I’m done, I’ve been banned for expressing a different opinion (without insulting or personally attacking anyone), I’ve been accused of evading a ban with multiple accounts (this is my only account I’ve ever had on any lemmy instance), I’ve had people selectively ignore my comments and accuse me of things which I never said, and I’ve had people ignore valid criticisms and keep attacking me.
Reddit has many issues with trolls, one-sided discussion, and just general bullshit, but many Lemmy instances are way worse. The newfound freedom of Lemmy has attracted many extremists, from both sides, and many of them are moderators, who are more than happy to remove any contrarian opinions. This results in discussions being echo chambers
They idolize left authoritarians. And their talking points are summed up by if “the west” says it, the opposite is true. And they will argue with you.
So fascism is a term that is thrown around incorrectly a lot, blocking these people does help improve your Lemmy experience.
Based on my observations, some of them support present and past left-authoritarians, but most don’t. They’re definitely critical of the west, but I think there’s room for that criticism here.
It’s kind of funny when they post about Ukraine. They’re anti-NATO and anti-Putin, so they sometimes seem confused which side they’re on.
That is your confusion, my friend. You think you have to pick one of two sides, and they know differently.
What?
I am curious why you think people need to pick sides. And why you think there are only two sides. It’s such a peculiar thing, and it suggests that you want polarization so you make simple arguments. But reality is complex.
I didn’t say or suggest people need to pick a side.
Ah, maybe I clicked on the wrong thing. My apologies.
2 party conflicts generally have 2 sides to choose from. I’d like to support Poland in the war between Ukraine and Russia but the mechanics of the act aren’t readily apparent.
Right. It’s not a 2-party conflict. There are two countries, but within each country are many groups of people with wildly different priorities.
For example… Does a military general worry much if one farm house is destroyed? Of course not. But the farmer sure does. We can argue about whose fault it is, Russia or Ukraine, but that doesn’t bring back the property.
Sure, but subdividing isn’t particularly useful in this case. Russia quashes dissent with jail time, effectively creating a cohesive group through violence. Ukraine is a united front because it has to be. If someone were to begin talking about dissidents, that’d be an entirely different, and valuable, conversation. Speaking about the farmer whose barn was torched and grain stolen is still, to most, just talking about Ukraine.
An army general has vastly different goals than a farmer, or a grandmother, or an elementary school student, or even a private first class. This is not really debatable, is it?
You are very correct. This is why we argue so much on Lemmy; so many people think you have to pick between two sides.