I saw this article by Nathan J. Robinson on Current Affairs and wanted to share. I do agree with the idea that the twitter format discourages deep conversation and debate. Lemmy is in general much better in this regard, but even still it is affected by the wider internet culture of our time, and a proper debate culture takes effort.

Even on Lemmy I frequently see more nuanced takes being shut down by quick, snarky comments pushing the conversation into absolutes. And yes, a democratic society absolutely requires healthy discussion of difficult issues, not just outrage.

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Similar thoughts here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godlessness-that-failed/

    Particularly interesting is this comment:

    One really interesting addition to me is that the early internet was a very, VERY free speech place. It loved Gish Gallops of enormous numbers of arguments from all sides and the idea that you would tell anyone, even the most foolish, that they should be banned was verboten.

    In fact, early atheists loved creationists posting! It gave them content because these people were so obviously wrong. And creationists the same, because it allowed them to fight back too.

    The modern deplatforming support on both sides is another sign that that era is gone.

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 hours ago

      This might be romanticizing the early Internet.

      I can remember plenty of flame wars in the late 80s and early 90s that were all about shutting down meaningful discussion. Informed debate flourished in niche areas, but it still does today, in a similar volume. What’s changed is the massive volume of social media that’s grown up around it, including many types of voices that were in short supply on the Internet in 1989, and many of which are uneducated and/or tribal in nature.