Just to clarify, I don’t think it’s a problem that hatred is minimal here, and I don’t just mean politics.
I feel like I very rarely see alternative opinions about anything, whether it be software, ai, news about companies, etc. it just seems like everyone universally agrees about anything with only a tiny handful of exceptions.
It makes me hesitant to believe I’m on the “correct side” and I never see any arguments from opposition. This makes me worried that I’m in some sort of echo chamber. In real life, I do see much more diverse opinions and, if I only used the fediverse for social media, would likely be weaker in defending my own since their arguments would be “new” to me.
I understand the reasons for which the fediverse has pretty collective opinion, but it does still worry me. I want to be able to see all the other people with their own thoughts (given it’s respectful) on the Internet, which should be the most capable tool to do so.
It’s not terribly surprising to find a lack of diversity in opinions here. The Fediverse, in general, is a fringe alternative to the big social media platforms. Using it is, in and of itself, an opinionated decision that we all more or less share.
When people use Reddit, TikTok, or similar platforms, they go there to find their subset of culture. That’s the benefit of their scale. When you use Lemmy, the platform itself is your subset of culture.
It’s very fair, and smart, to be skeptical of a one-sided consensus of opinions without adequate research. You will often see strawmen and a lack of understanding toward groups that disagree with the prevailing thoughts here. Never use only one source, and never trust a social media platform to give you the full picture.
However, you also want to beware of the False Balance and Golden Mean fallacies. Diversity of opinions has no direct correlation with truth. If a topic is worth forming an opinion on, it’s worth doing real research on. Reading internet arguments will only reinforce bias.
Like literally in this thread, including towards OP, although I don’t see anybody trying to be mean about it (yet).
Agreed. Though upon re-reading my point, I regret specifying “here”, as it might give the impression I think it is unique or more prevalent here than elsewhere.
I think this is simply a common human trait that is found in all communities. Even surprisingly in debate and philosophy communities. I’ve been guilty of it without even noticing.
Oh yeah, it’s common as dirt. We do have a monoculture going here, though, and like anywhere those allow strawmen to kind of fester.
Great way to put it!
I often struggle with the concept of “truth”.
Most politically contentious issues are contentious because there are are competing arguments all based on some genuine concern. Often its not a question of truth but rather perspective.
That’s a fair point. I could have used less definitive language. The concept of objective vs. relative truth, or even whether such a thing exists, is a philosophical discussion I didn’t mean to broach. And I certainly did not mean to imply there was a single correct opinion on all topics.
I simply meant to summarize my concerns with equating diverse opinions with inherently healthy discourse. While many topics can, as you noted, have a plethora of valid opinions based on perspective, they can also have opinions simply meant to “poison the well,” as it were (or simply be wrong regardless of perspective). Climate change deniers being given equal time and weight on the news, for example.
Perhaps it would have been better phrased: “Diversity of opinions has no direct correlation with accuracy, sincerity, factuality, or value.”