like to help out.
This weekly thread will focus on Political Purity Testing. The definition we will use for this discussion is here along with some real-world examples.
The attitude can essentially be summed up with “If you’re not 100% with us, then you’re against us.”
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Do you feel it is helpful or harmful to a side of an issue to purity test?
- Do you feel these tests are encountered more as you enter extreme areas of thought?
- Are there alternatives to purity testing that you’d rather see implemented?
- Do you feel this happens more on the left or right wing, or is it roughly equal?
- Here’s a goofy quiz about which Canadian Political Party you most agree with. Take it and let us know the results if you feel like it! https://canada.isidewith.com/political-quiz
I’d argue it happens just as much in right wing spaces. People with soap boxes want to make sure nobody listening to them will rebuke them.
It’s small people in big spaces. People want to feel secure and reassured in their feelings. Presently, it may seem as though left leaning spaces use these purity tests more frequently but I would argue that’s the result of under-representation in modern politics.
Many left leaning folks have to vehemently defend the feelings they hold in their hearts. Meanwhile right wing folks get to say “I feel what I feel! You know in your hearts it’s the moral thing to do! Anyone who opposes is immoral”
So, you end up with a lot of leftists who have to carve out safer spaces for conversation. I think, because the societal default opinion for leftists is that they hold immoral stances. ie: socialists, communists, anarchists. They seem evil to outsiders.
I dunno about it happening just as much on the right. I’m in Alberta and (for events only) still have to use Facebook, so I unfortunately see a lot of right-wing content. The overwhelming majority complain about left-wingers in broad sweeps, not people slightly less right-wing than them. The right wing is far more cohesive in my experience, which is one of the things that make them more dangerous. Their votes primarily mean “fuck the other side” in a way that left-wing votes do not.
Most of the insular leftist communities here on Lemmy also claim the moral high ground, but will ban light dissent. From FuckCars, 196, lemmy.ml, to some Vegan communities they all feel that they have the moral high ground and will spew bile at anyone with the audacity to agree with them, but in the wrong way. Their votes often mean “fuck EVERY other side except my small sliver of the left.”
Right, but now go say some lightly left leaning things in one of those communities and watch the vitriol roll in.
Like I said, little people, big internet.