Fediverse

Hearing from "both sides" and coming to some compromise/middle ground only works if the following is true:

1. Both parties are acting in good faith.
2. The viewpoints expressed are close enough that they don't require a total departure from one's current viewpoint.
3. The disputed topic doesn't have a obvious or clear correct answer.

The problem is, at least in the US, none of these are true for right wingers and even many "centrists."

You cannot talk to somebody and try to find common ground if they don't believe in statistical studies by government agencies, they don't believe in scientific studies by major universities and research institutions, and don't care about the rights and protections for minority groups.

The older members of my family are almost all conservatives, MAGA supporters, and fundamentalist Christians.

They genuinely believe that Evolution is a myth and the Earth was created 6000 years ago. They believe that illegal immigrants are invading this country and that Democrats are secretly allowing them to. They don't believe humans have any effect on climate change. They don't think Covid was anything more than a common cold that the government used as an excuse to try to control people. They don't believe in vaccines.

I find Lemmy to be very refreshing. I get news from a diverse collection of Leftists sources. Anarchists, statists, weak socialists like the AOC/Bernie types, government studies, independent guerrilla journalists, Communists, Mutualists, Marxists, etc.

But I have no interest in further "diversifying" by adding right wing "sources."

Cookies can taste good with many different ingredients, but no cookie tastes good with horse poop.

Given the recent right wing takeover of other social media sites and the glorification of hate speech I am fine not seeing that bullshit spread here.

I think the idea that all viewpoints are equally valuable and need to be given equal weight or volume in discussions is incredibly fallacious. Left wing ideals are backed by a multitude of research as well as ethical and moral philosophies. I don't know how you could be a leftist and say "what this place really needs is more right-wing voices" with a straight face. The whole "im just asking questions, everyone deserves to be heard, i just want to hear both sides of the argument" is a common tactic the right uses to try to seem reasonable and propagandize more people. Some ideas aren't worth hearing out and can only do damage to those who listen.

I think the problem is in the opposite direction. Society is too ideologically homogeneous in being against socialism. The major narratives are controlled by nation-states and corporations, social media are infested with political advertisement and propaganda.

So, as others say, I believe it is sorta uninformed and middle-of-the-road fallacy to find a corner of the internet where you can speak your mind without being harassed by white supremacist trolls, and say we need more diverse views.

Right wingers have (had) Parlel, Gap, TruthSocial, now they have X, and Facebook, where they were also dominating and harassing in the past. No leftists and/or genderqueer person would survive a day at these platforms.

But Lemmy being primarily/explicitly leftist is the problem, and you suddenly are alarmed for echo chambers. This is not quite fair, now is it.

As for Lemmy per se, I don't think it is too homogeneous. I debate centrists and liberals every other day. And recent discussions showed that the amount of latent transphobia in the site is shocking, with people knowing next to nothing apart from 4chan/MAGA talking points.

How can this happen after all these years of activism and outreach. It is because of the ecosystem of echo chambers in the broader communications and media landscape. This discourse never reached those people.

Considering it was the position of major medical and professional organizations, it shows that the pathology lies with the existing social media and broader media enterprizes, with a prominently selective messaging.

Do I need to say that this led to widespread science-denialism for which mainstream platforms are clearly to blame?

If your inquiry is honest, then the only explanation is that the propaganda apparatus works so well, that the (relative) absence of the dominating narratives makes you anxious that you entered an echo chamber, when in fact you probably have been in an echo chamber so far.

I like science. Science has shown that communism (for proletariat) and neoliberalism (for bourgies) are most effective and I dont see a lot of bourgies here.

Liberalism and stuff are like miasma theory or newton physics, outdated and incorrect.

(I think the left-right stuff is a distraction. Where is communism? On the left with the radlibs? No. On the right with the monarchists? No. There is no sliding scale between liberalism and communism as they are completely incompatible with each other.)