this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2025
167 points (83.0% liked)
FediLore + Fedidrama
2793 readers
3 users here now
Rules
- Any drama must be posted as an observer, you cannot post drama that you are involved with.
- When posting screenshots of drama, you must obscure the identity of all the participants.
- The poster must have a credible post and comment history before submitting a piece of history. This is to avoid sock-puppetry and witch hunts.
The usual instance-wide rules also apply.
Chronicle the life and tale of the fediverse (+ matrix)
Largely a sublemmy about capturing drama, from fediverse spanning drama to just lemmy drama.
Includes lore like how a instance got it's name, how an instance got defederated, how an admin got doxxed, fedihistory etc
(New) This sub's intentions is to an archive/newspaper, as in preferably don't get into fights with each other or the ppl featured in the drama
Tags: fediverse news, lemmy news, lemmyverse
Partners:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This situation seems to have spiraled a bit—I logged off for a few hours and came back to a bunch of DMs from you.
I want to make it clear that I don’t have any hard feelings toward you. However, this conversation has reached a point where it’s no longer productive.
You wouldn’t go to the comments of a person of color as they share their experiences and feelings about racism and say, “I only ever see cherry-picked examples like you have here.” But that’s essentially what you said to me about gender-based abuse. That kind of comment is: a) dismissive and encourages others to doubt the stories of victims, and b) a conversation-ender.
What you communicated to me is that my lived experience isn’t enough for you. As someone with a normal life and not a researcher, I have no way to provide the additional “data” you seem to require.
i just don’t want to bud. you ruined all the good i could have gotten from this conversation before it even started.
dont worry im not alone i have plenty of people in my corner who dont spam me with weird begging behavior when i stop interacting with them
to be clear you seem nice you are just being offputting and weird doing this negging behavior- if this was a real life relationship i would cut ties with you immediately. please chill tf out.
Hey, starting over here:
You’re welcome in my corner, homie! I want to approach this with good faith, but I need to address some things because your earlier approach made me deeply uncomfortable. I hope we can work toward mutual understanding, but I also need to set a few boundaries going forward:
I’m doing my best to approach this with a blank slate and give you the benefit of the doubt. I don’t hold any ill will toward you, but I need these boundaries respected for us to move forward. If they’re crossed again, I’ll have to block and report. I hope it doesn’t come to that.
Hi, new person in this conversation. I hope you don't mind if I drop my two cents here.
Cherry Picking is the practice of choosing evidence that supports your argument while ignoring evidence against it. It is also almost always intentional, or a result of ignorance, and the term carries negative connotations. Cherry picking is an accusation of bad faith arguing, and people will interpret it that way regardless of your intent.
For ones own experiences, which are inherently anecdotal, the ancedotal fallacy might be more applicable. But it's only a fallacy if that narrow view is used to make a broad claim. I don't think pointing out the existence of a certain kind of conversation is very broad, and in the context of this thread just a few instances can have a large effect.
I would even go so far as to argue that you are commiting an argument from ancedote when you dismiss the claim that harrassment exists with only your ancedotal evidence of not having seen it yourself. They brought sources, and you dismissed their experience as not good enough with no supporting evidence. If you really want to dismiss the notion that their evidence is significant, you could try seeing how many people interacted with those posts compared to average interactions for those communities, or checking how often you visit those communities to put your own experiences in context. Anything but dismissing them and refusing to engage with the intent of the message.
It's true that everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias and dozens of other faults of logic, and it's also true that recognizing those faults is important for improving, but being so aggressive in the specifics of data validation can be alienating and will likely miss the intended message.
Just my two cents, dismiss as you please. I do hope this ends up being useful to someone though.
yup. thank you.