“When we said you should nationalize controversial industries, steal from the rich, enshrine corruption, and grow the welfare state, we meant you should do it in a nice, aesthetically pleasing way that panders to our social demographic.”
I have so much respect for anyone that can hear an opposing opinion and see the value in the dialogue rather than going straight to “this person shouldn’t be allowed to have opinions around me”. So often social media causes us to segment into opinion bubbles with no differing opinions allowed inside. It takes a certain strength of will from a moderator to resist the urge to carve out those bubbles.
I see the justification for some opinions online start to get really lazy. Like they’re full of holes. Even if I agree with them, I can think of so many ways I could poke holes in their logic if we were arguing in good faith. I really believe this comes from our refusal to allow opposing opinions in these spaces. When you aren’t challenged in your beliefs you get really lazy at justifying them to other people. It weakens your arguments.
Something something trans rights
edit: Wait, I’m confused. Do you guys not like trans rights or do you not like the implication that we’re not allowed to post criticism without pledging shallow, performative allegiance to the marginalized group du jour?
It’s that you’re calling 196 community similar to tankies
I don’t see how that could possibly be true. One of them stans Marx and the other stans Marx and Lenin. I mean, how could they be any more different?
