Mostly acid reflux, I fear.
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. We try to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are highly encouraged as no-discussion downvotes don't help anyone learn anything valuable. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
We actively seeking moderators and people who enjoy discussion (and understand that being wrong is an important part of being a better person)! Send me a message if you'd like to help out.
This weekly thread will focus on Traumas That Shaped You / Trauma Dumping. The definition we will use for this discussion is here along with some real-world examples, but I want to stress that I am requesting these stories, and it's not negative in any way.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- What are some of your personal horror stories?
- Have you ever (accidentally or otherwise) been the cause of a trauma for someone else?
- Has there been an immensely negative thing in your life that you've ever benefited from in the long run?
I was today years old when I found out Glomming on some Glizzys means eating some hot dogs with enthusiasm.
I was today years old when I found out Glomming on some Glizzys means eating some hot dogs with enthusiasm.
I was today years old when I found out Glomming on some Glizzys means eating some hot dogs with enthusiasm.
Sure! So, for example, our current weekly topic and this new topic by a user have been downvoted by user named @Pfeffy@lemmy.world. Looking around, there's a few others within they've downvoted as well with no upvotes anywhere. Checking the modlog shows they've been banned from other communities for vote manipulation as well (among other things). They don't need to be able to do this.
Checking older posts, I see that someone named @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca had gone in and downvoted dozens of things with no upvotes. Nearly every topic we had at the time, in fact (or at least as many as I looked at). This is not only against community rules, but it's a pretty shit thing to do.
We've also got old blank accounts like @arnacre@lemmy.world and @lanky@feddit.nl with zero posts or anything of any kind downvoting. They're not contributing anything anywhere, so they don't need to be there at all.
That's just a few examples, but there's more.
WOW. Community mods can now see votes and I can now verify things I've been suspecting for a long time. There's a ton of non-posting users going into the community and downvoting every topic in it.
Does anyone know how we can ban someone from a community for vote manipulation if they've never posted there?
(OPEN-ENDED) I think the point of arguing is not to convince the other part or the anonymous readers. The point is to understand them.
Not disagreeing with anything you said and enjoyed your perspective, but just wanted to add a personal thought to the end.
I don't believe that hate speech can survive in a well-behaved logical discussion because most hate speech isn't logical. This is one reason I feel you should never ban or even discourage discussion. If you figure out the hows and whys of someone you see as hateful, you can often expose and dismantle their faulty reasoning. If we can't logically describe why an idea is bad instead of relying on personal morality-du-jour, then we are relying on faith, not intellect. Faith can not be relied upon for logical guidance because it is blind and often astoundingly stupid. Banning offensive speech as a blanket to extinguish thought is how churches (past and present) deal with dissension and detractors; it used to be immoral and offensive to be against God or interpretations of the higher-up holy rollers, and is still considered so in some countries.
(OPEN-ENDED) I think the point of arguing is not to convince the other part or the anonymous readers. The point is to understand them.
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. We try to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are highly encouraged as no-discussion downvotes don't help anyone learn anything valuable. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
We're back! We're testing the waters with the new influx of people to see if this is valuable or not. We are also actively seeking moderators and people who enjoy discussion (and understand that being wrong is an important part of being a better person)! Send me a message if you'd like to help out.
This weekly thread will focus on The Future Of The USA. You may not be American (I'm sure not), but what happens with America can impact the world.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- How do you feel things are going there?
- How are they impacting relations with your country if you aren't from America?
- Do you think things will get better or worse?
- How do you think things could be made better?
- What should other countries do to mitigate the damage that may be occurring?
- What are your thoughts on tariffs?
(OPEN-ENDED) I think the point of arguing is not to convince the other part or the anonymous readers. The point is to understand them.
Broadly speaking, I think you're correct. I found a massive disconnect between how I operate when discussing online vs. how other people seem to, and it drives me bonkers. My response was why I began this Community in the first place. The only way you can realistically "win" is to make yourself better. If the other people in the discussion are focused on defeating you instead, then they've already lost at the outset.
When I discuss things online, I can’t even partially understand how people don’t want to have a more cohesive / logically sound opinion. You'd want to be more informed about a topic and smarter overall, wouldn't you? I'm happy when I'm proven wrong because it means I'm now a better, smarter person and that is a massive win.
I agree that you should be trying to understand people. After all, if you're potentially looking to change a mind, you can only do it once you understand them and can speak to the underlying issues with their argument.
I am fine with hate speech existing as long as it's in a space that it can also be safely dismantled. If they're free to speak, so are those that can utterly demolish that speech. If either drops their poop and then refuses to engage, that's when I have a problem. If you look at where things fall apart in most online discourse, it has to do with the terminology they use. Each "side" of an issue has their own version of terms, and pretend that their opponent is using the same terminology they are.
To quote myself in a previous weekly thread:
Some of those issues are persistent in Lemmy to this day and are things I tried to add rules against in the sidebar. Things like:
- Calling someone dumb for bringing forth a logical opinion. No discussion, no “here’s where things fall apart” or “here’s why that isn’t applicable to the situation”, simply “lol fuck u, ur dum.” Or as with modern social media, a drive-by downvote. Most often in the forum days, this would come from someone who you’d recognize as being very opinionated, but not intelligent or self-aware enough to articulate why they felt a certain way. We’ve got tons of threads on this community where bad logic is called out, then the person downvotes and doesn’t comment further. My feeling is that this is because they don’t want to be wrong, so they don’t engage. They internalize the idea that their opponent must just be stupid, and walk away.
- You can be right for the wrong reasons, and wrong for the right reasons. There are tons of examples. You do not have to disagree with someone in order to point out that their reasoning sucks.
- Your morals are not an argument. You can use how you arrived at those morals, but not the morals themselves. Your morals are not logic and apply only to your outlook.
- It’s okay to be wrong. It’s downright awesome to become smarter due to someone correcting you or providing newer / more accurate information. You shouldn’t argue from a position of “I’m right, let me convince you.” Instead we should approach things from “This is how I arrived at this position. Are you able to articulate why I’m incorrect in believing this?”
Things at present remind me of my high school days and that “shut up nerd” culture that the jocks were stereotyped to have. Everyone thinks they have the moral high ground. Everyone thinks their position is the most defensible. Everyone feels they are better than their out group.
(Also, fantastic job sticking to the posting guidelines! Wanna be a mod?)
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. We try to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are highly encouraged as no-discussion downvotes don't help anyone learn anything valuable. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
We're testing the waters with the new influx of people to see if this is valuable or not. We are also actively seeking moderators and people who enjoy discussion (and understand that being wrong is an important part of being a better person)! Send me a message if you'd like to help out.
This weekly thread will focus on games (board or video) that are fantastic, but have one extremely annoying aspect that doesn't fit, doesn't make sense, or makes the game worse.
No starters this time as there's tons of examples. Let me know yours and maybe what you did as a workaround or house rule (if applicable)!
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. We try to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are highly encouraged as no-discussion downvotes don't help anyone learn anything valuable. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
We're back! We're testing the waters with the new influx of people to see if this is valuable or not. We are also actively seeking moderators and people who enjoy discussion (and understand that being wrong is an important part of being a better person)! Send me a message if you'd like to help out.
This weekly thread will focus on Political Purity Testing. The definition we will use for this discussion is here along with some real-world examples.
The attitude can essentially be summed up with "If you're not 100% with us, then you're against us."
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Do you feel it is helpful or harmful to a side of an issue to purity test?
- Do you feel these tests are encountered more as you enter extreme areas of thought?
- Are there alternatives to purity testing that you'd rather see implemented?
- Do you feel this happens more on the left or right wing, or is it roughly equal?
- Here's a goofy quiz about which Canadian Political Party you most agree with. Take it and let us know the results if you feel like it! https://canada.isidewith.com/political-quiz
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
This weekly thread will focus on Helping Us Fix Weekly Topics. This Community seems to have a problem. I generally do my best to create open-ended topics that don't lead the reader to respond in any specific way, all while providing what I think are interesting starters. I've purposely picked other moderators that do not think the same as I do on many topics, but have the skill to explain why they feel the way they do. Results of all of this seem to be extremely limited.
If I try and introduce some opinion in a topic for people to pick at (even if I don't believe it), they tend to get very aggressive and seem to insult moreso than discuss. They focus on moral arguments instead of logical ones and abandon discussions when challenged which sort of defeats the purpose (and goes against the rules) of the entire Community to begin with.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Can we do anything with moderation or rules to help encourage you to respond more?
- Are there any format changes you'd like to see that may help?
- Do you ever feel that Lemmy is a more aggressive form of social media and therefore limit your discussion?
- Does the activist nature of Lemmy help or hurt further adoption?
- What topics would you like to see covered?
- Is Lemmy even a good platform for discussion to begin with?
- Would you like to be a mod and help out?
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
This weekly thread will focus on Climate Change. We're not going to discuss if it exists (it very obviously does), but what we can do. I've seen a lot of blame thrown around, but not much on what can actually be done so I'd like to get some ideas on that front.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Should the focus be on individual actions or holding corporations accountable for their environmental impact?
- Should governments prioritize investment in renewable energy over fossil fuels, even if it means higher short-term costs?
- Is it more effective to implement strict climate change laws or to rely on voluntary measures and market-driven solutions?
- Should countries be obligated to accept climate refugees displaced by environmental changes?
- Is geoengineering a viable solution to combat climate change, or does it pose too many risks?
- Should climate change education be mandatory in schools worldwide?
I tend to browse /All and by New on Lemmy. I went to respond on a thread on !vegan@lemmy.world to thank someone for a recipe that looked good, and found out I had been banned.
Odd, considering I hadn't posted to that sub at any point in the past. I checked the modlog to find that "Mod" had banned a bunch of people citing "Rule 5."
Their Rule 5 states: Bad-faith carnist rhetoric & anti-veganism are not allowed, as this is not a space to debate the merits of veganism. Anyone is welcome here, however, and so good-faith efforts to ask questions about veganism may be given their own weekly stickied post in the future (see current stickied discussion).
I (and hundreds of others) seemingly broke rule 5 of this community without ever posting there. What is going on?
And my apologies if this isn't the place for this, but I had no idea where else to post the question.
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
This weekly thread will focus on the sometimes painful art of being wrong.
I don't mean not having an opinion and then forming one, I mean having an opinion, and then having that opinion changed with new or more accurate information.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- When was the last time you were wrong? What about something somewhat major?
- What was it regarding?
- How did it make you feel?
- What do you feel is the best way to correct someone with an ingrained opinion?
- Is it easier online or in person?
- When do you give up on talking to someone?
- Would you be open to a new thread type here where we create a Steelman post as a group? (eg. We start from questions and end up at THE post / article for finding information on a touchy subject)
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
This weekly thread will focus on debate, discussion, and the lack thereof on social media (including Lemmy).
My apologies for "leading" a bit more than I try to normally in these weekly threads, however this is a topic that pisses me off in particular. Not only as a mod of a discussion-based community, but as someone who loves it when someone challenges me and proves me wrong / disproves my logic so I'd very much like to hear outside opinions on the topic. I can't even partially understand how people don't want to have a more cohesive / logically sound opinion.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Do you feel that discussion is worse now? If so, what caused it? If not, where may others get this feeling from?
- Is it potentially a platform issue, or does it happen everywhere?
- Does discussion even matter any longer? Why or why not?
- Do you feel that more could be done to encourage discussion with outside views or are we better off just "bubble"-ing ourselves and blocking everyone we disagree with?
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
This weekly thread will focus on the word "Woke" and its meaning, use, and misuse.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- What does the word mean to you?
- Is it applied correctly or incorrectly?
- Is it even applicable any longer?
- Do you feel that Conservative media misapplies it, and is "everything I don't like is woke" an appropriate sentiment or simply uncharitable?
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
This weekly thread will focus on words, their import, and their use / misuse.
With respect to the late, great George Carlin.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- How do you feel about political (or forced) movement of language? For example, pro-life and pro-choice being two sides of the same issue because nobody wants to identify as "anti-"anything.
- What are some words that are nebulous, but everyone "knows" the meaning of?
- Are there any manipulated words that annoy you?
- Do you find any common patterns with how words are used by various groups?
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
This weekly thread will focus on getting other people to watch movies we love, but others may not have seen or even know about.
In order to make a recommendation or two, simply let others know an appropriate amount about a movie and why they should give it a chance.
If you want to deeply discuss one, please remember to use Spoiler tags where applicable!
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Great bad movies
- Hilarious garbage for a big group movie night
- Best genre movies
- Underrated films
view more: next ›
Ohhhh, THERE'S the boner I was looking for! Thanks bro.