I have a mental debate nearly daily when I'm here. There are a few users-- and one in particular-- who, in nearly every thread I'm in, especially ones about politics, posts something that I so strongly disagree with in such a sarcastic, snarky way filled with vitriol that I want to block them. I believe these users are older, so I can understand why they're so set in their outdated ways of thinking, but their ideas are downright dangerous in many cases. The quality of their comments is on par with the dreadful ones I see on news websites, but with better spelling. General oversimplification of difficult issues, and always attempts to make these issues into a way to smear some figure on the (American) liberal left.
This is where my dissonance arises: I don't want to censor things, especially censoring the data I intake. I vehemently oppose the mindset of forcing opinions out just because you disagree with them, especially when this person is involved in so many discussions on the site, and I certainly do not want another situation like reddit where users become encased in their own bubbles, ignoring all outside it.
Thought oppression is a terrible evil, even when it's just what you take in yourself, but I don't know how to go about it.... and maybe that's a strength of Hubski, that I have to endure those things and see these awfully thought out, bitter, right-wing opinions. They're just as much factor in the American process as the legitimate, well-argued right-wing opinions, or my own opinions. Perhaps it gives a full perspective, that one should not be swayed into a "left or right" mindset merely from the best philosophers of each, but to see what a majority or minority of those camps truly believe.
In the end I'm still seeing crap that I could solve with a simple action but ideology is holding me back from it (how's that for a cross-section of politics?) How do other users feel about it?
There's a difference between censorship/bubble building and selection of intake, the latter of which is something we are forced to do constantly. There's a reason I don't watch Fox News (although I feel some basic awareness of what they and other propagators of half-baked polarizing sophistry are doing to our culture is morally obligatory to the responsible citizen), and it's the same reason I don't hang out in sports bars, attend promotional events for Scientology, join the local Objectivist club, or do a great many other things: namely, that I am forced to choose which elements will constitute my environment, and which voices will determine the focal point and efficacy of all my cognitive energy, which in turn creates the quality of my experience and allows for some discoveries/convictions, while probably preventing others. It is my path, and even not to decide it is, thank you Rush, to decide it. In short, I think there's never a thing wrong with muting a nasty, bull-headed blatherer. The only question for me is whether a given interaction offers any possibility for a real, honest and open exchange of ideas, and if it does, whether that merits the energy the exchange requires.
The other day I was at my boyfriend's dads house for a nice dinner. He's from Peru, quite happy socialist and his talks mostly revolve around "go to the gym, eat your fruits and veggies, love each other, etc." I've never talked politics with him. His roommate - they've been friends for years - is a "holy-motherfuckering-shit-fox-news-is-fact." As in, I gasp a few times hearing his views. He's the most oldschool, badass guy I've ever met. Quite scary really, and I'm sure he has more than a few stories. Born and raised outside of Boston, drove trucks for 50 years, been to hell and back. So we've finished dinner, drinking tea, talking, and somehow it gets political and in the next 10 minutes I floated between shocked, speechless, bewildered, and angry. Some notable quotes: -3 "true" stories about Reagan, one included the queen and farting and a joke or something. I'm not sure. But Reagan was THE most amazing guy. -"Nuke em. Just nuke em. They deserve it." Me: "But don't you think there are better ways to solve issues that by killing everyone. Not every single person in the greater Middle East region is that horrible terrorist you see on TV...you know...there are kids too." Him: "....Hm...no...they're a lost cause...nuke Em. Kids can kill too." -"Well wait until the gays get into our medicare and their AIDS raises the price to hell." It was obvious that he had cherry picked and manipulated something he heard to fit into one glorious shocking sentence. There was no other side to the issue, nor was there more than the one sentence his side. None. But could I ignore him? Could I block him? No. Would I have if it was possible? Probably not. As much as it angered me, shocked me, and still makes my brain flip every time I think about it, there are real people out there that think like that. And those people are sitting across the table from me thinking "I can't believe there are people who think like that!" So you can ignore them, block them, and stay away from them. That is perfectly acceptable. That is 100% your choice and I don't think anyone will hold it against you for doing so. Another option would be to sit at the same table, listen to the crazy person on the other side, and have a great story out of it. Or you can discuss further, get clarification on their points, try to really understand HOW they came to believe these things and see whether the media has brainwashed them or they just come from a different place and time than you. You don't have to agree with people to learn from them. And you don't have to like people to learn from them. An open mind is one thing the guy across from my table didn't have. Who knows, maybe in 50 years you'll be that old school guy spewing the same one liners from the media (which will be embedded into your brain by then) at young kids across the table from you.
I just want to underline how true this is. I've learned (and it definitely takes an effort) to just accept that everyone has a different set of beliefs, everyone is raised differently, and everyone thinks differently. This may not be the case in science, but 'truth' is a relative term. Different people are going to accept different things as fact and that's just the way the world is. Sometimes, with those things that run deep with people (religion, money, politics), it's useless to try and argue about it. It's like being pissed off at a frog for being green. So I just don't do it any more. I don't get upset, or frustrated, or anything. Everyone wants to believe that they're right, but not everyone is willing to accept that they may be wrong. All you can do is try to understand where they are coming from.As much as it angered me, shocked me, and still makes my brain flip every time I think about it, there are real people out there that think like that. And those people are sitting across the table from me thinking "I can't believe there are people who think like that!"
I would ignore that guy if he said that stuff on Hubski. That's just hyperbole and emotion and has no bearing in a civilized discussion. TBH, the guy sounds like a tool.-"Nuke em. Just nuke em. They deserve it." Me: "But don't you think there are better ways to solve issues that by killing everyone. Not every single person in the greater Middle East region is that horrible terrorist you see on TV...you know...there are kids too." Him: "....Hm...no...they're a lost cause...nuke Em. Kids can kill too."
HA. What a great answer. It took mk time to code, so use the damn thing! I agree though, this isn't Facebook so you shouldn't feel "bad" about taking that action. That said, there is a real question as to whether or not you will be missing out on the ability to have a meaningful exchange with your "opposition." That sort of thing is quite valuable. I think I know who they are referring to, or maybe it's me, but either way I'm pretty sure there is room for some meaningful dialog. What I will say is that if it's "one" person, that is what those functions are built for. Tailor your experience.
Your second paragraph is the heart of the issue. He's around so often that I feel I may miss some good debate. And don't worry, tng, you're absolutely one of my favorite users. You always contribute something interesting, to the point where I don't even know if you've posted things I disagree with because I always find what you sayiinteresting or provocative, so the actual opinion is secondary to the exchange of ideas.
Only you can make this call, I suppose. I've not really ignored or muted anyone because nobody here really offends me. Most people that have differing opinions seem to be able to back them up with some sort of reasoning, even if their reasoning also seems counterintuitive to me. I guess for me, the most important thing is that people have thought through their opinions and I've yet to find a really opinionated, prolific hubskier that doesn't fit that description. Also, thank you for the compliments. Now I feel compelled to offend you though :)
I can't say I've ever seen a post that I disagreed with enough to consider blocking the person behind it. However, if a person posts content that consistently makes you uncomfortable and may lead you into conflict with them I think it's ok to block them. It's not worth it to simply uphold their right to be heard. However, if you simply disagree with a person's views (assuming they are well though out and not terribly militant) I think it's healthy to not block them and see their side of the issue.
In contrast, I have seen posts that just made my blood boil. I have set one person to ignore and came close to ignoring another. Note that I chose to ignore instead of mute. It puts a slash through the person's name, a calm equivalent of a red flag. This reminds me that said person is prone to tactics that anger me, so I stop myself well before I reply. Then again this same person has contributed nicely to (non-political) topics. Thus I don't want to mute said person, unable to get the good with the bad. One time that person and I agreed on a topic in ways that dovetailed nicely with the conversation. Thus I was glad to have the mark and the content.