I think in your case you’re definitely banning queerphobia/bigotry, which I hope most people agree is radically different from banning dissenting opinions.
Maybe the definition of an echo chamber should revolve more about what would be different if you weren’t in it? For example, I’d say I’m in a community that is an echo chamber if, when getting out of this community, I might change some of my views that previously seemed obvious. I hope that people in a queer community don’t start questioning their sexuality/worth once they’re outside of a queer friendly community - although after writing it out maybe some do :(
But then it’s not the same mechanics: if I come out of an echo chamber I might read up on some new evidence/arguments/opinions that challenge my thinking, while coming out of a queer friendly space is, as you’re saying, getting exposed to hateful comments and being weakened by these. It doesn’t seem right to say it’s an echo chamber, just like it doesn’t seem right to say there are “conspiracy-friendly” communities!
vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
It’s a bit more than that. In order to enable people to just hang out and relax and be themselves, you have to make sure they are never in a position to justify themselves.
You have to go in pretty blunt and nip stuff in the bud. That means banning not just bigotry, but a whole swath of topics and rhetoric that inevitably lead to “those kinds of discussions”.
This in turn leads to reactions like the other reply. “I was just asking questions”, “I was just explaining a point of view I don’t agree with”, “but you have to see it from their side”. Yes. Silly questions that have been asked many times before. We know that point of view, we don’t need you to explain it. No, we don’t have to see it from their side. Not here. Not now.
Don’t bring that negativity in here. Just leave us and let us enjoy our silly memes in peace.