Unfortunately, this is what happens to people who give up on learning and critical thinking. They glom onto people who can shout bullshit in a loud, confident voice because the bullshit is more important to them than the person actually being right.
At the very least it's much better than it used to be. So long as you're running hardware that won't make you jump through hoops to get working, and that's less common and less awful than it used to be.
i can easily agree with 90% of that. The remaining 10% needs asterisks pointing towards further nuanced discussion. I'll not specify which topics go into which category.
I also agree with most of that, but that doesn't make it OK to downvote opinions to the contrary for no other reason than "I disagree".
If comments of different perspectives, made in good faith get downvoted to oblivion then participation is discouraged, debate gets replaced with circle jerking and Lemmy becomes a very boring and out of touch echo chamber just like Reddit.
Downvotes should only be used for comments that are off topic, factually incorrect, hateful or made in bad faith etc.
Downvotes should only be used for comments that are off topic, factually incorrect, hateful or made in bad faith etc.
So something like this comment: https://lemmy.ca/comment/9747509
Which equates not liking Elon Musk with hate groups against minorities?
Usually when people complain about something like "the Lemmy Narrative" they're usually not bringing nuanced discussion to their posts and are just upset that people aren't agreeing with their "hot takes."
That comment received 17 downvotes but the only person willing to reply deleted their comment.
The comment seems rather silly and I'd wager that the writer is making a satirical comment about the repetitive nature of Lemmy's narrative
rather than legitimately equating people that dislike Musk to the Ku Klux Klan. If anyone was willing to engage the writer rather than just burying the comment then it's possible you may have seen that.
So the comment is silly and you argue about its interpretation. In other words it did not add anything productive to the conversation?
When I see someone with vague complaints about downvotes and no specific elaboration when pressed, that's a warning sign that they likely weren't engaging in productive dialog in the first place and want to blame "the hive mind" for no one liking their "hot take".
If anyone was willing to engage the writer rather than just burying the comment then it's possible you may have seen that.
Not the responsibility of everyone else to try to engage to see if a commenter has a relevant taking point and coax it out of them. It's up to the commenter to make that clear in the first place.
Yes, some jokes are silly and that's why they're funny. Although jokes can be harmful, I don't think that this one was.
Are jokes productive for discussion or discourse? Not necessarily, but I'm not so precious that I'm going to downvote someone for making one.
I mean what's more likely here, a guy made a joke and a load of sensitive Lemmings downvoted them or a guy was literally comparing people that support Palestine with bigots?
I endorse the use of /s so that we can avoid this type of debate, but whenever you mention it you get a load of complaints.
But you can downvote on Facebook. In fact, Facebook is worse because it has a range of emoticons you can use to show your disapproval and/or mockery. So, instead of merely making a number go down, you can actually post a laughing yellow face or a frowny yellow face.
Downvotes are a bad idea. We should have upvotes only.
That doesn't improve anything. I've been on sites with upvotes only and it doesn't lead to more productive discussions.
Often it results in more people posting low quality replies consisting of nothing more than "you're an idiot" because they cannot just downvote to indicate that. Meanwhile the person giving incorrect information feels bolstered by the 3 upvotes they have received that people agree with them, while ignoring the posts with 30 upvotes pointing out why they are incorrect.
Often it results in more people posting low quality replies consisting of nothing more than “you’re an idiot” because they cannot just downvote to indicate that.
...they presumably also cannot articulate their disagreement in any more naunced way than that, either.
Okay, so would you rather have them post their disagreement that they cannot articulate in a more nuanced way, or just downvote and not clutter up the feed?
Right. Removing their downvote button isn't going to cause people to pause and reflect on their positions, so what benefit would it provide to an actual discussion?
If I'm having an actual discussion with someone I disagree with, I'd rather receive a bunch of downvotes from the peanut gallery and keep the messages to people who want to actually discuss, then have the entire peanut gallery flooding the responses with poor quality responses to indicate their disagreement.
Yes, it would be better if people gave more nuanced replies, but let's accept reality and the fact that not everybody is going to do that. Let's also accept that you aren't special and deserving of a long form point by point rebuttal from every single person who disagrees with you.
If you define a "shit take" as a comment that is factually wrong and or harmful, that's fine and I've already said that. If your idea of a "shit take" is "I don't like / disagree with your opinion" then I hope you're fine with Lemmy becoming an out of touch echo chamber and I've also already said that. Why am I having to repeat myself?
It doesn't take much browsing here to see plenty of rational disagreements that have been downvoted for failing to conform with the groupthink.
I can agree to 80% but also disagree with 80%. None of those are simple cut and dry situations and a simple answer is naive at best. And, most importantly, I can say that without sitting on a fence
Couldn't have said it better myself. It's nuance that's almost entirely missing from much of online discussions. In my experience; the more I learn about a topic, the more I realize how much I don't know/how complex it is. Then there's also the fact that most simplistic and absolute statements are almost guranteed to be wrong. Not literally all cops are bad.
You're just being snide here and not in any way explaining what is it that you disagree with me here exactly. There's plenty of people replying to that comment that they more or less agree with that summary. It's a generalization. Ofcourse it lacks nuance. That's the average attitude of a group, not any one individual.
Right, so no one has actually said that. You've invented an argument no one is making based on a generalization, and then patting yourself on the back for how well you've pointed out how bad the argument is (that you invented and no one actually made).
It's the definition of a straw man. You're not even twisting some one else's argument, you've invented one entirely on your own to knock down.
Like I said; it's the general attitude of Lemmings as a group. Not that of any individual. If you don't understand how averages work then I can't help you. The fact that you don't know anyone with 1.5 children doesn't mean it's not the average amount of kids of families with kids.
Straw man means misrepresenting someone's argument. It's called hollow man when you made up the argument entirely.
Did you look at the replies to that comment? Does that seem like people disagree with my post?
Where is the lie?
Do you have an example on why any of these povs are wrong?
i can easily agree with 90% of that.
I can agree to 80% but also disagree with 80%.
I also agree with most of that
Lol what maniac would hold opposite opinions for all of these?
Probably someone with limited reasoning capabilities who sees the world as black and white and thinks things are either good or bad but can't see the near infinite amount of nuance and complexity in them.
I'm a renter, and my parents have never owned a house, so I've dealt with landlords all my life. I don't agree with "landlord bad". Are there shitty landlords? Yes. But it's a leap to go from that to "all landlords are bad".
Can you imagine the backlash from the same left-leaning group that goes "landlord bad" if you applied the same logic to a racial or religious group?
Landlords serve an important purpose in the marketplace and any uncontrolled rampant exploitation is a failure of the government and not the entire group of people who sell the service.
So while I'm undecided on landlords, I think your logic is flawed. Are you saying that criticising the concept of owning land and charging people for housing is the same as being born into a socially constructed group or the same as choosing or being born into a organization structured around shared beliefs? Because I'm not sure they're quite the same thing.
No, I'm saying that it's unfair to criticize an entire group of people for the actions of some people who happen to belong to the same group while the rest are perfectly fine contributors to society.
On the other hand, if the sole purpose of the group is to spread hate/cause unrest/violence then I'd be okay with hating the entire group.
Hating landlord-ism as a concept makes sense to a certain extent, but I'm yet to see a realistic alternative provided by anyone. Hating landlords is something that I don't agree with. --> this seems to be a controversial stance.
Along the same lines, I hate religion but I don't hate all religious people. --> this isn't that controversial a stance. They're both essentially the same to me.
A realistic alternative? The occupant owns the dwelling. That removes the problem entirely. People can't afford to buy? Well if you can't own residential property you don't live in. Prices will correct.
Alternatively, the government historically has given most middle class Americans the majority of their generational wealth through land gift programs, then you gave first time homeowner loans, which could easily be retooled to give the property to those living there and have all payments go towards ownership,
There's so many options better than someone fucking you in the ass as hard as they can so you can bearly survive.
I'm not from the US so correct me if I'm wrong - didn't the governments of US and Canada give away land in what was essentially "bumfuck nowhere"? Isn't land still cheap in comparable locations?
If only people who live on the property are allowed to own it then prices might go down a bit. Say 50%, a number that I'm pulling out of my ass. I genuinely don't believe that demand in cities will let prices go down by even that much. But even with a 50% crash, a shit ton of people would never get to live in a city (someone who just moved out of their parents' home, someone who is recovering from a loss due to a bad business, someone who just immigrated etc.)
So what would be the solution to those people? Live in a few hundred kms away from the city and commute every day?
As much as I'd like to own property in the city that I live in, I don't think banning landlords will lower prices enough for me to buy a house here. So, I'd rather rent and live in the city than go live in some village.
No one's born a landlord. It's not comparable to race in any way. Comparing racism to being against unregulated and manufactured housing scarcity feels like a really bad faith argument.
People are born into a religion and are free to leave it or embraced a different religion. It is completely in their choice.
Similarly, people can be born into a family that owns zero to two properties, are free to acquire more or sell what they have. It is completely in their choice.
Why is it okay to judge one group by the actions of "a few bad apples" and not the other?
If we were just a few years short of total collapse in a socialist or communist economic system, would it be OK to call either system bad?
I've worked for so many retail corporations that are so single minded to quarterly earning going up to push stock prices up, they don't even care how much money they actually make, and what they pay people. You can make 2mil a day, and they will fire everyone and close the store because it wasn't 2.000002mil. A lot of things are breaking.
There's a few variations, but the one I'm most familiar with is like go fish, except you don't have to be honest if you have the card someone else asks for. I've played versions done with trivia, though where you have to determine if the answer given is real or bullshit (which would be more likely to turn into a game show). I've only done the latter like twice and I was drunk at the time so I don't remember the exact rules. 🤣
There’s a few variations, but the one I’m most familiar with is like go fish, except you don’t have to be honest if you have the card someone else asks for.
The version of this I'm used to involved starting at 2 and counting up, and having to claim and play some number of that card whether you have it or not. If another player thinks it's a bluff they call you out and if you were bluffing you have to take the discard pile, otherwise they have to take the discard pile. First player out of cards wins. So first player has to play 2s, second player has to play 3s, etc.
I’ve played versions done with trivia, though where you have to determine if the answer given is real or bullshit (which would be more likely to turn into a game show).
That's basically what the game show is - a few different games that are each a variation on a quiz show in which the expectation is that players can lie and other players have to call them out on it. Catching a lie benefits the accuser and penalizes the liar, false accusations penalize the accuser.
Not just republicans / politically right-wing oriented folks. From my experience you encounter this everywhere where people haven't learnt how to have a civilised discussion. An important part of this is the ability to self-reflect and distinguish emotions from opinions from facts. Humans are emotional beings in their core and therefore the most are fallible. It's only natural to resort to an emotionally driven and often stubborn defence mode if one encounters a contrary opinion. Even more so if that opinion is expressed in an emotionally loaded manner. It's unfortunately a very counter-productive human behaviour.
Not only right wing, but mostly right wing. The left isn't the side mostly denying the science of climate change, or the medical consensus of vaccines and gender reassignment therapy.
