Only I have the power to decide what ‘America’ means.

If only you understood.

Whatever is going on in this part of lemmy, it doesn’t bear any relationship to the left wing principals that I am familiar with. It appears to be a parody, and although I have previously wanted to deny such accusations, authoritarian and intolerant.

Ah, the arguments for the defence of the status quo. How disturbingly ironic.

There is also the paradox of intolerance. If you let these people in, to respect their opinion, they will take over and deprive people of the right to live. They don’t play by tolerant society’s rules, so they they don’t get tolerated.

Do you not see the irony here of op being intolerant of sharing lemmy with people who do not share their viewpoint? You’ll note from my other comments here that I’m explicitly not arguing for hate speech. IMO this thread was actually about the lack of moderate alternative views on Lemmy, not about encouraging extremist narratives to take over the federation.

What I am arguing for here is to drop the unhelpful us-versus-them narrative and to argue that Lemmy could well learn to tolerate a wider range of opinions. This is not to say extreme and intolerant views such as the ones you have described should be permitted.

The value is in being accepting that other people don’t see the world in the same way as you, and treating them with respect.

The value is having a society that is tolerant of diversity of opinion.

Yeah but this thread was supposed to be about whether ideological diversity is important, not whether hate speech is important.

I would argue that wider community cohesion and thus tolerance of other viewpoints is important. Without hearing and understanding why these other points of view exist, understanding and accepting these people is hard.

Branding someone’s point of view as inherently or even ‘factually’ wrong is pretty blunt, alienating and invalidating IMO. I prefer a left-wing world view that tolerates people who don’t have the same understanding as me.

I don’t believe there is a space in society for men’s to talk about issues like this that affect them. I don’t believe there are structures in place to attempt to address these issues.

I’ve come across a segment of society which seems to believe that men don’t feel emotions in the same way as women, that they should be tough - not cry, ‘be a man’, ‘man up’.

My belief is that a number of men in society are psychologically scarred by regressive beliefs like these and would hazard a guess that these beliefs contribute towards loneliness and suicide. I also believe that it’s a big driver of things like the red pill movement.

Now you might say that this is a feminist issue, in that it’s the result of outmoded gender stereotypes (which probably have a negative impact on women too), and I would broadly agree with you. But until we allow men to come out and say “I suffer too from sexism” I don’t see how we can move past it.

Thanks for your comment, it’s certainly one of the better considered ones in this thread!

There are many points of similarity and difference between the various forms of prejudice. And one of the things that makes sexism unique is that prejudice against women inevitably creates a mirror prejudice about (if not intentionally against) men. If being feminine means having emotions other than rage, men are allowed to experience only rage. If being feminine means caring for others, men are not allowed to care for (or about) others.

How do we distinguish between legitimate grievances that men may have and the more reactionary/politically divisive. Whenever I hear the above argument, it strikes me as dismissive of legitimate issues and it feels dismissive of my experiences.

In order to affect real change, do we not need to move past dismissing the problems raised by one gender? Isn’t it more likely that we change people’s behaviour by acceptance of their viewpoint rather than telling them they’re just being difficult?

feminism is fundamentally as important for men as it is for women and the issues facing men exist precisely because of the history of subjugating women

I agree with you here, but I think it’s also important to take note of the fact that feminism is a fairly broad church so the idea that there is one ‘feminist perspective’ which cares about men too is, to my mind, undermined by the negation of the importance of men’s issues I commonly see.