🇳🇱
As a general rule if your going around blocking people who are poljte but disagree with you, then you are probably a piece of shit human... not because of the blocking itself, but its a pretty clear red flag your shit.
@freemo Really? I've seen a small number of racists/homophobes/fascists/antivaxxers go by on the global timeline. They were being "polite" by their own standards, but they were also being racist/homophobic/whatever. I don't need that in my life, I looked at their timelines to check I wasn't misunderstanding where they were coming from and then I blocked them. I don't feel like I'm a bad person for doing so.
@VoxDei "polite by their own standards" is not the same as "polite". You can not be a racist or homophobe and be polite.
Antivaxxer is another matter, thats stupid but not neccesarly impolite. So easy enough to ignore or even just silence it out of your tineline. But no need to block really.
@freemo I don't know about that. You can't say something racist that I would consider polite, but it's perfectly possible for them to do it while not being deliberately offensive, it's just how they are. Doesn't mean I want to see it.
You can say that about anything - antivaxxers, for instance, if I've lost someone to Covid (and I have lost family members, though only fairly distant family) then I might consider that to be rude/upsetting, where again they weren't trying to be in-your-face about it or anything.
As for block vs. silence... isn't that just personal preference? I may be misunderstanding, but the effect on me is the same - I don't see their stuff. It's just down to whether I'm willing for them to see mine. It's vanishing unlikely they would, but I don't see why they should anyway, I just don't want to interact with them on any subject other than a polite and serious discussion as to how they became like they are and how it could be changed.
@VoxDei and if you just dont enjoy talking to them, thats fine, dont.. take them out of your federated feed if you want, but if they want to comment and interact on your posts, particularly with others, who cares.
@freemo Why would I not care? At that point I don't know what they're doing in response to something I've said. They might be mocking me, they might be doxxing me, they might be inciting violence. All of these things are unlikely, but I don't owe them anything, and they're not going to change because of a random post of mine.
I don't really see the point in just muting, TBH, in most cases, at least. If I don't want to interact with you then that is a two way street, for me.
@VoxDei the issue, as i see it, is it makes it look like you dont want dissenting opinions in your feed, whicb in turn looks like your trying to manipulate the conversation and eliminate counter arguments in an attempt to make sure your views arent challenged and refined and so you can control the narrative.
@VoxDei i mean you do you.. obviously it was a general rule not a hard rule, so the details are in the nuance.
But if there is something i dont want to hear about or care about (like antivaxxers) i just dont read their posts when they pop up. But i think its still a good idea to let them have a presence in any thread in case someone might want to have thst interaction
@freemo I think that's ascribing way more intention to this than exists. I don't think more motive is required than "I don't want to talk to you and I don't want you to talk to me". It's perfectly possible to disagree with me and challenge my views within my own definition of politeness, if people want to do that then they're welcome - we're doing it now. ;-)
But there are things I just don't want to hear about, and people I don't want to hear from. Yes, that results in an element of the "filter bubble" that social media is so notorious for, but I don't feel like I need to fill my timeline with stuff I don't want to hear about just to avoid that.