Why are people quick to ban or block because a comment makes them angry, rather than engage, debate or respectfully strongly disagree and leave the discussion at that?
Why can’t people handle talking with someone who has a completely different view who can explain why they are against something that was said?
Generally I like talking to people with different views.
Sometimes I HATE doing it online. Context, nuance and a lot of things don’t translate.
Also, there’s a lot of people that are either uninterested in learning about the topic but fervent in espousing about its merits. I used to like chatting with libertarians and I just grow tired of it with the same old discussions. So I’ll just refuse to engage.
Eventually you have to think of your mental health and if you’re dealing with a troll or something. It’s just simply not worth your time.
Trolls are everywhere, all a person can do is ignore them and leave. When someone is clearly trolling in the sense of being insulting, any reaction only freeds
What I am referancing is when someone states a personal view that does invoke a reaction, there’s no intellectual curiousity to see where that comes from, it’s easier to ban them or try to get them suspended, which only proves how weak they are as a person because because it shows that they need to be protected from any belief they can’t defend against.
What is your issue with libertarians, and what type of libertarian are you talking about? There are libertarians that I am strongly for, and libertarians that I despise everything they believe, but each ofthose are different types. It would be a misnomer or a mistake to simply lump all of them as being libertarian.
For example I believe left libertarians can cause damage because they want zero social restrictions, and right libertarians understand better about self control or self restraint and humility.
Some people are just looking for a fight. Theres no point in arguing with someone who isn’t willing to change their mind
I can agree that sometimes a person only want to dump on people to make themself feel better. I am still not willing to censor someone like that. I refuse to listen to them, but I’m not going to censor them.
Each person can decide for themself if they want to engage with someone or ignore them
What is blocking someone if not a way to ignore and refuse to engage with them.
It can show how under developed their character is or reveal a personal weakness.
So you have someone who you refuse to engage in and recognize is a troll. It is your position that it is expected and good to ignore them and scroll past them but using a function that accomplishes the exact same thing programmatically is a personal weakness? Why?
Because I’ve been having the same “debates” and “discussions” with these inauthentic fucks for over 20 years. Same dumbfuck talking points, same dumbfuck lies, same dumbfuck “gotchas!”, same dumbfuck hypotheticals, same dumbfuck "I never said that"s, same dumbfuck everything.
Like, for example, compare the whole “kids shouldn’t get gender surgery!” to “women shouldn’t get partial birth abortions!”. It’s exactly the same thing: taking a procedure that is done incredibly rarely, to the point of being effectively nonexistent (needing to show up to a cumbersome number of significant digits in order to round to a number bigger than 0), and only under extreme conditions after deep consultation with multiple medical professionals, and pretending like it’s the most common form of the procedure, which is gotten on a passing whim and handed out by doctors like candy in the waiting room.
I’ve had all these “discussions” before. I’ve heard, and debunked, all this dumbfuckery before. It just keeps coming back. The same people will walk away from me, after sucking up all the time and energy I expended to provide sources and statistics, then turn around say the same dumbfuck things to the next guy in line as if our conversation never happened.
It’s a scam, and I reserve the right not to participate. Especially online.
There are a few reason for it. First if someone says “X people shouldn’t exist” the conversation that follows isn’t a debate, it’s one person asking another to justify having human rights.
Another reason for an instant block is “just asking questions” then I can guarantee that anything that person says in the debate will be disengious and the whole time they will be moving the goalposts.
Yes, some people move the goalposts when their statements get defeated, I am talking about, or asking, why do people need protection and silencing from some who makes a statement those goes against what they believe in?
There’s no reason to react so strongly. Simply don’t engage, ignore it, and continue on with life.
Beliefs and opinions have never hurt anyone, only action hurts someone. A person can only offend you if you allowthem and give them the power to offend. If you think someone’s statement is repulsive and forget about what you read, they can’t do anything to bother you.
In a true debate, I expect humility and dignity, and anything less than that is only them trying to win, it’s not a conservational debate to challege each other so iron can sharpen iron.
“Simply don’t engage, ignore it, and continue on with life.” making that decision takes some small amount of time, energy, and attention, all of which, at least for me, are limited. If someone demonstrates they aren’t worth my time to engage with, and engaging with them makes my day worse, it’s logical to block them, it’s only a benefit to me in the future.
How do you handle it when you are out in public and someone insults you, do you fight them or do you go somewhere else?
We were discussing “Why are people quick to ban or block” those terms only relate to online spaces. Please don’t try to change the topic to real life interactions, I would hate to think you are being disingenuous in this debate, I know how much that offends you.
It speaks to the broader context of personal character and how stunted someone is because they react emotionally, not able to control their words, have self control, and trying to win, not having dialogue.
For example, resorting to mocking, sarcasm, or insults proves an intellectual defect.
And you are an example of people it’s better to block them engage with.
Because 1. Not everyone is engaging in good faith. (See verb “sealioning”) or 2. Their view is so hateful that even giving a platform by engaging with it can be harmful. Or 3. It’s not my job to be content for you, I don’t have to engage if I don’t want to.
There’s no such thing as “So hateful it’s harmful”, that is a facade or a tool of deception used to censor someone because the other side can’t prove it to be false.
Hurt feelings does make a statement false, and something that feels good, sounds good, does not mean that isthe truth. Lies must have a small element of truth ind them in order to be believeable.
Something that is 100% lie won’t last, but if it’s 80% lie then people will stick to it.
What I’m referancing is if someone sees a comment they strongly reject, why can’t people either ignore it and leave it, or have an open dialogue to see where they disagree and where something might be a false belief system?
There’s no such thing as “So hateful it’s harmful”, that is a facade or a tool of deception used to censor someone because the other side can’t prove it to be false.
You cherry-picked the comment you quoted, leaving out important context: “Their view is so hateful that even giving a platform by engaging with it can be harmful.” My reading of this point is that giving a hateful idea a platform to spread is a reason to disengage with it, because by engaging with it you are giving validity to it in the mind of the author of that idea.
Even so, this is such a strange statement for you to make. So strange that I simply have to ask further: How do you reconcile this idea of yours with both the continued existence of antisemitism online, and being the mod for the !judaism@lemmy.ca community? Don’t you see antisemitism as a hateful set of beliefs that should be eliminated? That it should not be given a platform to spread? Of course, by your definition that would be “censorship”.
Under no circumstances will I remove any person for expressing antisemetic views and opinions, correct, I won’t censor them. Antisementic beliefs can speak freely without repercussions. It’s up to each individual how they choose to handle it, but I refuse to remove antisemetic statements from my forum on Judaism. Words can ever cause injuries.
From my perspective, I like to talk with people who have different views. However, when those views are hate against people for their race/sexuality/ethnicity/etc then my patience goes away. Their ideas are just excuses to heap on more suffering to people for things outside of their control. Other than that I am open to debate.
That means you do want censorship and silencing of others at a certain point, even though what a person believes cause no harm to others, it’s only when they act on it than it can be damaging.
It’s better for people to speak freely without consequences so you know what a person truly believes so you know who to avoid. With censorship or silencing, you will never know who someone truly because they won’t discuss, and that person could turn against you when they have an opportunity to hurt you because they had to stay silent about what they truly throught all along but you never knew because they were avoiding any consequences for what they believe in.
You do understand that when someone discusses their beliefs, and those beliefs are hateful, then they have actually caused harm and damage to others, right? They took the action of espousing those beliefs, and they should be accepting of the consequences of doing so.
Reading between the lines of your comment, you seem to be trying to bait others into saying something like “I want censorship of beliefs”, in an attempt to then turn around and feel justified in your beliefs because others “want to censor you”. If you are truly trying to do this, please have some dignity and stop. You are arguing like a child.
There is no such thing as suffering damage from a belief. Only physical action causes damage.
Only the weak minded get outraged over a statement or belief. Nobody can offend you unless you give them the permission and power to offend you. If want protection from reading or hearing things you don’t like, it shows how under developed you are.
As soon as you go outside, a person can insult you and there’s nothing you can do about it. If you physically attack someone for simply insulting you or mocking you, you are the criminal and it proves you have no self control, you are a delusional narcissist.
You can actually. somebody verbally assaulting you is a chargable assult offense, physical offense is called battery. You may think sombody isn’t getting hurt but you are removing their right to free travel unmolested. free speech is fine unless you are infringing on anothers right. people who spread hate deserve being blocked. we don’t have time in this short life to deal with hate filled lunatics.
You’re taking a one dimensional position, viewing it from an emotional perspective vs. what the letter of the law actual says and what isthe standard to cross that threshold. Being high strung you can not make something a criminal offense that you deeply resent.
If there were no threats or direct intimidation, police don’t respond when it’s only bad words.
Seems like you are all for being nasty and hateful. I now see why you get blocked, and asked the question about it here. People don’t want to deal with people that promote hate. Exception is other people who are hateful, then you may find long discourse about it.
white
Hey, not cool. I am not a fan of hate as I said.
Its not hate lmao
For those hate filled debaters, I already know those points and to parrot them to me would be a waste of time. They would turn against me in real life anyway, because I was born a member of the groups they want to debate about. My existence is not up for debate and I would physically attack anyone that tries to rob me of my right to thrive. It’s tiring and downright nauseating to have your right to live free be up for public debate. No one else has to deal with that except for those of us the right wing targets. They don’t have to turn on the news and see folks condemned to prison, death, or worse because of who they are and think, “they are trying to make conditions here like that.”
Their strategy is to claim they can’t speak on their hate and then once they can they try to sway as many as they can to their side. Then you end up with laws targeting your right to thrive. Sorry, deplatforming for hate is the way to go.
You have solidified that you are a weak and gutless person and you are the very type of person you claim to hate. You are awful for society.
And there it is. You finally show your true colours. Please stop trying to think so highly of yourself and leave this forum. This isn’t “censorship”, by the way. You are just an asshole.
please be respectful. you even mention it in your question:
Why are people quick to ban or block because a comment makes them angry, rather than engage, debate or respectfully strongly disagree and leave the discussion at that?
Respectful of what?
respectful of other people.
I’m getting direct insults but I’m not complaining, that’s how life goes.
and that’s your choice. if continue to insult others, you will be banned.
Well, now the claws come out. Now explain to me how defending my right to thrive and not having it up for debate makes me weaker than someone who already has those rights and just wants to limit mine?
You live your life based on what other people says, you are looking for acknowledgement and permission from others.
If someone hates that you are alive, it causes you no harm and has no relevance to your life as long as that person is not restraining you or physically blocking your movements. If someone condems you, by you reacting to that you are giving them power over you.
Have you heard the phrase “Allowing someone to live in your head rent free”?
I don’t worry about individual people hating me. Nobody lives in my head rent free, but I do stay aware of the consequences of group hate. Giving that hate a platform allows it to grow to more people and become an issue. My people are under real attack and it would be foolish for me to ignore that.
So I am a fan of deplatforming hate. Other topics however, I am more than glad to talk about and debate about.
-
If I make a spelling, grammar, or word choice error, or am unable to find a noun and have to describe the thing, then my entire point is invalidated. If I fail to accurately translate my shapeless, interwoven web of thought-color-shape-idea into paragraphs the other party can understand, they now have reason to regard everyone who holds my position as too stupid to be allowed to speak.
-
Insisting on a debate can be sometimes (but not always) a tactic used by people who want to wear out the other side.
-
The same reason I block, mute, and ignore advertisements: I get to decide how to spend my attention.
That’s a short sided simplified view of what I said. I was talking about either comments on a public platform or in a long form format.
What? How is it short and simplified??Can you explain what you mean? I answered your question, using more words than your original post did.
-
People are soft skinned and live in bubbles. They think if they block everyone they disagree with they’ll find the perfect place, but it never ends
Source: Know someone IRL who does this, and they’re always angry at something
I strongly agree and support everything you said.
For example, I’m religious, and strict at that, but when I talk to an athiest, their atheism has no affect on my religious devotion. I can still talk to them about music groups, shows, current events, games, internet things, and leave God out of the conversation so we can connect as 2 people, show care for each other, and avoid mentioning subjects that we are on opposite ends.
