Asking people to see nuance here and the rest of the web is the worst. You’re either left or right. Urban or not. Up or down. There is no in between, partial solutions are useless. Drives me bonkers

Yep, I still make the misstake from time to yime and try and give a resonable take on a rant post when I feel like they are too unfair.

Latst time was a few days ago when I responed to a person in a Linux community ranting about how Windows 11 sucks because he didn’t know how to use it properly and that it had the audacity to not include drivers for 20 year old equipment.

I got massively downvoted and after I explained that I was an IT tech that didn’t run Linux on my main machine, I was weirdly called out and some idiot claimed that you can’t be an IT tech if you are not running Linux as your main computer OS.

It was kinda funny, I was bashed contiously by the open community for a minor disagreement, while I believe that I stayed polite throughout the conversation

Heh, I get down votes from both sides a fair bit. In one part I am supportive of views, but raise obvious issues in other areas. This makes the For team upset. The Against team hates me too because my stance is on the For team’s side. The result is an inbox full of fine examples of how in-fighting destroys the grass while the other side of the fence has no idea they’re apathetically winning.

Almost all of this comes down to people attempting to express their self-assessed virtuosity as superior to others, or they are driven by a manipulative fallacy—argumentun ad populum is a big one in echo chambers—causing them to easily sway closer to extremes with little critical thought first.

This is why we are supposed to discuss and not argue, remaining constantly open to exploring and contemplating new information. It is not about who is right or wrong, rather the discourse and learning from it. But that’s not the default setting in many Lemmy communities.

Oh, hell yeah.

Anything political or anywhere connected to something that could be culturally attached for some people. Especially when people start comparing one evil to another and try to say one’s worse because we’re used to doing the other and accept it as normal, so we should completely ignore how it’s barbaric as fuck and just address the one topic that’s more politically or culturally unacceptable or convenient to support.

Hey, how about we acknowledge that they’re both bad, and they can both be equally bad and work on correcting the one culturally accepted one while it’s politically convenient to address the one that we can agree is evil*, too.

That first one is where I feel I’ve seen myself and others get downvoted more than anything else listed here. Maybe it is recency bias from that one thread the other day lol.

The older I get the less patience I have for actual morons. if someone wants to put words in my mouth I don’t have to be there for it. I just block and move on.

Honestly though in all actuality there are very few topics where nuance does exist like with guns for example: it’s a very nuanced issue and calls for bans without acknowledging the reality that for many in America relying on the justice and police systems is not always a good or even safe option when it comes to personal safety, but at the end of the day you either ban them or you don’t and any extra asterisks are minutiae, so people don’t really care about your personal reasons they just want to know what side you fall on in the conflict.

So often nuance-enjoyers come off as effectively saying “what if we rape but only sometimes?” on the topic of whether rape should be a crime in society.

I had a conversation with someone about one of my downvotes posts, which helped to understand yet another stupid derailing tactic that terrible people use to stifle conversation. I really appreciated their feedback, even if I didn’t see any way to avoid the misunderstanding.

I’ve seen completely normal and innocuous statements heavily downvoted here. Some people seem to just downvote everything and other people seem to downvote anything that already has downvotes. But one thing is for certain, it’s treated as a like/dislike button, not as a meter for content that does or doesn’t contribute to the subject.

Lemmy has a much, much, much better crowd than reddit, but it definitely still got the “not all men”, “I only ever comment on stories about extremely rare false rape accusations” crowd.

I pointed out that it was silly how Barbie made Ryan Gosling more of a star at the Oscars than any woman and got downvoted for it.

It’s very misused as the disagree button rather than the not relevant button.

I can’t imagine going out of your way to downvote people like that. I don’t have an interest in cigars so I just ignore those communities. If I went around downvoting post in communities I have a problem with, I’d be doing that all day.

It’s fine to argue devil’s advocate, but you should clearly mark it as such so people don’t think it’s your true opinion - tone is hard enough as it is to get through text, never mind outright devil’s advocacy.

Devil’s Advocate = Russian Nazi Capitalist Shrill in Filipino Putin propaganda farm.

I wish either in addition to or in place of votes, we could tag a post or comment with a small fixed selection of emojis. To signify it was funny, cool, thoughtful, etc.

And then maybe even filter or sort posts based upon the metrics that arise from the above.

That would be weird, I would think you’d be downvoted for, on the contrary, liking Windows. But the AI thing I have seen, even if I don’t understand it.

I actually expressed my views on AI in another comment.

Haven’t had many experiences like here, most people seem either positive or indifferent (both furry stuff and femboy/gnc). It doesn’t come up as much here though so it’s possible I just missed it.

Oh yeah. I’m pretty new to all of this but just mentioning the fact that the CCP is doing raunchy stuff got me downvoted to hell. Even when those replies were provided with links to articles and facts I am being called racist.

Fun fact: as I discovered, “continents” are defined differently depending on which country you’re in, they are not the same worldwide. In Europe, America is a big continent and includes both north and south, and the continent including Australia is called “Oceania”. In “America” (USA), there’s North and South America as separate continents, and the continent including Australia is called … Australia… and yes, the USA is just America, because, yeah.

What is it about these particular words that frazzles people’s brains and makes them forget that homonyms exist? The two continents are collectively called “America”, and “United States of America” gets shortened to “America”. Like all other homonyms in human language, these two pronouns are distinguished by context.

It must really confuse the hell out of people that the America’s Cup isn’t named after the Americas, or the United States of America. The America’s Cup is named after a racing yacht, which was named after the nickname for the United States of America, which was named for its location. So, I say America is not a continent, or a country. It’s a boat.

Seriously, though, I’m guessing the downvotes for saying that are for pedantry.

Don’t you know? They rewrote history and geography so they get to be the only Americans, while the continent is divided into North and South. Forget all the maps, documents, letters, and stuff that referred to the New Word as “America” for centuries. Forget about the first national documents in countries like Mexico referring to themselves as Americans. Nope. They get to steal the name because #power.

So now it’s time to read the “but ‘United Mexican States’ is Mexico, so ‘United States of America’ deserves to be America”, ignoring the fact that Mexico derives from the native name of a portion of Mexico City, so it’s not remotely the same (see first paragraph).

This comment answers the AskLemmy about things that annoy me…

I agree, for some reason majority opinion on this website hates AI.

Here is an essay I did on AI, by the way:

People have long said that new technology only creates more jobs. To those people, I would like to direct your attention to the cart-horse. Around a hundred years ago, before electric cars, people used to go around on horses, or in carts and wagons pulled by horses. Horses were an integral part of the transport system, and most horses were employed as such, even being bred specifically to cope with higher demand on people needing to go places. With the advent of the car, large swathes of the horse population became unnecessary, and the population dwindled to a new equilibrium as fewer horses were needed in transport, but fewer horses were also bred. Compared to the busy, hard life horses had to put up with only a few decades ago, most horses nowadays, although there a fewer of them, live a life of comparative luxury, living in fields most of the day where they are free to graze, are given good food by their owners that care about them, and are only occasionally ridden by humans, and even when they are, it is far more relaxed and more of an enjoyable activity than horse-riding was when it was the only way to get somewhere, and done on a daily basis.

Humans often have this idea that they are special. That they are the only ones that can weave cloth – until it is automated. That they are the only ones who can make pottery – until it is automated. That human labour is the only way to get power – until power production is automated with the advent of electricity. That they are the only ones can be ‘creative’, who can write stories, make art, play music – until that is automated too. True, in all those cases, humans were still involved in the process to some extent, mostly for quality control and maintenance, but far fewer humans are needed to create the same amount of stuff – whether physical goods or more ‘idea-like’ stuff such as art – than before. In fact, recent progress has shown video games that were even tested and quality controlled by AI, as well as being programmed by AI and using AI generated assets, doing away with the need for humans entirely. This is analogous to the true scenario that I outlined in the first paragraph, and is not necessarily a bad thing.

It is quite likely that, in an impossible to predict timespan (it may be 20 years, it may be much more), humans will have developed technology with the capacity to completely create all the things we need, and more – good food, comfortable shelter, entertainment, and so on. Some will argue that this cessation of the need for humans to work will results in economic collapse and mass hardships, but this is a small minded perspective, often viewed through a capitalistic lens. The horses didn’t have a population explosion and lack of resources due to their work being gone, on the contrary, their numbers dwindled – which is not a bad thing, as long as it is through natural means, which it was, it just means that every individual has more attention and resources – and their lives improved, since they no longer had to endure hard labour every day just to survive. It is certainly attainable for the same thing to happen to us. Population growth is already falling in developed countries, and only people who are unable to image a world without human labour see this as a bad thing. If less humans work every year, and more AIs do their jobs, it balances out, and is a way to ease into a world where there is very little to no human labour, and all our needs and most of our wants are produced by AI.

As much as many people dislike the sentiment, this would not work in a capitalistic world where what someone gets is dependent on what they contribute to society, for self-evident reasons (those being that no one would need to contribute anything to society if it is all being done by robots), and therefore in a world where all necessary labour is done by AI, we would have to move to a system where everyone gets resources simply by dint of existing, rather than needing to contribute anything themselves. You can call this socialism if you want, it doesn’t really matter what you call it. This system would have the benefit of reducing stress caused by the feeling that you are obligated to do something, while not removing the ability to contribute something if you want – after all, it is necessary labour that has been abolished, not all labour, and just as horses are still used as a novelty and entertainment today, and many people value hand-made pottery, food, etc., over manufactured counterparts, there is likely to still be a desire for art, objects, and stories made by humans even in such a world where all necessary labour has been abolished.

This also deals with the counterpoint made by many that people will struggle for a sense of meaning and purpose in a world where there is no necessary labour – first of all, people struggle for meaning and purpose even when they do work necessarily, and second of all, as mentioned above, they can still do unnecessary, but still valued labour, and get the same meaning and purpose from that.

Some people, myself included, think that although the above scenario may work in theory, in practise it would be difficult to get the billionaires and billionaires’ puppets in government to agree to such a sensible system when the huge benefit to everyone may come at a small cost to themselves – even if the cost is just ego, even if they could still keep all their material resources. I admit, I don’t see a good solution to this problem myself, but, in conclusion, I hope we can think of one together, as this is a world many, including myself, would like to live in.

Lemmy is Reddit Extreme. Only the people who reacted the strongest to Reddit’s policies move(d) over.

Well I would like to wish you and anyone else who’s celebrating a Happy Ramadan.

Tbh its such a complex topic that unless someone has studied it extensively/experienced it, they can’t really understand the extreme nuance behind it, and also the fact is true that people who claim themselves as ‘religious’ are mostly pieces of shit

I see myself as a practicing person but frankly the people who drive me nuts are always the people who follow the same faith, and tbh I think this might have to do with conservatism and the refusal to listen to others/accept you were wrong rather than religion itself, people somehow refuse to believe they are wrong even if you show it from their own scripture

Some blame is still on lemmy though, people somehow don’t seem to have any knowledge on this subject and make the most absurd claims and also somehow get upvoted to heaven, and I don’t bother correcting because its no good, ig this is just conservatism as well but of a different sort, unless u are an atheist, you are stupid/dumb

Ramadan Mubarak if you are involved though! I have always found it very fun!

I don’t hate you for being a Muslim, I feel sorry for you. You can’t choose what you believe, and your natural personality combined with your experiences and upbringing made you a Muslim. You are negatively impacted by Islam’s restrictions - such as Ramadan, for example.

But I also feel sorry for all the non religious people religion harms, and more so.

No smoking?

Have fun and be yourself :)

downvote liberally?

Calling US customary units “Imperial”

.ml is literally a Marxist Leninist instance saying that right wing PoV gets down voted there is akin to observing that bears indeed shit in the woods