94
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by Teknevra@lemmy.world to c/fediverse@lemmy.ml

I've been using Lemmy for a while now, and I've noticed something that I was hoping to potentially discuss with the community.

As a leftist myself (communist), I generally enjoy the content and discussions on Lemmy.

However, I've been wondering if we might be facing an issue with ideological diversity.

From my observations:

  1. Most Lemmy Instances, news articles, posts, comments, etc. seem to come from a distinctly leftist perspective.
  2. There appears to be a lack of "centrist", non-political, or right-wing voices (and I don't mean extreme MAGA-type views, but rather more moderate conservative positions).
  3. Discussions often feel like they're happening within an ideological bubble.

My questions to the community are:

  • Have others noticed this trend?
  • Do you think Lemmy is at risk of becoming an echo chamber for leftist views, a sort of Truth Social, Parler, Gab, etc., esque platform, but for Leftists?
  • Is this a problem we should be concerned about, or is it a natural result of Lemmy's community-driven nature?
  • How might we encourage more diverse political perspectives while still maintaining a respectful and inclusive environment?
  • What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of having a more politically diverse user base on Lemmy?

As much as I align with many of the views expressed here, I wonder if we're missing out on valuable dialogue and perspective by not having a more diverse range of political opinions represented.

I'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If you lived in the US, you would understand, on a very real, tangible level, the difference between living in a state with a Republican governor vs. one with a Democratic governor.

And if you lived outside the US, you would understand that it doesn't make a difference if the bombs leveling your city are painted red or blue, and the minor difference in domestic policy between the two factions of the genocidal empire really don't matter to the people you're exterminating.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 20 hours ago

Yeah, it's not a minor difference. A fact that people are about to wake up to in a week or so...

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 3 points 19 hours ago

Yeah, I know Americans have trouble believing that foreigners are people, but believe me: for us, the difference is negligible.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 19 hours ago

I know you love to get to make a snarky reply, but no.

You are in for a rude awakening.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 3 points 19 hours ago

Lol. American literally cannot conceptualize a world outside of America.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 18 hours ago

Do you really not understand? What you are about to learn is that foreign policy is very fucking different when Republicans are in charge. I am directly referring to the world outside America you dolt.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

No, I understand. I understand that, as an American, you only experience American foreign policy in how the administration's framing of it makes you feel. I understand that the comforting lies and platitudes of the Democrats make you feel better than the blunt cruelty of the Republicans. I also understand that you are unable to conceptualize the idea of perspectives and experience outside of that of Americans.

Also, what's this "you're about to learn!" shit? The last Republican administration (the last Trump administration even!) was only four years ago, and it's foreign policy was exactly the same as every other administration.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 hours ago

After witnessing decades of US foreign policy, I have seen that it is virtually entirely a bipartisan consensus. US imperialism and neocolonialism are bipartisan. The fire hose of regime change operations are bipartisan. Full-spectrum dominance is bipartisan.

[-] jenniferem@my-place.social 0 points 21 hours ago

@BrainInABox
@prole

The differences between the two are NOT minor, but I support your second point completely.

Or foreign policy families have been staggering, no matter who has occupied the White House.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 19 hours ago

For you the difference may not seem minor, but when your entire country has been leveled by American bombs, the slight difference in social issues that applies only to comfortable Americans who are not living in refugee camps being hunted by sniper drones seem basically negligible.

[-] jenniferem@my-place.social 1 points 18 hours ago

@BrainInABox
I get what you're saying. We have been very fortunate here, but that has been the limit of our lived experience, so to us, it is not minor. In the big picture, you are correct.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 18 hours ago

Except in the big picture, they're not entirely correct. There is a valid point to be made there (that US imperialism is awful, and it has caused immeasurable harm to countless people).

But when we are talking about something as valuable as human life, I think it's important that we understand nuance and context.

US foreign policy, and how we project ourselves to the rest of the world, is not the same regardless of which party is in charge. It's just not.

I'm not defending Democrats' foreign policy in any way, I am just acknowledging reality.

That person seems only interested in demonizing the US. So they start with the conclusion (US is bad), and then seemingly form their entire worldview around that.

this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2025
94 points (68.2% liked)

Fediverse

17920 readers
242 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS