Just like that. This is the prime example: More tone policing. I never asked if anyone here condemns Hamas. I’m merely pointing out that even expressing the slightest frustration about the actions Hamas does towards any peace process is an invitation to be called a) a zionist b) defending Israel’s genocide (I have to preface every post I make with how much I abhor the actions of the IDF but even that doesn’t matter). There is no conversation to be had. I get the impression this is predominantly an echo chamber.
Not by me. You haven’t violated any of the community rules. I have no reason to do any sort of moderator action. You are allowed to make criticisms even if I don’t personally consider them to be valid as long as those criticisms do not include personal attacks (or any other rule violations).
A tone argument (also called tone policing) is a type of ad hominem aimed at the tone of an argument instead of its factual or logical content in order to dismiss a person’s argument. Ignoring the truth or falsity of a statement, a tone argument instead focuses on the emotion with which it is expressed. This is a logical fallacy because a person can be angry while still being rational.
Maybe tone policing is not the right term. I might be doing a poor job of explaining myself. What I’m saying is no one here really engages with the topics presented because they’re bought in to the epistemic constellation of beliefs they need to have to be part of the lemmy in-group they are part of. Didn’t you yourself react to how “gleefully” OP presented their case? Isn’t that an emotional reaction?
Yes. I have emotions and I react with them, especially when I infer emotion from the person I am talking to. I am not a robot.
As far as some “Lemmy in-group” thing, do you think there are private meetings or something? Everyone here is an individual. If a majority of people disagree with someone, that doesn’t mean they’re part of a club.
I’m not saying in-group like a conspiratorial cabal. I’m talking about the Lemmy mob suppressing any outside thoughts instantly, just like you did when you attacked the tone of OPs comment as “gleeful”. I’d like to see more engagement with arguments/facts rather than loading every comment with emotionally charged language. That’s my dream at least. I really don’t want to go back to Reddit….
Reddit, the place where people who engage with arguments and facts rather than loading everything with emotionally charged language?
And, again, I would suggest saying that there are Lemmy in-groups and calling it an echo chamber sounds like emotionally charged language rather than anything factual.
“Do you condemn Hamas?” is a question designed to evade and defend Israel’s genocide.
https://medium.com/@melaniesusans/the-laziness-of-asking-do-you-condemn-hamas-3b31ac9c4768
https://globalvoices.org/2023/12/27/do-you-condemn/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrGlRax9AiY
Fonz is well fond of consistently trying to ad-hominem and slander users while he goes around defending Genocide and spreading Zionist propaganda.
I am afraid you are currently talking to a bunch of Hasbara alt accounts.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=LrGlRax9AiY
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Just like that. This is the prime example: More tone policing. I never asked if anyone here condemns Hamas. I’m merely pointing out that even expressing the slightest frustration about the actions Hamas does towards any peace process is an invitation to be called a) a zionist b) defending Israel’s genocide (I have to preface every post I make with how much I abhor the actions of the IDF but even that doesn’t matter). There is no conversation to be had. I get the impression this is predominantly an echo chamber.
EDIT: I’m going to be banned, aren’t I?
Re this-
Not by me. You haven’t violated any of the community rules. I have no reason to do any sort of moderator action. You are allowed to make criticisms even if I don’t personally consider them to be valid as long as those criticisms do not include personal attacks (or any other rule violations).
Hmm…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing
That sure sounds to me like someone complaining about how this place is an echo chamber.
Maybe tone policing is not the right term. I might be doing a poor job of explaining myself. What I’m saying is no one here really engages with the topics presented because they’re bought in to the epistemic constellation of beliefs they need to have to be part of the lemmy in-group they are part of. Didn’t you yourself react to how “gleefully” OP presented their case? Isn’t that an emotional reaction?
Yes. I have emotions and I react with them, especially when I infer emotion from the person I am talking to. I am not a robot.
As far as some “Lemmy in-group” thing, do you think there are private meetings or something? Everyone here is an individual. If a majority of people disagree with someone, that doesn’t mean they’re part of a club.
I’m not saying in-group like a conspiratorial cabal. I’m talking about the Lemmy mob suppressing any outside thoughts instantly, just like you did when you attacked the tone of OPs comment as “gleeful”. I’d like to see more engagement with arguments/facts rather than loading every comment with emotionally charged language. That’s my dream at least. I really don’t want to go back to Reddit….
Reddit, the place where people who engage with arguments and facts rather than loading everything with emotionally charged language?
And, again, I would suggest saying that there are Lemmy in-groups and calling it an echo chamber sounds like emotionally charged language rather than anything factual.
They said that they DIDN’T want to go back to Reddit. As in, they do not want Lemmy to turn into what Reddit is.
That seemed to imply to me that Reddit had that advantage over Lemmy. If Reddit is just as bad, why go back?
Correct.