Just to clarify, I don’t think it’s a problem that hatred is minimal here, and I don’t just mean politics.
I feel like I very rarely see alternative opinions about anything, whether it be software, ai, news about companies, etc. it just seems like everyone universally agrees about anything with only a tiny handful of exceptions.
It makes me hesitant to believe I’m on the “correct side” and I never see any arguments from opposition. This makes me worried that I’m in some sort of echo chamber. In real life, I do see much more diverse opinions and, if I only used the fediverse for social media, would likely be weaker in defending my own since their arguments would be “new” to me.
I understand the reasons for which the fediverse has pretty collective opinion, but it does still worry me. I want to be able to see all the other people with their own thoughts (given it’s respectful) on the Internet, which should be the most capable tool to do so.
I often struggle with the concept of “truth”.
Most politically contentious issues are contentious because there are are competing arguments all based on some genuine concern. Often its not a question of truth but rather perspective.
That’s a fair point. I could have used less definitive language. The concept of objective vs. relative truth, or even whether such a thing exists, is a philosophical discussion I didn’t mean to broach. And I certainly did not mean to imply there was a single correct opinion on all topics.
I simply meant to summarize my concerns with equating diverse opinions with inherently healthy discourse. While some topics can, as you noted, have a plethora of valid opinions based on perspective, others can have opinions simply meant to “poison the well,” as it were (or simply be wrong regardless of perspective). Climate change deniers being given equal time and weight on the news, for example.
Perhaps it would have been better phrased: “Diversity of opinions has no direct correlation with accuracy, sincerity, factuality, or value.”