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.
“Agree with me or leave.”
No. All Nazis should be shot.
You people like crying “nazi!” every time someone disagrees with you on a political issue so you can silence them.
The statement you replied to was specifically about Nazi punks a well documented issue? Are you fucking illiterate?
The problem is that people like you will lie about who is a nazi in order to silence them. This, in turn, devolves into a culture of “agree with me or leave.”
Lol, irony.
Who is people like me? Non whites? Who have I called a nazi? You replied to a post about nazi punks (a hyper well documented phenomenon) and how punks have to make it clear they are not welcome much like bars to avoid becoming nazi bars. What is your point? Nazis should be welcome? Because your spiel about mislabeling isn’t relevant.
Except it is. If people didn’t regularly do what I’m accusing them of, then you’d have a point.
So what’s your solution? Just accept all the Nazis for fear of it really being a mistake? That’s how you get a nazi bar.
Solution to what? I said his stance amounts to agree with him or leave and explained why.
A better question would be, what’s your problem?
Who’s you people ?
‘You people’ is typically defined by the attached action. ‘You people’ are the people who actually do that thing, whatever it is.
If you don’t do it, ‘you people’ is not you.
If you do do it, ‘you people’ is you.
The point is not about ‘who’, it’s an oppositional statement about the ‘what’, the action, and implies it’s bad, or more importantly that the speaker doesn’t approve.
Like: ‘You people, always with the child raping.’
If you don’t rape children, ‘you people’ isn’t you.
But also, the speaker is implying that child raping is bad, or something they don’t approve of, and something they don’t do.
Eh-hem.
NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFF.
No… cf “paradox of tolerance”
What about it? People disagreeing with you doesn’t mean they aren’t tolerating you. They would need to ban/censor you in order for that to happen.
That’s not what OP was on about. They were talking about nazism. That’s not a differing opinion, a valid stance, or something to even remotely consider. Nazis aren’t “people disagreeing with you”
You would have a point if people didn’t call their opponents nazis on these forums just to get them censored.