I am seeing this pattern a lot lately, whenever a person disagrees strongly or expresses conservative/right wing views, they are told to go back to reddit.
You can say ‘Don’t bring these bullshit views to the fediverse,’ or something of that sort. I am a reddit refugee myself, and part of the Reddit API exodus. Being told to go someplace I just left due to ethical reasons feels bad. So, I want to understand why it is being used as a retort. Is it really rude, or am I making a fuss out of nothing?
Edit 1: I am NOT defending conservative views, I think that they should not be given a platform in the fediverse. I am questioning how telling them to go back to reddit is a valid response.
Edit2 : Edited the the title to better represent my question.
More chance of that if offered, than not.
Look back at the last 10 years of trying that. You don’t play chess with pigeons.
[Has worked quite well for me. Though I couldn’t put numbers on it, like Daryl Davis can. They’re not pigeons. That’s a flawed analogy, only further revealing your confirmation bias and dehumanising prejudice.]
I guess we should tell Daryl Davis to stop too, similarly citing the past years of having doing so proving to work well, and just continue to dehumanise and smear those he’d speak to, as beyond help, and ignore the hundreds he’s converted from the KKK and Nazi party, by just talking with them.
Or… maybe try it, persistently, non-hostile, not becoming them, not reaffirming their noxious combative ways back to them, instead of just hatefully dehumanising them, instead of reaffirming to them that they are their rotten ideas, instead of censoring and isolating and banning them to their echo chamber and you to yours, instead of all that polarising groupthink nonsense, just keep exposing them to better ways of being, and seeing that neither you, nor any of the targets of their misguided hate, are the monsters they imagine in their ignorance.