this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
578 points (96.6% liked)

Political Memes

8378 readers
2726 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (31 children)

Yea i deleted the comments because they weren't constructive and it seemed you wanted to talk about anything except the main thing I (and others) have highlighted for you so what's the point.

It's an unusual scenario that I've found is very typical of this particular platform and I'm very intrigued by this phenomenon. A really high percentage of conversations here seems very invested in labeling the other rather than addressing the argument presented. It's particularly felt on Lemmy. It's probably trivial to you, but it's so frequent in my experience here that I'm beginning to wonder what about this place drives every conversation into an instant indictment of the other?

For instance, I'm really curious why in this particular case when someone pointed out why downvoting has little to no effect in changing behavioral outcomes your first instinct was to classify that person into the same category as the initial example?

Like, what led you to seek out that indictment in situ right out of the bat? Was it the way they phrased it? Did it remind you of a past story or example?

What aspect of the statement:

"down votes are not compelling"

made you go straight to : "aha! You have commonality with Nazis! "?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (30 children)

What intrigues me, is when people using batshit stupid singular examples like- how ignorant it is to find similarity in two people that correctly use math to illustrate commonality with Nazis, as an argument in defense of someone showing a direct commonality with Nazis-

And then arguing against their own point in another thread.

You really need to keep better track of your arguments. It’ll save you the embarrassment of having to delete your hypocrisy.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (23 children)

You're obsessed with this singular logical example I provided but you refuse to answer my main question. It's odd.

I'm going to ask again: what about someone declaring "down votes don't affect behavioral outcomes" made you go straight to: "wow. You have so much in common with nazis".

I've asked this like three or four times, and each reply you write focuses only on the bad logic about the analogy I provided earlier.

Why won't you answer my main question? Is it because it makes you seem unhinged? I'm not interested in judging you. I'm just curious why? Why was that the first thing that you thought to write? Why won't you answer this question? So far you've only talked about the analogy I gave and it's been like three or four replies. I'm really curious.

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)