Participating in this thread had left me feeling like lemmy is much more of an echo chamber than what I thought before.

I like being disagreed with on occasion, but don’t feel like anyone really listened here. That is very internet but also pretty concerning.

There is also the paradox of intolerance. If you let these people in, to respect their opinion, they will take over and deprive people of the right to live. They don’t play by tolerant society’s rules, so they they don’t get tolerated.

Do you not see the irony here of op being intolerant of sharing lemmy with people who do not share their viewpoint? You’ll note from my other comments here that I’m explicitly not arguing for hate speech. IMO this thread was actually about the lack of moderate alternative views on Lemmy, not about encouraging extremist narratives to take over the federation.

What I am arguing for here is to drop the unhelpful us-versus-them narrative and to argue that Lemmy could well learn to tolerate a wider range of opinions. This is not to say extreme and intolerant views such as the ones you have described should be permitted.

I think you’re missing my point.

The value is in being accepting that other people don’t see the world in the same way as you, and treating them with respect.

The value is having a society that is tolerant of diversity of opinion.

Yeah but this thread was supposed to be about whether ideological diversity is important, not whether hate speech is important.

I would argue that wider community cohesion and thus tolerance of other viewpoints is important. Without hearing and understanding why these other points of view exist, understanding and accepting these people is hard.

Branding someone’s point of view as inherently or even ‘factually’ wrong is pretty blunt, alienating and invalidating IMO. I prefer a left-wing world view that tolerates people who don’t have the same understanding as me.