Hello comrades, I read a comment on a post either on lemmygrad or hexbear talking about how most discourse happening was of poor quality and indicative of a lack of genuine leftist groups in the imperial core. Basically if there were patty’s with some teeth they would enforce party discipline and education and that would lead to higher quality discourse online.

I also read some of Lenins2ndcat’s comments which were very patient when they were interacting with users from other communities.

Is there anyway to work on like, an online party discipline? Or like having users who are very good at discussing with libs have a more concerted approach to their interactions? It really seems that much of us are often too aggressive and meme-y and as fun as that is it really isn’t productive.

I get that this isn’t how praxis or anything happens, it seems more like the way we engage could be more productive and fruitful in the long term and considerations like this might go a long way.

TL;DR Planned economy but for memeposting

  • urshanabi@lemmygrad.mlOP
    14·
    1 year ago

    Thanks for the response. I don’t agree with your point in tone policing. There are some of us here, myself included, who are much easier to harm with crude language and pejorative words. You can see examples of it to the responses I have made in this thread and the good faith responses I have made and the vote counts on those comments. I have already been quite hurt. There is already policy and ways which the community operates and how individuals conduct themselves if not explicitly than implicitly. If we’ve set a lower bound for this generally and in specific cases (as in interacting with other communities) I would argue subsequent changes are inevitable and necessary to protect the more vulnerable and sensitive members of this community and any community. If it really is inevitable, it makes sense to plan it out in some capacity.

    I believe what you said about what pedagogy says, though this is a big claim to make and such claims require proportional evidence. Could you please provide me with some resources if possible?

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      4·
      1 year ago

      Tone policing is a logical fallacy. From Wikipedia (footnotes and links removed):

      A tone argument (also called tone policing) is a type of ad hominem aimed at the tone of an argument instead of its factual or logical content in order to dismiss a person’s argument. Ignoring the truth or falsity of a statement, a tone argument instead focuses on the emotion with which it is expressed. This is a logical fallacy because a person can be angry while still being rational. Nonetheless, a tone argument may be useful when responding to a statement that itself does not have rational content, such as an appeal to emotion.

      The notion of tone policing became widespread in U.S. social activist circles by the mid-2010s. It was widely disseminated in a 2015 comic issued by the Everyday Feminism website. Activists have argued that tone policing has been regularly employed against feminist and anti-racism advocates, criticizing the way that they presented their arguments rather than engaging with the arguments themselves.

      Literature-wise for grammar correction, see e.g.:

      Also look up:

      • self-determination theory
      • constructivism (and Vygotsky)
      • constructive feedback

      It’s also worth noting that most pedagogy is written for people teaching students who (theoretically) want to learn. That doesn’t apply neatly online, which means the pedagogy scholarship may have to be adapted and conclusions must be drawn with this assumption stripped out.