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?

  • WouldBeHermit
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Lengsel@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • Mars@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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”.

        • Lengsel@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.