Not saying the OP was banned fairly, but to do the devil's advocate, there's people with PHD in biology or medicine who still don't believe in Evolution. You can always find idiots with PHDs, even in their chosen fields.
As someone with over a hundred banned reddit accounts, you generally don't get banned for disagreeing. So maybe not slurs, but maybe just general rude language. Or my personal favorite, bothering the mods.
Unless he's Richard Dawkins, people do get banned if they argue about biological sex.
Something like 1/5 of pharmacists believe homeopathy works. How the fuck can you go through that training and still believe in a hyperdilution that's magic if you shake it the right way and never ever touch it with your fingers because that takes the magic away?
(For those who are unfamiliar I'm not even being facetious, this is what homeopaths actually believe)
I read it in Pharmacy Practice. I cannot find the article. Linked in this article is a photo of one the pages I had read and a link that I cannot access. The number was 19% and it was specifically Canadian pharmacists. Not sure what that looks like elsewhere.
Pharmacists and General practitioners believing in homeopathy. Physical Therapists believing in chiropractice. There’s way too many examples. But at least physical therapists don’t tend to have PHDs :D
Well they do now. Physical therapy changed to a doctoral degree several years ago. You have to get a doctor of physical therapy (DPT) degree plus pass the licensing tests to practice these days.
I will never not be mad that chiropracticians have largely avoided the hunt for woo-woo magic crystal retards. Don't get me wrong, some people have managed to find treatment for chronic pain in things like acupuncture and chiropractic care that they couldn't get elsewhere, but most of the time this is presented as equal to physiotherapy despite lacking any scientific support, and the inability for "alternative medicine" to cure or permanently treat people.
Pharmacists don't get PhDs, they get degrees for practice, like MDs. A PharmD doesn't require being able to understand or conduct original research like a PhD does. Basically, a PharmD requires a really good memory, not necessarily critical thinking.
There's some amount of people who believe homeopathy is the same thing as essential oils and herbs, and have no idea about the hyperdilution stuff somehow. Granted, that's not much better, but there's at least a realm of slight possibility that you might get useful effects from those, as opposed to literal water with extra steps and flavoring added to make it taste vaguely medicinal.
We're also talking about people who should absolutely know better regardless so maybe that offers far too much credibility to them.
Totally, everyone who continued to a PhD in my area was batshit insane. Entirely fuckin deranged but diligent enough to write thousands of words of cogent garbage that no one could be bothered contesting.
Isn't there some stat that PhD students have 3x the mental health issues than undergrads? Which nowadays is like 100% lol
Isn’t there some stat that PhD students have 3x the mental health issues than undergrads? Which nowadays is like 100% lol
Given that academia is an absolutely grueling and downright soul-crushing career, I am not surprised only those with mental issues are wild enough to sustain it.
You misunderstood the statistic. Mental health issues are caused/exacerbated by academia not the other way around.
Many of my cohort and friends were bullied, harassed, abused, taken advantage of by supervisors and senior academic staff who often have unreasonable demands and expect blinding unquestioning allegiance.
People who run research groups are not selected for based on their people skills but rather academic performance/pedigree, which is the biggest issue IMO.
Academia is a tough gig. Peer review and thesis chairs perform the review of candidates work, trust me they are almost always contested to varying degrees.
You know what gets me? The fact that the public seems to think that academia is well paid, I've had a few people make comments along that line. Cue me, manically laughing when they confusedly ask why anyone is in academia if it's high stress and relatively poorly paid.
Unless you're in university administration, academia is not well paid. University administrators who are well paid are usually EdDs (essentially, university-focused MBAs) who didn't take the normal academic route of research first.
Those are extremely few and far between, and they aren't evolutionary biologists. Behe, the most famous of them, doesn't have a PhD in biology, but a PhD in biochemistry. Those are vastly different fields, and understanding the evidence for evolution wouldn't have been relevant to Behe's PhD. MDs more commonly don't believe in evolution because MDs are essentially average folks who can memorize stuff really well. MDs don't receive training in research or how to conduct it, so they're pretty poor at understanding primary research most of the time.
Someone with a PhD from a reputable university (essentially, one that funds their PhD programs rather than making students pay, and one that doesn't incentivize publications directly with bonuses) will be an expert in their subject area. Behe would be able to tell you about the biochemistry of sickle cell anemia. Someone with a PhD speaking on an area outside of their expertise is perhaps more likely than the average person to be correct because they could have read and understood most primary sources even outside of their area, but I wouldn't say it's all that much more likely. Basically, PhDs speaking on the topic of their expertise are experts, but they're not experts in everything.
Personally, my PhD made me like the trope of someone who could tell you everything you want to know about some esoteric subject but wouldn't know how to make a meal.
Getting a PhD produces highly specialized knowledge, not general knowledge.
No, there is no coursework past a master's thesis. For the last typically ~3-4 years of graduate training, everything that you're doing is original research. If your research isn't good enough or done correctly, you will never get a PhD. You also have to defend your dissertation. Getting a PhD from a reputable university does mean that what you say, specifically related to your research area, is correct.
Like when people start commenting on the near-east conflict. Hardly anyone knows what the fuck is going on there yet we find many experts on the topic in the comments.
"please stop fighting and get along" is my fundamental take on most wars. It's not particularly useful, but it helps me split the average soldier from the average "leader" that sent them to die.
No kidding. I got downvoted a dozen times because I mentioned that diet and practices help with sun burns and sunscreen isn't the win all against the sun. I didn't post sources right away, but when I did the hive has made up it's mind.
I'll recuse myself from giving you an up vote or down vote but I'll make a suggestion. Maybe provide the proof when you make the comment, especially on a topic that might be controversial or have health risks.
Why did I need to provide sources on the comment above? Are people really curious on how diet can help your skin defend against the sun? Then let's have a discussion I'll post my sources. But my comment then was just in conversation, adding that diet helps, and if people wanted to know more I'll show. I'm not going to start off every comment with a research paper worth of citations.
But above I'm arguing that there's a hive mind mentality, and my source is my downvotes. I'm just hoping lemmy doesn't cater to the more "popular" comments because that's how an echo chamber turns into an information swamp. Just because something is more popular does not make it necessarily correct. I'm not responsible for people to think outside of themselves.
And before people rail against the lack of a blue link for them to hit because of something that has nothing to do with the conversation we're having here now, here. Click below. It's not controversial to believe what you put in your body has an effect on how your skin is built, and that can help with sun burns.
I am, on the other hand absolutely not saying that some vitamins have the same protection that a sunscreen does. Which it seems what the downvotes are for. Since I can't see why people would be upset to know how diet can affect your skin's ability to defend against radiations.
Since I can’t see why people would be upset to know how diet can affect your skin’s ability to defend against radiations.
A lot of your downvotes probably come from people misinterpreting your message as some woo woo bunk about replacing sunscreen with a proper diet and you won't get sunburned, which clearly isn't what you're saying. However, its very easy for small, flippant comments to come across with wildly different connotations from the reader. Not really sure how to get around that, outside of way too much context.
Yeah, outside of way too much context. Reddit created a mentality where you have to comment a certain way, and only certain comments get seen. It's self fulfilling in teaching how to talk. "reddiquite" lol
You make a valid point about sources when making a random throwaway comment.
Thanks for the link, I see what you mean about what we eat affecting our skin and it makes perfect sense. You're right that it's not your responsibility for other people to think outside of themselves but you could be a catalyst for it, which is something I strive for.
I like to give people the tools for them to think about any given topic and in real life I'll often even say that I don't want a reply to a question I posit them. I find people might be more truthful to themselves if they don't feel the need to justify themselves to me.
I think your comment was probably misconstrued as you saying that sunscreen is useless and it's all about diet when you obviously didn't say nor mean that. I admit on first read I misread it that way as well and was curious about your stance.
Thanks for having a conversation with me bud, hope you have a lovely day.
People need to start eating healthier in general, but they feel like they're having their boundaries stepped all over when people tell them that. That's one of the reasons you got downvoted probably.
Sucks to be told that you can't eat crap, as well as knowing that americas medical system tries solving symptoms, not the root problem. But that's the individuals responsibility. Americas medicine isn't going to take care of you.
Settle down. I'm talking about people getting upset on a comment without acknowledging authenticity. The downvote and how a comment is buried or promoted is probably the worst thing reddit has manufactured. It's what the post is about. And what the comment I replied to is that it's happening here at lemmy
just sounds to me like youre a kid and you give too much worth to a karma system.
Link the comment, maybe you didn't deserve it but to me you just sound like a wiseguy.
Diet doesn't replace sunscreen.
I could care less about any of these systems, other than say it's not flowing towards equitable information. You thinking I'm saying diet replaces sunscreen shows you're not processing it.
We're not discussing sun screen, and I'm old. Take what you want.
I left Reddit after the fuck spez debacle and haven't looked back. I occasionally go to reddit through Google for some specific things. But I don't log in or engage in the content besides reading what I was looking for. And I use my ad blocker so that dickward spez doesn't get anything from me.
But yeah I suppose this is more about mods. They think they have so much power at the end of they day it's a fucking forum, that is not much power.
Mods on reddit didn't have the power to slow down the rate of posting. That sounds like anon was posting so much the site's anti-spam measures kicked in. As always we're only hearing one side of the story here.
If you get mass downvoted your account gets rate limited for ten minutes, too. Happened to me once when I had the audacity to say I didn't think Skyrim was all that great.
Yeah. And the worldbuilding isn't great. Like the magic system is wide but not deep, and isn't well integrated into the society. I'd rather they cut it down to like ten spells and actually had them feature in the world. Some spells are absolutely bonkers in the effect that they would have on the economy, for instance transmutation and "summon sword".
I always hated how you can be the king of every guild but it never means a damn thing. Characters like Delphine just needs to be taken out back and shot.
Stealth archer is way too powerful compared to any other run, especially with how powerful the enemies would get later on.
Ah. I wonder if EA went through that with their massively unpopular comment about having a sense of achievement.
Having not played it, or really any other games, I have no opinion on Skyrim. It's insane to downvote people because they dislike something like that. But that will happen here on Lemmy, too.
In Reddit it doesn't really matter. You can cite the best sources ever, use a pristine logic, and the local irrationals will still find some excuse to believe in whatever.
You do see plenty of that in most places, but I feel like it's way worse in Reddit. As if there was something there reinforcing it. (Perhaps the local culture? I have no idea.)
I don't disagree that the voting system (specially karma) plays a role, but I think that Reddit embraces oversimplifications a bit too much, and that's part of the problem - because then you get both sides discussing if 2+2 is 3 or 5, and if you say "it's 4" nobody will bat an eye (except to screech at you).
In special, three types of false dichotomy:
no gradation: 50 is either 0 or 100.
no third category: since apples and bananas are different from each other, then grapes must be either a type of apple or a type of banana.
no superset or subset: if all bananas are fruits, then all fruits are bananas.
You do see those things in Lemmy too, but nowhere as much as in Reddit; and it has consequences everywhere, including political discussion. Or in 4chan - as much as their userbases hate each other, they fall for the same logical traps.
Nah, it's just as bad everywhere else online, IMO. Youtube and Facebook (including instagram, etc.) comments are unusually bad, though. The general feeling on any social media is that seemingly everyone is falling over themselves and others in a race to be so incredibly stupid and ignorant that it's gone several levels lower than should be possible.
The other key factor is to not be an insufferable dickhead when you’re posting. You can post the truest facts known to man but if you come across as a smug asshole then people will naturally be inclined to think your wrong.
I feel like your tone plays next to no part on that. If they agree and you're rude, your rudeness becomes "justified"; if they don't agree and you're rude, they'll play the victim, assume (yet another sign of stupidity) that you're angry, or even "u rude than ur rong lol lmao".
Same deal with explanation length; make it succinct and to-the-point and they'll assume words on your mouth, make it verbose and well-explained and they'll distort it.
In my old community (here, in Lemmy - showing that the problem is not exclusive to Reddit) I scolded people like this, even when I happened to agree with them. I could've banned them, but I have no idea on how to approach this in large scale.
All that matters is whether you're speaking for or against the prevailing assumptions of the site/the subreddit. Most people on the internet are not experts on the topic but somehow already have their minds made up.
I've cited nonexistent sources before. It seems convincing and nobody actually checks, so the other guy got downvoted because I got sources. I can imagine they weren't happy about it, seemed like they actually knew their shit.
I was threatened with a ban because I commented on a Harry Potter book being burned, saying that it was ironic that crazy Fundamentalists (who believe magic is real and evil) and people who don't support TERF assholes somehow share this one, random cause.
The reason for the removal and the threat of a ban was something to the extent of "Hurr-Durr, mah both sides" which... oh, my head, the bad reading comprehension there.
It was not on any LGBTQ+ or trans specific instance, either. It was, like, memes (edit: it was 196).
Point is, there's dumb people who want to abuse power everywhere, in every group, and always will be. Even the best causes and best groups. Especially in the worst causes and worst groups, though. I'M NOT BOTH-SIDES-ING, DON'T BAN ME.
The lead moderator of 196 Moss is a Hamas apologist and authoritarian turd. I was banned because I said fuck Hamas fuck the IDF. Both of the governments freely use the civilian population as currency in their political games. Apparently pointing out that the Palestinians are getting double -fisted is a No-No when one of the fists is Hamas.
I looked up your comment in the modlog just to see; if it's the one I see, you got banned from lemmy.ml which is a little different. They make no pretense of fairness.
That said, based on the comment that's fuckin ridiculous. I don't agree with you, but I can't understand the point of a communication network where as soon as someone busts out an opinion the operators don't like, they remove them from the community. It's like lighting a big red beacon "MY OPINIONS CANNOT TOLERATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO DISAGREE." It's one thing if you're insulting some person in the channel or something, but it was clearly just your geopolitical opinion.
Then again, it is lemmy.ml; it's run by people who idolize leaders who imprison or torture people who try to disagree, so count yourself lucky that they're not in charge of anything beyond their little server I guess. I tried to debate with the tankies when I first showed up here and at this point my approach is just to unsubscribe and move on.
Edit: Just because I reread this and I'm still irritated at it somehow. My breaking point with lemmy.ml was when I was arguing with some people, and someone else showed up in the thread and I was talking with him, and the people I was arguing with were using the new guy's opinions as some kind of "gotcha" against me. Like, this guy believes this, and you're supporting him, so clearly you're on his side (I wasn't), and you agree with him (I definitely didn't), and we can hold you responsible for anything he says because you're not attacking him.
Like, they could not process the idea that I might be talking to someone who had a different opinion than me, and it could be okay. They thought if he said flip, and I thought it was flop, I had to instantly start screaming at him about how flop was the way, and everything else had to stop, and if i didn't do that I wasn't a good flop-supporter. And so they seemed like they legitimately thought that if I wasn't doing that it meant I secretly supported flip, because that was what they would do, is just scream (figuratively speaking) at anyone who didn't agree with them completely on everything they considered important, until they "won" (i.e. the person gave up and left).
I realized there was nothing for me there, and unsubscribed from anything world-event-related on lemmy.ml immediately, and so far it's proven to be a good decision.
I got a 3 day ban from news on .ml for posting a link to Media Bias Fact Check. I wasn't OP, just posted the link with a summary when someone asked about OP's source. I would imagine OP got sent for Re-Education.
Ah. I'm still a little curious whether it was for actual opinions or for being a jerk or etc. For what it's worth I got banned from tons of stuff on reddit; I complained in one sub about being banned from another and quoted the thing that got me banned, and everyone started falling out of their chairs saying holy shit dude I'm not surprised, that message is a fuckin doozy. Like okay then, tell me why it's wrong, don't just shriek and run away and grab the banhammer.
It's a tough thing. I do get the necessity to police people doing personal attacks or blatant racism or spam to keep the community OK, but I don't get how it seems like it always escalates to the list of allowed opinions and disallowed opinions.
Yes, however I’ve noticed that you may get downvotes dumped on you initially, oftentimes if your argument is decent you’ll probably rise to level or even positive after several hours. Not sure what it is with Lemmy, but I seem to encounter some comments that get downvoted right off the bat for no reason I can discern. My life doesn’t revolve around internet points, but obviously it’s nice to see upvotes and a good conversation follow a post I’ve added, but lots of downvotes without context are frustrating. Tell my why you disagree or think it doesn’t add to the discussion.
I've noticed that too. Sometimes when I get replied to I'll see that the original comment is slightly in the negative. If I leave another reply and come back later it'll be slightly in the positive. Maybe there's some sort of bias at play, but I've seen this pattern a few times. Maybe people tend to be convinced by and up vote whoever left the last comment in a chain (had the last word)
All that matters is whether you’re speaking for or against the prevailing assumptions of the site/the subreddit. Most people on the internet are not experts on the topic but somehow already have their minds made up.
Also, Lemmy is not better than Reddit in this regard. Dominant opinion > everything else.
Oh yes, I’ve run into that several times. Worst were the biggest subs like /gaming or /cars. Man, never go against the crowd. I’m 90% sure that those subs are filled with industry shills and fans that won’t let you besmirch a (brand or game or car) and downvote your criticism or negative opinion for obvious reasons.
The most interesting thing is when something is culturally different from the US way of life, then it's by default wrong.
I was arguing about shopping carts in another sub and, because it is culturally appreciated in the US to return the cart, I argued that we don't do that in our country because it's considered unsafe and was called lazy and got heavily downvoted.
That's unfortunate. So many of these english speaking social media platforms tend to be US point of view dominated. From an American perspective it is difficult to envision a situation where returning a cart is so unsafe that it should be universally avoided and that may have resulted in the downvotes, and it's certainly conceivable that the inconvenience and refusal to returning a cart could be rationalized over "safety". It's not like that sort of rationalization doesn't happen over other things in daily life. The only thing I could suggest is a offer a why. I'm not suggesting people will become less stubborn over the issue, but at least those who want to learn, will.
Not to restart the discussion but: The whole "returning your cart" thing is a very arbitrary metric reinforced by a meme from around 2020 and has taken hold in the fickle zeitgeist of the internet. Personally I think carts need to be returned because they block parking spaces and can roll into and damage cars. Out of curiosity, why don't people return carts where you live?
Out of curiosity, why don't people return carts where you live?
This is how our parking lots look:
Every parking space has a space where you can leave the car to be collected by the employees, usually in the back of the spot. You can see it green in the image. Our parking lots are huge and usually take several floors. For us it makes no practical sense to have to go back all the way to the front, or to inside the store in some cases (like in the case in the photo, where you have to go all the way inside the mall), just to return the cart.
Of course if it happens for people to park near the cart deposit space, they usually return the cart to the stack.
Lots in the US are plenty large as well, so I don’t see that as a factor. But that doesn’t explain the “safety” aspect that was mentioned. It just means your lots are designed to accommodate leaving carts and the employees are accustomed to fetching said carts, not an explanation that led to the design other than perhaps a convenience for customers.
Which doesn't mean I'm wrong and you're right. It's just two different ways of doing the same thing.
On big food courts here the etiquette is to return the tray to the tray holders or to the store, but for small courts or restaurants it's very common to leave it at the table for the employees to gather. So it is kind of inverse of the cart etiquette. In some places in the world it is common to return the tray, and in some places it is common to leave it at the table. That doesn't mean either is wrong.
The world is big and different people have different views and cultures and ways of doing every single thing. To tell one is superior to the other when talking about these things that don't matter so much is to impose you way above anyone else's to feel superior.
The person that called me lazy was calling everybody where I live lazy because everyone does this thing this way, which is pretty pretentious.
You can have strong opinions about something without being judgmental about how other people live because they don't do things the way you and your peers do.
Being culturally expected and ingrained isn't an issue I think needs to be argued about - so long as it doesn't cause harm. Whatever works in your country is fine. Americans have plenty of their own cultural norms that are generally unacceptable or frowned on in other parts of the world even through they are insignificant in actual meaning. However, again, it doesn't explain the safety aspect regarding cart return.
Right wing opinions are usually wrong. Not always, but overwhelmingly. It's really to the point that if someone mentions they're right wing I immediately take every word out of their mouth with grave skepticism because the requirement to identify as a right winger is either terminal stupidity or willingness to play into fear and anger narratives uncritically. Which is just terminal stupidity with extra steps.
Thing is, around here you have to be very careful to not even sound rightwing. You dare not point out that there's a reason the right believes a thing without being clear to distance yourself from that reason.
You certainly don't point out the left's take on a rightwing opinion is wrong. I see that with gun debates all the time. "Yeah, no one actually says or believes that. It's more like..." "FUCK YOU CHILD MURDERER!"
Here's a related example; I've been beat up for saying that Trump used to be coherent. Listen to some videos from the 80s or 90s, even early 2000s. You might not agree with his words, but at least he could string a sentence together. That sort of thing gets buried in downvotes, as if I'm agreeing with or apologizing for Trump.
I've tried to disagree with the people who have pretty extremist views on abolishing police and the rule of law, unironically supporting anarchy, and the response has been the classic 'Bootlicker' insult. It's extremely frustrating when I'd throw a party to the news the GOP has been dissolved but criticizing the more outlandish left positions gets me my honorary klan hood and thrown onto team red.
Sure I've got some 'hot takes' by the lefts' standards but I'm not a conservative in any regard. I think the left is perfectly capable of matching the retardation of the right and I wish we could normalize calling that shit out rather than reflexively going "Ohh so you're not on my team, your words mean nothing, bootlicker."
Cause now I've got to vote for a party that hates me so the party that hates me more can lose. Yippie.
Or even better if you're going to post a wrong reply, post it in a patronising, know-it-all tone so not only does it convince people you're right, it crushes the soul of your opponent.
I recently posted accusing a certain company of using dirty tricks to con people and control public perception. To my surprise someone from that company was in the thread and he replied saying, "You always say that" and then lambasted me for being a crazy person with a vendetta.
But actually I'd never posted about it before. His reply was a dirty trick to control public perception.
I think this plays a role, but it's absolutely dwarfed by what people want to be true. Or, maybe, they just equate any disagreement with the hive to being "dickish."
Nah, this shit is real. I've seen it. Once the piling on starts it becomes hard to turn the ship around though I've seen it happen. People are morons and they follow the crowd. They see the downvote, and like chicken, they peck at it because others did the same.
is the phenomenon real? absolutely. is writing vague fake stories about how "This community is better than that other community. I went there, and I got downvoted even though I'm definitely right because I'm definitely an expert. Congratulations on being part of the smart community instead of the dumb one." also real? absolutely. The two things that make me think this is bullshit are:
"I'm definitely right because I'm an expert in that field. No I won't tell you what the field is."
174% of the time "I got banned for having the wrong opinion" translates to "I was a complete and utter shithead to everyone and now I'm trying to pretend the issue is what I said not how I said it."
OP might not have a PhD but this stuff happens a lot on reddit. A lot of people here on Lemmy have an IT background and would get a rude shock looking at some of the dominant opinions on the major technology-related subreddits, particularly those that are heavily astroturfed.
"Just" is the most dangerous adverb in the English language for engineers. I catch myself making sure I revisit anytime I say it to make sure nuance is better captured.
If you really want to have some fun, when an Intel CPU is out preforming an AMD one on the charts go and mention that in a thread related to CPU performance. I'm fairly sure you'll be talking to people paid with AMD money to astroturf the shit out of Reddit who will make up every excuse they can about the situation.
Intel CPU do outperform AMD in several workloads, but on the top end, AMD seems to have the efficiency advantage.
If AMD lost in some, they outperformed in many more metrics by large enough margins.
This trend was true in past 2 gens (price and efficiency advantage with an overall perf advantage in power limited scenarios). Nothing to astroturf about it.
The weird part would be if someone is comparing a zen2 with 14gen and still sticking with AMD for "some reason"
I have similar gen Intel and AMD, the Intel chip annihilates the AMD one for bursty workloads, AMD eats Intel at everything else though (power draw especially).
I have similar gen Intel and AMD, the Intel chip annihilates the AMD one for bursty workloads, AMD eats Intel at everything else though (power draw especially).
I hop into the selfhosted subreddit every once in awhile and as you would imagine it’s mostly hobbyists that have no clue what they’re doing, but they’re also not very receptive to advice from people who do. They have their own set of commandments at this point it’s pretty wild.
The most common thing you see is the idea that the holy grail of security being “not forwarding ports in your router”. Put your publicly accessible web service running on your unsegmented home LAN behind a cloudflare tunnel and you’re “secure”, problem solved, job done. If you point out the fact that this doesn’t solve any of the problems that go along with “port forwarding” or that CF tunnels MITMs all their data, you’ll get downvoted as a “CloudFlare hater”.
Similarly they tend to believe that there’s no reason to separate your publicly accessible server from the rest of the devices on your home LAN, especially because the home LAN is “safe”.
Yeah, but users on reddit don't read sources, and that gets people frustrated and bored. Especially on /science or /askscience. Those subs are shitholes.
God I fucking hated ask science. It was a giant feed of garbage pseudoscience that was almost nothing but "NEW CURE FOR CANCER" or "WEED IS AWESOME". Almost every single post and article was bull, or had extremely poor research. I remember seeing some sexist claim and it turns out the study only had 4 male and 4 female participants. The researchers acted as though the claim, and evidence, were definitive, so it was posted everywhere because of the headline.
Yes, effective communication strategies are a vital and required skill set for the most learned among us. It is the duty of the rational to communicate knowledge and understanding to the irrational. They certainly can't do it themselves.
This has happened to me multiple times, what’s worse is that I have over corrected myself a few times with being a bit too polite. Maybe I come off as sarcastic when I do that.
Yup, I try to post a ton of sources to compensate. That way hopefully they'll see the effort I put in and actually read past my rather direct way of communicating online.
It seems to work more often than not, but unfortunately lower effort posts are more frequently rewarded vs higher effort posts imo.
1,000% agree. Almost as if it's designed to be used by a community of people working together and not by a ruling class deciding what's permissible and nonpermissable for the peasants who are blessed to exist on their server 🙂.
This transparency does come with the side effect of shattering the hope that moderators in the lemmyverse are any better than those on any other part of the Internet though. It's the same little lords ruling over their little fiefdoms.
Too bad it doesn't do its job of holding mods accountable yet. Look at the mod log and you still see plenty of mods and admins removing valid posts for wrongthink.
Mlem is still under constant development (source: am Mlem developer), but Voyager is the most feature-complete at the moment by far. I don’t know of any other iOS clients still in development. Unfortunately Memmy’s development seems to have halted :(
Mlem has been out of beta testing for a while; it’s available on the App Store. It offers all of the Lemmy features that the average user would use, except for post searching. It doesn’t yet support moderation/administration features.
Although the app is fully out, we still improve it over time by releasing feature updates every few months (we’re planning to release an update this week, actually). That’s what I mean when I say “in constant development”.
It’s vital that a Lemmy client has at least one active developer. When a new version of Lemmy is released, “breaking changes” are often included. These changes by the Lemmy developers require the client developers to modify their apps to support the new system. If there aren’t any developers left to make those modifications, the app can stop working.
To gauge whether an app is still being developed, you can take a look at their GitHub/GitLab page. It tells you how recently the source code of the app was last modified. Voyager and Mlem both had changes less than a day ago, whereas Memmy hasn’t been touched for several months.
Everywhere. Just look for anything that goes against (even slightly) the leftist perspective, such as:
anything critical of trans people competing in sports - a lot of those policies are bigoted, but there are legitimate concerns
evidence that the economy is not as bad as people claim - e.g. cars aren't more expensive today than they used to be, bottom of the market cars are about the same price as they were 20 years ago, after accounting for inflation (they're actually a little cheaper in many cases, and have way more tech)
arguments criticizing Biden/Democrats
anything anti-socialist
And so on. The quality of the argument doesn't matter, what matters is that it doesn't fit the leftist agenda, so it gets downvoted like crazy.
Go ahead, try playing devil's advocate sometime (and don't say the equivalent of "I'm a leftist, but...") and cite your sources and see how well your post does vs comments that ignore facts and spout common leftist rhetoric, the lower effort post will get more votes and yours will probably go negative.
Aside from criticism of Biden/Dems, in all of those cases you're taking a position that is, in general, not true. Just because you have some facts that suggest the economy is better than we think, or that socialism doesn't work better than capitalism, doesn't make you correct. Just because a fact is correct doesn't make it true. The truth is that capitalism is killing us all, and nitpicking that narrative really doesn't help anybody. Facts that disagree with that truth are usually either misleading or literally just fabrications themselves.
Just because a fact is correct doesn't make it true. The truth is that capitalism is killing us all, and nitpicking that narrative really doesn't help anybody. Facts that disagree with that truth
Let me just explain what I'm hearing here: "I believe X to be true, and anything that goes against that must be false." That's culty thinking.
Here's how it should work: "I believe X to be true, but fact A goes against that, so I'll look for more facts to prove or disprove X." Science is all about making a hypothesis and finding evidence both for and against it, and then making a new hypothesis with that new information.
So the reaction to a well thought out argument that goes against your belief shouldn't be to downvote and move on, but to challenge your opinion and look for evidence both for and against it. Take your belief as one hypothesis, take the alternative as another, and find facts that support each. Then go with the opinion that has the better evidence, or form a new one based on your findings.
Right, but I have already challenged my opinion far more than is necessary, I'm not going to start over. I used to think of myself as a capitalist, and as a liberal. But then I challenged my beliefs, and I found that they didn't hold water. By I believe the transitive property, that means I no longer need to seriously consider whether capitalism or liberalism are reasonable views to hold.
As a result, unless I see a whole lot of new information on the subject, I am going to assume that any fact which seems to suggest capitalism or liberalism are valid systems is actually just misleading or false. And you should too. People have been having these debates with themselves for 150+ years, and all of the smartest people came up with the answer of socialism (Einstein, MLK, Lenin, etc). Meanwhile, all of the grifters and Nazi lovers came up with capitalism/liberalism
Einstein was a fan of socialism, but he was also very critical of Lenin saying he and the Bolsheviks had established a "regime of terror." So it's unclear what system he'd actually be in favor of, since socialism tends toward authoritarianism.
MLK was more of a democratic socialist (e.g. someone like Bernie Sanders), and he was staunchly anti-communist.
So each of those three are very different from each other.
Nazi lovers came up with capitalism/liberalism
No, Nazis hate capitalism and liberalism, by definition.
Fascism is wholly against international free market capitalism, and against any form of capitalism within the state that does not directly benefit the state. Fascist regimes consistently interfere in capitalist mechanisms.
They hate liberalism because the needs of the state supercede that rights, wants, and needs of the individual. Fascism is actually defined as being anti-liberalism, so they're pretty much diametrically opposed.
So either you don't understand fascism, or you're applying the term to something completely different.
I don't know for certain that fascists love capitalism, but capitalists sure love fascism. Most of the Uber wealthy in the mid 20th century were more than happy to work with the Nazis. And the Nazis certainly were not opposed to working with those capitalists. The two ideologies are very similar: both steadily constrict the power of the government into fewer and fewer hands, until you get situations like Nazi Germany or present day USA, where one group of a few thousand has near complete control over the country.
I was using socialism as a blanket term for "the left" there (do you know a better one?). All 3 of them were further left than Bernie Sanders, which I'd argue makes them socialists (the blanket term)
Not sure where you're getting the idea socialism tends towards authoritarianism, it has more defenses to it than capitalism. Capitalism literally demands that a company do everything it can to co-opt the government, because if you don't, your competitors will. By contrast, socialism is commonly referred to as "workplace democracy". It has distributing power as widely as possible as its central tenet, IE workers owning the means of production.
What you say is never as important as how you say it. I noticed that if I came off as a self-righteous dickhead, people would disagree with me out of principle and if the person was still wrong they'd bring neutral "Sure, but" arguments to avoid the same thing happening to them.
The only time you can be a jackass is if you do it in a funny way or the person is so far gone it's the equivalent of default dancing on their grave.
What you say is never as important as how you say it.
In real life, maybe. But this does not line up with my experience at all on here or reddit. The up and down vote buttons are overwhelmingly used as agree/disagree buttons.
I try to be respectful in my disagreements, and often fail, but they usually doesn't have much of an influence how bring mercilessly down voted for disagreeing with the hive. And I've always watched people I vehemently disagree with, who have made reasonable and respectful disagreements, get down voted tons while people attacking them will get tons of upvotes.
It's nice to think that we respect different opinions if they are represented respectfully, but it does not seem to reflect the reality I've seen.
Well, I more meant that even if you’re correct if you’re a dick about it, people won’t like it.
Respectfully (I'm honestly trying here, I hope it doesn't come off otherwise), I still don't agree. I've seen plenty of times where I'll respectfully disagree with someone and the other poster will be a complete dick back for no reason, but still line up with the agreement of the hive and get plenty more upvotes than I got.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that it will influence the outcome, but from my experience, clearly "agreeing with the hive" is overwhelmingly the most important factor when it comes to how many upvotes or downvotes you'll get. It's certainly not universal, as I've been surprised sometimes by how well my disagreement has been received, but generally speaking it's the case.
And we aren't talking about simply being wrong or right. One can be wrong, but not really strongly disagree, and still be accepted. I wouldn't be surprised that (removing being nasty), the harder you make it to maintain the position of the hive mind the more likely it is to get downvoted.
I can't think of a better system, but it's still deeply flawed when it comes to promoting quality posts.
All that matters is whether you’re speaking for or against the prevailing assumptions of the site/the subreddit. Most people on the internet are not experts on the topic but somehow already have their minds made up.
Also, Lemmy is not better than Reddit in this regard. Dominant opinion > everything else.
You're right, and it takes humility to admit that you're wrong and someone else is right. Personally, I will try to argue for my belief based on the reasons I'm holding it in the first place; but if I can see that I'm wrong and everything I'm googling is matching what the other person says, then I'd rather have beliefs that match reality than be right.
Reddit is great for watching communities being radicalized. Wehther they do it themselves or they get a psyops push is up to everyone's guess but I've watched it several times.
SRS: Started out as a community pointing out misoginy and racism, ended up as a very weird hate group. I didn't watch it that closely, only saw the result.
some tumbler centered sub i followed, I forgot the name: same story, started quite light hearted, making fun of stupid shit said by kids on tumbler, turned into a right wing hategroup. This one I witnessed.
They ran out of material quick, started posting lame shit but now they gave it their own, made up context in the comments.
After a while, people who pointed out obvious satire got downvoted.
Quite often when I see the person who is "technically correct" getting down voted heavily there's usually at least one of several other factors coming into play that would easily explain the down votes.
For instance they edited their comment to add something like "Edit: The down votes just prove I'm right", they're being uncivil or disproportionately aggressive, they're resorting to logical fallacies and arguing around the other people instead of debating with them, or they're just adding confrontational/controversial hot takes in a community that doesn't embrace that type of thing.
And honestly, you can be totally factually correct 100% of the time, but still be a drain on the community or take down the quality of a sub. If mostly all you are doing is punching down on ignorant people instead of building bridges and leading them to the factually correct conclusions, then you are probably a drain on the community and discussion. If you're basically doing nothing but feeding the trolls, then you're also helping to undermine the quality of the sub.
Yeah, I think humans are predisposed to make decisions with our gut rather than objectively reviewing available evidence.
It’s probably an evolutionary thing. For ancient humans, quick decisive action to do what feels right probably let you pass on genes better than taking time and consideration to choose what IS right.
To be fair, it was only in the last couple years that it became that bad. It's still better than Elon's white nationalist vehicle of a social media site.
Tbf, I think I got banned from a vegan sublemmy for having an opinion that wasn't even necessarily pro-meat, but not necessarily pro-vegan either. I forget what it even was lol
I said "typical Vogons" or something like that. I don't remember exactly what non-existent race I used. The whole point of my comment was to mock racism itself, and I got banned for racism.
I got banned because I said a transgender person that broke the law (raped and murdered someone) should face the same consequences regardless of what gender they identified as... I have nothing against transgender people but I bet you can guess what rule they said I broke. Honestly when it comes to transgender issues I think that's everyone's personal thing and I have no right to tell someone else what to do in that department.
My favorite is how ignorant people are so certain about some issue that top scientists are unsure about.
If you point out that we don't know whether there's any life in the galaxy except on Earth, folks will say there has to be because look how many other planets there are, or even say you're arrogantly self centered for entertaining the idea that there isn't.
I suspect life is everywhere. I base this on the fact that our DNA complexity is currently around 2.5-3 billion years older than the planet. Intelligent, and more importantly multicellular, life is the variable that can't be determined quite yet. The step from single cellular life to multicellular life has happened a few times on Earth, but all of those times have been in the last billion years. I personally believe that is because we are just about as young as intelligent life could possibly be, since the universe was actively hostile to life prior to about 7.5 billion years ago.
I also like the idea that for a few hundred million years (around half a billion years after the big bang) the entire universe was the correct temperature for life to have developed literally everywhere and anywhere.
DNA complexity is currently around 2.5-3 billion years older than the planet
That doesn't mean DNA existed before the earth. It is possible that at low complexities different factors dominated the exponential increase assumed to reach that figure
"I base this on the fact that our DNA complexity is currently around 2.5-3 billion years older than the planet."
That isn't a fact, it's extrapolation based on a simple exponential fit to rough estimates of present-day genome complexity.
Even if we knew complexity always grew exponentially, which we don't, small changes in an exponential fit will greatly affect an extrapolation.
And we don't know what the genome complexity was of the first prokaryotes, not to mention any number of forms of life that might have gone extinct between then and now.
For example, there was a group a of multi-cellular life that flourished long before the current group, but they lived for millions of years. We'll probably never know anything about their genetic complexity.
The odds of existing within a region close enough to find each other is rather small. The odds of existing during the same time period in history are infinitely approaching zero. Humans have existed for a very short amount of time, and we're currently more likely to wipe ourselves out than we are to leave the solar system in a spacecraft.
That doesn't mean life couldn't possibly exist, just that it's extremely unlikely that we will ever cross paths.
Amen, same with the machine learning haters nowadays, pretending they know exactly how the llms work that not even the scientists working on them understand. And they can extrapolate how useless and bad this technology is
machine learning haters nowadays, pretending they know exactly how the llms work that not even the scientists working on them understand.
I think part of this particular problem stems from experts in the field making pretty wild claims while not still not completely understanding the tech.
Now a lot of this is prompted by market and media interest, but companies like Open AI taking advantage of this interest by making obtuse claims for funding purposes isn't exactly helping.
It IS wild, it is very special that we have a new field we don't fully understand how or why it works. No need to excuse blatant misinformation from just people guesstimating using their basic IT skills
If you can sound confident in a reddit-y way, being right doesn't matter. If it seems like the threads going that way just disengage, it's not worth it.
Pretty much, seriously, fuck reddit... it's the only service I've ever been banned with in my 33 years of life, and I keep seeing others who have an unfair ban either on the site or from the site.
What's the old saying? If you run into an asshole, fuck him, if you CONSTANTLY run into assholes, you might be the asshole...
The only site I've been suspended in was X (twitter) recently, and it was on a lurker account I mainly use to follow people and rarely ever post on, and it was after coming back to the app after a few weeks of absence lol.
Automated modding seems to fail on those sites, while giving users modding powers is always abused. I guess it's manageable if there's support, which X doesn't seem to have anymore.
I used to use Cunningham's Law to find out expert nuances before a presentation to C-suite execs.
These days I tell people online about the things I'm an expert in and was brought in at ridiculous consulting fees to talk about and get dumb disagreement, especially when it goes against hivemind.
Social media got much worse over the past decade. I've gotten the sense there's a bit of a generational aspect at play as well, in terms of the emboldening to spout BS from ignorance as long as being paid attention to and a thin skin in being debated with.
It's your tone, bro. You can't just keep blaming everyone else for not getting your message across. Doesn't mean you aren't knowledgeable, just that you have poor communication skills
No, it's more confirmation bias and the fact I actively avoid appeals to authority.
I know full well if I pointed out my background in certain situations, I'd get a massive amount of agreement even if what I'm saying is against common narratives.
But the difference I'm commenting on is less about how people perceive what I write about and more the shift in how common it is for people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about to have the confidence and wherewithal to debate a topic entirely out of their element with little more than an appeal to gut feelings.
No, it's not. Unless you use the definition of democracy that only fascists use to attack the concept.
Democracy isn't a total dictatorship of the majority. The term implies protection of basic human rights, even if 50+% vote in favor of something that would violate them.
No, you’re confusing the concept with the implementation. Nothing about the concept of democracy says that human rights MUST be protected, it’s just something that enough widespread agreement exists on that we assume it to be universal.
In the US, those fundamental assumptions are protected by the constitution, but that can technically be amended with a large enough majority.
As a more practical example, consider children, who do not have the right to vote and therefore must accept whatever the majority of adults decides. Their human rights only extend as far as the right to free housing, food, healthcare, and education, but they do not get the right to self-determination. As long as their parents feed, clothe, and house them, they can practically and legally keep them as indentured servants until they reach the age of majority. Perfectly democratic.
I disagree completely. Protection of human rights is a fundamental part of the concept of democracy.
A political system that decides everything purely based on majority vote, with no protections whatsoever for minority rights, is NOT a democracy.
You may call it one, but then you're simply redefining the word.
This is why Quora is so sanitized unlike Reddit: you actually get to see the (alleged) qualification of the OP. I'm not saying this would get to be an appeal to authority, but blatantly contradicting the expert while you're none of it wouldn't be so easy to get away with in the other forums
Not saying the OP was banned fairly, but to do the devil's advocate, there's people with PHD in biology or medicine who still don't believe in Evolution. You can always find idiots with PHDs, even in their chosen fields.
I'll go ahead and say OP was probably banned fairly, judging solely by the fact that he willingly posts threads on 4chan
As someone with over a hundred banned reddit accounts, you generally don't get banned for disagreeing. So maybe not slurs, but maybe just general rude language. Or my personal favorite, bothering the mods.
Unless he's Richard Dawkins, people do get banned if they argue about biological sex.
Where have they moved to?
Something like 1/5 of pharmacists believe homeopathy works. How the fuck can you go through that training and still believe in a hyperdilution that's magic if you shake it the right way and never ever touch it with your fingers because that takes the magic away?
(For those who are unfamiliar I'm not even being facetious, this is what homeopaths actually believe)
20% of pharmacists believing in homeopathy? That seems ridiculously high. Do you have a source for that?
To be fair, I've heard that as well. My source was a trustworthy guy in lemmy.
I read it in Pharmacy Practice. I cannot find the article. Linked in this article is a photo of one the pages I had read and a link that I cannot access. The number was 19% and it was specifically Canadian pharmacists. Not sure what that looks like elsewhere.
Pharmacists and General practitioners believing in homeopathy. Physical Therapists believing in chiropractice. There’s way too many examples. But at least physical therapists don’t tend to have PHDs :D
Well they do now. Physical therapy changed to a doctoral degree several years ago. You have to get a doctor of physical therapy (DPT) degree plus pass the licensing tests to practice these days.
It's still not an MD, but yes.
Huh, I don't know if that's true for all countries tbh.
I will never not be mad that chiropracticians have largely avoided the hunt for woo-woo magic crystal retards. Don't get me wrong, some people have managed to find treatment for chronic pain in things like acupuncture and chiropractic care that they couldn't get elsewhere, but most of the time this is presented as equal to physiotherapy despite lacking any scientific support, and the inability for "alternative medicine" to cure or permanently treat people.
Placebo effect is powerful. They probably have lots of people saying X really helped with their cold/pain/cough/whatever.
Pharmacists don't get PhDs, they get degrees for practice, like MDs. A PharmD doesn't require being able to understand or conduct original research like a PhD does. Basically, a PharmD requires a really good memory, not necessarily critical thinking.
There's some amount of people who believe homeopathy is the same thing as essential oils and herbs, and have no idea about the hyperdilution stuff somehow. Granted, that's not much better, but there's at least a realm of slight possibility that you might get useful effects from those, as opposed to literal water with extra steps and flavoring added to make it taste vaguely medicinal.
We're also talking about people who should absolutely know better regardless so maybe that offers far too much credibility to them.
I have no idea about homeopathy, but you used the word “facetious” so you must be very smart and I believe everything you say.
Like, I didn't believe in magic before I learned a lot of technology.
Now I do.
Totally, everyone who continued to a PhD in my area was batshit insane. Entirely fuckin deranged but diligent enough to write thousands of words of cogent garbage that no one could be bothered contesting.
Isn't there some stat that PhD students have 3x the mental health issues than undergrads? Which nowadays is like 100% lol
Given that academia is an absolutely grueling and downright soul-crushing career, I am not surprised only those with mental issues are wild enough to sustain it.
You misunderstood the statistic. Mental health issues are caused/exacerbated by academia not the other way around. Many of my cohort and friends were bullied, harassed, abused, taken advantage of by supervisors and senior academic staff who often have unreasonable demands and expect blinding unquestioning allegiance.
People who run research groups are not selected for based on their people skills but rather academic performance/pedigree, which is the biggest issue IMO.
Academia is a tough gig. Peer review and thesis chairs perform the review of candidates work, trust me they are almost always contested to varying degrees.
You know what gets me? The fact that the public seems to think that academia is well paid, I've had a few people make comments along that line. Cue me, manically laughing when they confusedly ask why anyone is in academia if it's high stress and relatively poorly paid.
Truth. It's well paid higher up the ladder but those jobs are few and far between. Depends on the country as well - the US and UK wages suuuck.
I can't complain. I personally love it and have only worked in supportive teams.
Unless you're in university administration, academia is not well paid. University administrators who are well paid are usually EdDs (essentially, university-focused MBAs) who didn't take the normal academic route of research first.
Those are extremely few and far between, and they aren't evolutionary biologists. Behe, the most famous of them, doesn't have a PhD in biology, but a PhD in biochemistry. Those are vastly different fields, and understanding the evidence for evolution wouldn't have been relevant to Behe's PhD. MDs more commonly don't believe in evolution because MDs are essentially average folks who can memorize stuff really well. MDs don't receive training in research or how to conduct it, so they're pretty poor at understanding primary research most of the time.
Someone with a PhD from a reputable university (essentially, one that funds their PhD programs rather than making students pay, and one that doesn't incentivize publications directly with bonuses) will be an expert in their subject area. Behe would be able to tell you about the biochemistry of sickle cell anemia. Someone with a PhD speaking on an area outside of their expertise is perhaps more likely than the average person to be correct because they could have read and understood most primary sources even outside of their area, but I wouldn't say it's all that much more likely. Basically, PhDs speaking on the topic of their expertise are experts, but they're not experts in everything.
Personally, my PhD made me like the trope of someone who could tell you everything you want to know about some esoteric subject but wouldn't know how to make a meal.
Getting a PhD produces highly specialized knowledge, not general knowledge.
The PHD means you passed your classes. It doesn't mean anything you say is right.
No, there is no coursework past a master's thesis. For the last typically ~3-4 years of graduate training, everything that you're doing is original research. If your research isn't good enough or done correctly, you will never get a PhD. You also have to defend your dissertation. Getting a PhD from a reputable university does mean that what you say, specifically related to your research area, is correct.
ಠ_ಠ
It's already happening. People with no clue what they're talking about starting fights
Like when people start commenting on the near-east conflict. Hardly anyone knows what the fuck is going on there yet we find many experts on the topic in the comments.
Self-propelled multipurpose couch "EXPERT"
(or 8 if not too fat)
24*0.5l, 2500 comments on full tank. Possible installation of additional tank.
Provide speed up to 100Mbps
Protects pillow from combusting
Can hit/penetrate to the soul any opponent
I don't think this is wrong. I've learned so much talking shit. I even use talking shit as a mechanism to learn.
I talk shit -> someone corrects me -> I learned something new. The person feels great because they corrected someone.
It's like a free lesson and everyone wins.
Even people who didn't know shit, like me, get to read someone beating my ass with arguments, and they also learn.
But if nobody knows much of anything on the matter, how can anyone be sure they're being corrected and learning anything? 🤔
Sources.
By the way, I have the feeling someone is about to teach me something.
That is a nice, refreshing and honest view. If I'm being honest with myself, this happened to me very often as well.
"please stop fighting and get along" is my fundamental take on most wars. It's not particularly useful, but it helps me split the average soldier from the average "leader" that sent them to die.
But 4chan tho is a good place for factually informed discussion. Mr Greentext has it all figured out.
No kidding. I got downvoted a dozen times because I mentioned that diet and practices help with sun burns and sunscreen isn't the win all against the sun. I didn't post sources right away, but when I did the hive has made up it's mind.
I'll recuse myself from giving you an up vote or down vote but I'll make a suggestion. Maybe provide the proof when you make the comment, especially on a topic that might be controversial or have health risks.
Why did I need to provide sources on the comment above? Are people really curious on how diet can help your skin defend against the sun? Then let's have a discussion I'll post my sources. But my comment then was just in conversation, adding that diet helps, and if people wanted to know more I'll show. I'm not going to start off every comment with a research paper worth of citations.
But above I'm arguing that there's a hive mind mentality, and my source is my downvotes. I'm just hoping lemmy doesn't cater to the more "popular" comments because that's how an echo chamber turns into an information swamp. Just because something is more popular does not make it necessarily correct. I'm not responsible for people to think outside of themselves.
And before people rail against the lack of a blue link for them to hit because of something that has nothing to do with the conversation we're having here now, here. Click below. It's not controversial to believe what you put in your body has an effect on how your skin is built, and that can help with sun burns.
I am, on the other hand absolutely not saying that some vitamins have the same protection that a sunscreen does. Which it seems what the downvotes are for. Since I can't see why people would be upset to know how diet can affect your skin's ability to defend against radiations.
https://www.skincancer.org/blog/can-your-diet-help-prevent-skin-cancer/
A lot of your downvotes probably come from people misinterpreting your message as some woo woo bunk about replacing sunscreen with a proper diet and you won't get sunburned, which clearly isn't what you're saying. However, its very easy for small, flippant comments to come across with wildly different connotations from the reader. Not really sure how to get around that, outside of way too much context.
Yeah, outside of way too much context. Reddit created a mentality where you have to comment a certain way, and only certain comments get seen. It's self fulfilling in teaching how to talk. "reddiquite" lol
You make a valid point about sources when making a random throwaway comment.
Thanks for the link, I see what you mean about what we eat affecting our skin and it makes perfect sense. You're right that it's not your responsibility for other people to think outside of themselves but you could be a catalyst for it, which is something I strive for.
I like to give people the tools for them to think about any given topic and in real life I'll often even say that I don't want a reply to a question I posit them. I find people might be more truthful to themselves if they don't feel the need to justify themselves to me.
I think your comment was probably misconstrued as you saying that sunscreen is useless and it's all about diet when you obviously didn't say nor mean that. I admit on first read I misread it that way as well and was curious about your stance. Thanks for having a conversation with me bud, hope you have a lovely day.
People need to start eating healthier in general, but they feel like they're having their boundaries stepped all over when people tell them that. That's one of the reasons you got downvoted probably.
Sucks to be told that you can't eat crap, as well as knowing that americas medical system tries solving symptoms, not the root problem. But that's the individuals responsibility. Americas medicine isn't going to take care of you.
Loved this comment.
Typing "Source?" is quicker, but much less refined.
I try to be the difference I wanna see in the world. With certain things*
It seems the hive has made up its mind once again.
Yeah it most seems so.
I wish that it was lemmy being exceptionally self-aware and downvoting ironically but I doubt it is, bummer.
WTF are you talking about?
Settle down. I'm talking about people getting upset on a comment without acknowledging authenticity. The downvote and how a comment is buried or promoted is probably the worst thing reddit has manufactured. It's what the post is about. And what the comment I replied to is that it's happening here at lemmy
"These things are bad because I can't make objectively wrong statements without being told so"
Bro is a damn toddler
Wtf are you talking about?
just sounds to me like youre a kid and you give too much worth to a karma system.
Link the comment, maybe you didn't deserve it but to me you just sound like a wiseguy.
Diet doesn't replace sunscreen.
I could care less about any of these systems, other than say it's not flowing towards equitable information. You thinking I'm saying diet replaces sunscreen shows you're not processing it.
We're not discussing sun screen, and I'm old. Take what you want.
So you do care, got it.
I left Reddit after the fuck spez debacle and haven't looked back. I occasionally go to reddit through Google for some specific things. But I don't log in or engage in the content besides reading what I was looking for. And I use my ad blocker so that dickward spez doesn't get anything from me.
But yeah I suppose this is more about mods. They think they have so much power at the end of they day it's a fucking forum, that is not much power.
Eddrit is a great frontend replacement, in the same vein as nitter. Take any reddit link and replace the front with eddrit.com
Mods on reddit didn't have the power to slow down the rate of posting. That sounds like anon was posting so much the site's anti-spam measures kicked in. As always we're only hearing one side of the story here.
If you get mass downvoted your account gets rate limited for ten minutes, too. Happened to me once when I had the audacity to say I didn't think Skyrim was all that great.
I also have criticisms of Skyrim. I mean, it's fine, and genre defining, bit doesn't hold up super well.
If the writing was better on some parts, it would hold up better.
Yeah. And the worldbuilding isn't great. Like the magic system is wide but not deep, and isn't well integrated into the society. I'd rather they cut it down to like ten spells and actually had them feature in the world. Some spells are absolutely bonkers in the effect that they would have on the economy, for instance transmutation and "summon sword".
I always hated how you can be the king of every guild but it never means a damn thing. Characters like Delphine just needs to be taken out back and shot.
Stealth archer is way too powerful compared to any other run, especially with how powerful the enemies would get later on.
Death sentence.
Ah. I wonder if EA went through that with their massively unpopular comment about having a sense of achievement.
Having not played it, or really any other games, I have no opinion on Skyrim. It's insane to downvote people because they dislike something like that. But that will happen here on Lemmy, too.
IMO Skyrim is good, has its flaws but i find it fun. Modding is really where it shines for me, I can make my game truly unique.
Unfortunately they decided to update it nothing big but so many mods broke, I almsot got my mods going again and another update drops.
I’m buying the older version of skyrim but for better or worse it’s unlisted on steam so it’s very unlikely it will be updated
You might be right. But I am glad that I left Reddit. I was spending way to much time there.
The only thing I miss is learning about a lot of stuff from specific subreddit's
Yeah, the "hobby" communities here definitely don't have the momentum they had on reddit.
Same thing here!
And my axe!
Lemmy isn't any different in that respect.
I guess you are right in that regard. Maybe the difference the is that there is no monetization being driven from the top to force the hands of mods.
As an expert on everything I find the Internet constantly frustrating.
As an expert on nothing I find the internet constantly frustrating.
Gotta cite your facts when it's about such controversial facts.
In Reddit it doesn't really matter. You can cite the best sources ever, use a pristine logic, and the local irrationals will still find some excuse to believe in whatever.
Just like literally everywhere else
You do see plenty of that in most places, but I feel like it's way worse in Reddit. As if there was something there reinforcing it. (Perhaps the local culture? I have no idea.)
It's the voting system. Truth is not democratic.
I don't disagree that the voting system (specially karma) plays a role, but I think that Reddit embraces oversimplifications a bit too much, and that's part of the problem - because then you get both sides discussing if 2+2 is 3 or 5, and if you say "it's 4" nobody will bat an eye (except to screech at you).
In special, three types of false dichotomy:
You do see those things in Lemmy too, but nowhere as much as in Reddit; and it has consequences everywhere, including political discussion. Or in 4chan - as much as their userbases hate each other, they fall for the same logical traps.
reddit attracts a certain special kind of moron, it's like a honey pot for them
Source?
Nah, it's just as bad everywhere else online, IMO. Youtube and Facebook (including instagram, etc.) comments are unusually bad, though. The general feeling on any social media is that seemingly everyone is falling over themselves and others in a race to be so incredibly stupid and ignorant that it's gone several levels lower than should be possible.
I would classify the people on YouTube and Faceboom as a completely different class of special morons. They are all unique in their stupidity.
The other key factor is to not be an insufferable dickhead when you’re posting. You can post the truest facts known to man but if you come across as a smug asshole then people will naturally be inclined to think your wrong.
I feel like your tone plays next to no part on that. If they agree and you're rude, your rudeness becomes "justified"; if they don't agree and you're rude, they'll play the victim, assume (yet another sign of stupidity) that you're angry, or even "u rude than ur rong lol lmao".
Same deal with explanation length; make it succinct and to-the-point and they'll assume words on your mouth, make it verbose and well-explained and they'll distort it.
In my old community (here, in Lemmy - showing that the problem is not exclusive to Reddit) I scolded people like this, even when I happened to agree with them. I could've banned them, but I have no idea on how to approach this in large scale.
[Sorry for the rambling.]
I've seen threads just like that on Lemmy, too. People will act like people.
All that matters is whether you're speaking for or against the prevailing assumptions of the site/the subreddit. Most people on the internet are not experts on the topic but somehow already have their minds made up.
Bold of you to assume that they can read.
I've cited nonexistent sources before. It seems convincing and nobody actually checks, so the other guy got downvoted because I got sources. I can imagine they weren't happy about it, seemed like they actually knew their shit.
Op probably does not have a PHD. He posted a stupid opinion and got down voted for it, and ran to 4chan because he was sad.
Everyone on 4chan has a PHD and a active social life.
Now do lemmy.world
Lol there's a difference?
You probably won't get banned or rate limited
I was threatened with a ban because I commented on a Harry Potter book being burned, saying that it was ironic that crazy Fundamentalists (who believe magic is real and evil) and people who don't support TERF assholes somehow share this one, random cause.
The reason for the removal and the threat of a ban was something to the extent of "Hurr-Durr, mah both sides" which... oh, my head, the bad reading comprehension there.
It was not on any LGBTQ+ or trans specific instance, either. It was, like, memes (edit: it was 196).
Point is, there's dumb people who want to abuse power everywhere, in every group, and always will be. Even the best causes and best groups. Especially in the worst causes and worst groups, though. I'M NOT BOTH-SIDES-ING, DON'T BAN ME.
You literally made me laugh out loud. Well done.
I'm glad you found it funny, because apparently a mod didn't.
tbf 196 is basically a trans instance
The lead moderator of 196 Moss is a Hamas apologist and authoritarian turd. I was banned because I said fuck Hamas fuck the IDF. Both of the governments freely use the civilian population as currency in their political games. Apparently pointing out that the Palestinians are getting double -fisted is a No-No when one of the fists is Hamas.
196 moment
I've gotten a ban from world news on world, they're basically reddit at this point.
I looked up your comment in the modlog just to see; if it's the one I see, you got banned from lemmy.ml which is a little different. They make no pretense of fairness.
That said, based on the comment that's fuckin ridiculous. I don't agree with you, but I can't understand the point of a communication network where as soon as someone busts out an opinion the operators don't like, they remove them from the community. It's like lighting a big red beacon "MY OPINIONS CANNOT TOLERATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO DISAGREE." It's one thing if you're insulting some person in the channel or something, but it was clearly just your geopolitical opinion.
Then again, it is lemmy.ml; it's run by people who idolize leaders who imprison or torture people who try to disagree, so count yourself lucky that they're not in charge of anything beyond their little server I guess. I tried to debate with the tankies when I first showed up here and at this point my approach is just to unsubscribe and move on.
Edit: Just because I reread this and I'm still irritated at it somehow. My breaking point with lemmy.ml was when I was arguing with some people, and someone else showed up in the thread and I was talking with him, and the people I was arguing with were using the new guy's opinions as some kind of "gotcha" against me. Like, this guy believes this, and you're supporting him, so clearly you're on his side (I wasn't), and you agree with him (I definitely didn't), and we can hold you responsible for anything he says because you're not attacking him.
Like, they could not process the idea that I might be talking to someone who had a different opinion than me, and it could be okay. They thought if he said flip, and I thought it was flop, I had to instantly start screaming at him about how flop was the way, and everything else had to stop, and if i didn't do that I wasn't a good flop-supporter. And so they seemed like they legitimately thought that if I wasn't doing that it meant I secretly supported flip, because that was what they would do, is just scream (figuratively speaking) at anyone who didn't agree with them completely on everything they considered important, until they "won" (i.e. the person gave up and left).
I realized there was nothing for me there, and unsubscribed from anything world-event-related on lemmy.ml immediately, and so far it's proven to be a good decision.
I got a 3 day ban from news on .ml for posting a link to Media Bias Fact Check. I wasn't OP, just posted the link with a summary when someone asked about OP's source. I would imagine OP got sent for Re-Education.
That's this account, I've also been banned from the world news .world community on a different account.
Ah. I'm still a little curious whether it was for actual opinions or for being a jerk or etc. For what it's worth I got banned from tons of stuff on reddit; I complained in one sub about being banned from another and quoted the thing that got me banned, and everyone started falling out of their chairs saying holy shit dude I'm not surprised, that message is a fuckin doozy. Like okay then, tell me why it's wrong, don't just shriek and run away and grab the banhammer.
It's a tough thing. I do get the necessity to police people doing personal attacks or blatant racism or spam to keep the community OK, but I don't get how it seems like it always escalates to the list of allowed opinions and disallowed opinions.
I made two similar posts on CasualUK:
The second one got deleted for being NSFW. :/ There was NOTHING sexual in it - I just like the smell of my feet.
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
I banned them first! Checkmate atheists!
The platform is identical to reddit. The users are former reddit users. Of course it's going to be like reddit.
Don’t fuck with the hive mind. Many a time I’ve taken a reasonable, well-thought out and even sourced opinion and been downvoted to shit.
Shit is happening here on Lemmy too
Yes, however I’ve noticed that you may get downvotes dumped on you initially, oftentimes if your argument is decent you’ll probably rise to level or even positive after several hours. Not sure what it is with Lemmy, but I seem to encounter some comments that get downvoted right off the bat for no reason I can discern. My life doesn’t revolve around internet points, but obviously it’s nice to see upvotes and a good conversation follow a post I’ve added, but lots of downvotes without context are frustrating. Tell my why you disagree or think it doesn’t add to the discussion.
I've noticed that too. Sometimes when I get replied to I'll see that the original comment is slightly in the negative. If I leave another reply and come back later it'll be slightly in the positive. Maybe there's some sort of bias at play, but I've seen this pattern a few times. Maybe people tend to be convinced by and up vote whoever left the last comment in a chain (had the last word)
All that matters is whether you’re speaking for or against the prevailing assumptions of the site/the subreddit. Most people on the internet are not experts on the topic but somehow already have their minds made up.
Also, Lemmy is not better than Reddit in this regard. Dominant opinion > everything else.
Oh yes, I’ve run into that several times. Worst were the biggest subs like /gaming or /cars. Man, never go against the crowd. I’m 90% sure that those subs are filled with industry shills and fans that won’t let you besmirch a (brand or game or car) and downvote your criticism or negative opinion for obvious reasons.
The most interesting thing is when something is culturally different from the US way of life, then it's by default wrong.
I was arguing about shopping carts in another sub and, because it is culturally appreciated in the US to return the cart, I argued that we don't do that in our country because it's considered unsafe and was called lazy and got heavily downvoted.
That's unfortunate. So many of these english speaking social media platforms tend to be US point of view dominated. From an American perspective it is difficult to envision a situation where returning a cart is so unsafe that it should be universally avoided and that may have resulted in the downvotes, and it's certainly conceivable that the inconvenience and refusal to returning a cart could be rationalized over "safety". It's not like that sort of rationalization doesn't happen over other things in daily life. The only thing I could suggest is a offer a why. I'm not suggesting people will become less stubborn over the issue, but at least those who want to learn, will.
Not to restart the discussion but: The whole "returning your cart" thing is a very arbitrary metric reinforced by a meme from around 2020 and has taken hold in the fickle zeitgeist of the internet. Personally I think carts need to be returned because they block parking spaces and can roll into and damage cars. Out of curiosity, why don't people return carts where you live?
This is how our parking lots look:
Every parking space has a space where you can leave the car to be collected by the employees, usually in the back of the spot. You can see it green in the image. Our parking lots are huge and usually take several floors. For us it makes no practical sense to have to go back all the way to the front, or to inside the store in some cases (like in the case in the photo, where you have to go all the way inside the mall), just to return the cart.
Of course if it happens for people to park near the cart deposit space, they usually return the cart to the stack.
Lots in the US are plenty large as well, so I don’t see that as a factor. But that doesn’t explain the “safety” aspect that was mentioned. It just means your lots are designed to accommodate leaving carts and the employees are accustomed to fetching said carts, not an explanation that led to the design other than perhaps a convenience for customers.
Which doesn't mean I'm wrong and you're right. It's just two different ways of doing the same thing.
On big food courts here the etiquette is to return the tray to the tray holders or to the store, but for small courts or restaurants it's very common to leave it at the table for the employees to gather. So it is kind of inverse of the cart etiquette. In some places in the world it is common to return the tray, and in some places it is common to leave it at the table. That doesn't mean either is wrong.
The world is big and different people have different views and cultures and ways of doing every single thing. To tell one is superior to the other when talking about these things that don't matter so much is to impose you way above anyone else's to feel superior.
The person that called me lazy was calling everybody where I live lazy because everyone does this thing this way, which is pretty pretentious.
You can have strong opinions about something without being judgmental about how other people live because they don't do things the way you and your peers do.
Being culturally expected and ingrained isn't an issue I think needs to be argued about - so long as it doesn't cause harm. Whatever works in your country is fine. Americans have plenty of their own cultural norms that are generally unacceptable or frowned on in other parts of the world even through they are insignificant in actual meaning. However, again, it doesn't explain the safety aspect regarding cart return.
Huh?
Yeah! Take that with your stupid right wing opinion that's different than what is wanted to be heard!
If your opinion is that certain people should have less rights, you have a retarded opinion.
If you're saying that I do, I never said any of that at all nor did the post.
Right wing opinions are usually wrong. Not always, but overwhelmingly. It's really to the point that if someone mentions they're right wing I immediately take every word out of their mouth with grave skepticism because the requirement to identify as a right winger is either terminal stupidity or willingness to play into fear and anger narratives uncritically. Which is just terminal stupidity with extra steps.
Thing is, around here you have to be very careful to not even sound rightwing. You dare not point out that there's a reason the right believes a thing without being clear to distance yourself from that reason.
You certainly don't point out the left's take on a rightwing opinion is wrong. I see that with gun debates all the time. "Yeah, no one actually says or believes that. It's more like..." "FUCK YOU CHILD MURDERER!"
Here's a related example; I've been beat up for saying that Trump used to be coherent. Listen to some videos from the 80s or 90s, even early 2000s. You might not agree with his words, but at least he could string a sentence together. That sort of thing gets buried in downvotes, as if I'm agreeing with or apologizing for Trump.
I've tried to disagree with the people who have pretty extremist views on abolishing police and the rule of law, unironically supporting anarchy, and the response has been the classic 'Bootlicker' insult. It's extremely frustrating when I'd throw a party to the news the GOP has been dissolved but criticizing the more outlandish left positions gets me my honorary klan hood and thrown onto team red.
Sure I've got some 'hot takes' by the lefts' standards but I'm not a conservative in any regard. I think the left is perfectly capable of matching the retardation of the right and I wish we could normalize calling that shit out rather than reflexively going "Ohh so you're not on my team, your words mean nothing, bootlicker."
Cause now I've got to vote for a party that hates me so the party that hates me more can lose. Yippie.
Our political system has two wolves...
The one on the furthest right is retarded... The one on the furthest left... Is also retarded.
Also wait why do both parties hate you?
I have positions the left would hate me for and I have a lot of positions the right would hate me for.
Hey! Fellow centrist.
Shh, not in public, they hate our kind.
Lmfao apparently. What happened here?
At which point have right wing opinions actually helped the majority of people?
They always help people...
^mostly ^white ^men
I mean... Technically white is the predominant ethnicity in America... So like... (งツ)ว
Partisan conservatism is a death cult
Meh, it’s always how you present the arguments. Regardless of being right or wrong, if OP comes off as dickish, it’s gonna get downvoted.
Or even better if you're going to post a wrong reply, post it in a patronising, know-it-all tone so not only does it convince people you're right, it crushes the soul of your opponent.
I recently posted accusing a certain company of using dirty tricks to con people and control public perception. To my surprise someone from that company was in the thread and he replied saying, "You always say that" and then lambasted me for being a crazy person with a vendetta.
But actually I'd never posted about it before. His reply was a dirty trick to control public perception.
He got upvoted to heaven and I was mauled.
I think this plays a role, but it's absolutely dwarfed by what people want to be true. Or, maybe, they just equate any disagreement with the hive to being "dickish."
The audience also matters though. You can shout well-reasoned arguments into an echo chamber all you want, it still won't change anyone's mind.
Go to a random political sub and bring a well researched fact they don't happen to agree with. Be as polite as you can be. See what happens.
Have done it tons of times, it's not hard.
Nah, this shit is real. I've seen it. Once the piling on starts it becomes hard to turn the ship around though I've seen it happen. People are morons and they follow the crowd. They see the downvote, and like chicken, they peck at it because others did the same.
is the phenomenon real? absolutely. is writing vague fake stories about how "This community is better than that other community. I went there, and I got downvoted even though I'm definitely right because I'm definitely an expert. Congratulations on being part of the smart community instead of the dumb one." also real? absolutely. The two things that make me think this is bullshit are:
"I'm definitely right because I'm an expert in that field. No I won't tell you what the field is."
174% of the time "I got banned for having the wrong opinion" translates to "I was a complete and utter shithead to everyone and now I'm trying to pretend the issue is what I said not how I said it."
My knowledge of echo chambers tells me that 2 is simply untrue
Yep, I got downvoted to oblivion on Reddit once for daring to reference (and source) a peer-reviewed paper.
What a time to be alive.
Dear fellow scholar...
OP might not have a PhD but this stuff happens a lot on reddit. A lot of people here on Lemmy have an IT background and would get a rude shock looking at some of the dominant opinions on the major technology-related subreddits, particularly those that are heavily astroturfed.
It hits like this when people with a pure CS or IT background start talking about the humanities or literally anything not purely tech-related.
"Just" is the most dangerous adverb in the English language for engineers. I catch myself making sure I revisit anytime I say it to make sure nuance is better captured.
Yeah, I avoid most of that nonsense. Even the humor sites annoy me more than anything.
/r/technology is perhaps my least favorite, and the Lemmy alternatives are a bit better imo (though a little too focused on Elon Musk).
If you really want to have some fun, when an Intel CPU is out preforming an AMD one on the charts go and mention that in a thread related to CPU performance. I'm fairly sure you'll be talking to people paid with AMD money to astroturf the shit out of Reddit who will make up every excuse they can about the situation.
Intel CPU do outperform AMD in several workloads, but on the top end, AMD seems to have the efficiency advantage.
If AMD lost in some, they outperformed in many more metrics by large enough margins.
This trend was true in past 2 gens (price and efficiency advantage with an overall perf advantage in power limited scenarios). Nothing to astroturf about it.
The weird part would be if someone is comparing a zen2 with 14gen and still sticking with AMD for "some reason"
I have similar gen Intel and AMD, the Intel chip annihilates the AMD one for bursty workloads, AMD eats Intel at everything else though (power draw especially).
Yup. Intel can boost significantly higher than base clock
it better, with all of that power...
I hop into the selfhosted subreddit every once in awhile and as you would imagine it’s mostly hobbyists that have no clue what they’re doing, but they’re also not very receptive to advice from people who do. They have their own set of commandments at this point it’s pretty wild.
just wondering, but what are they commonly doing wrong?
The most common thing you see is the idea that the holy grail of security being “not forwarding ports in your router”. Put your publicly accessible web service running on your unsegmented home LAN behind a cloudflare tunnel and you’re “secure”, problem solved, job done. If you point out the fact that this doesn’t solve any of the problems that go along with “port forwarding” or that CF tunnels MITMs all their data, you’ll get downvoted as a “CloudFlare hater”.
Similarly they tend to believe that there’s no reason to separate your publicly accessible server from the rest of the devices on your home LAN, especially because the home LAN is “safe”.
Wat astroturfed
Well, they could just have posted sources to their claims instead of just playing the self-authority card the whole time.
Yeah, but users on reddit don't read sources, and that gets people frustrated and bored. Especially on /science or /askscience. Those subs are shitholes.
God I fucking hated ask science. It was a giant feed of garbage pseudoscience that was almost nothing but "NEW CURE FOR CANCER" or "WEED IS AWESOME". Almost every single post and article was bull, or had extremely poor research. I remember seeing some sexist claim and it turns out the study only had 4 male and 4 female participants. The researchers acted as though the claim, and evidence, were definitive, so it was posted everywhere because of the headline.
This is why we can't have nice things
I agree but would like to point out that I have not seen higher quality content on the science-oriented sites on lemmy either.
It could also be about your tone. People will downvote you just because you sound like an asshole.
Yes, effective communication strategies are a vital and required skill set for the most learned among us. It is the duty of the rational to communicate knowledge and understanding to the irrational. They certainly can't do it themselves.
Yeah. This is why ignorance is bliss.
At least until they meet the consequences of ignorance. Then again, some idiots are just plain lucky.
This has happened to me multiple times, what’s worse is that I have over corrected myself a few times with being a bit too polite. Maybe I come off as sarcastic when I do that.
Yup, I try to post a ton of sources to compensate. That way hopefully they'll see the effort I put in and actually read past my rather direct way of communicating online.
It seems to work more often than not, but unfortunately lower effort posts are more frequently rewarded vs higher effort posts imo.
The modlog is such a great feature of lemmy.
1,000% agree. Almost as if it's designed to be used by a community of people working together and not by a ruling class deciding what's permissible and nonpermissable for the peasants who are blessed to exist on their server 🙂.
This transparency does come with the side effect of shattering the hope that moderators in the lemmyverse are any better than those on any other part of the Internet though. It's the same little lords ruling over their little fiefdoms.
That just being human. It sucks but it's universal. Look at the police, politics (local and national), HOAs, churches, etc.
That's why all fiefdoms in the Holy Aggregator Empire of Upvote Nation have joined the Schengen Agreement
Too bad it doesn't do its job of holding mods accountable yet. Look at the mod log and you still see plenty of mods and admins removing valid posts for wrongthink.
Yep. The rules are so vague that the mods get to decide what breaks the rules based on what they personally dislike.
That's the users job not the platform.
I don’t think it’s available in voyager, which is afaik the only extant iOS app that’s not in beta. I miss it
Mlem is still under constant development (source: am Mlem developer), but Voyager is the most feature-complete at the moment by far. I don’t know of any other iOS clients still in development. Unfortunately Memmy’s development seems to have halted :(
I saw that on the list, but I thought “in development” was the step before beta testing- can you already use mlem?
I miss liftoff :(
Mlem has been out of beta testing for a while; it’s available on the App Store. It offers all of the Lemmy features that the average user would use, except for post searching. It doesn’t yet support moderation/administration features.
Although the app is fully out, we still improve it over time by releasing feature updates every few months (we’re planning to release an update this week, actually). That’s what I mean when I say “in constant development”.
It’s vital that a Lemmy client has at least one active developer. When a new version of Lemmy is released, “breaking changes” are often included. These changes by the Lemmy developers require the client developers to modify their apps to support the new system. If there aren’t any developers left to make those modifications, the app can stop working.
To gauge whether an app is still being developed, you can take a look at their GitHub/GitLab page. It tells you how recently the source code of the app was last modified. Voyager and Mlem both had changes less than a day ago, whereas Memmy hasn’t been touched for several months.
What happened to Liftoff? I’m out of the loop
Thank you!
Liftoff was never updated to version 19, so it still has the logout problem and it doesn’t load posts well anymore :(
I’d prefer an app in development!
The same happened to me on Lemmy. I brought evidence, they brought anecdotes, and I was the "loser" of the discussion according to the hive
Lemmy has a strong hive mentality.
Many long said that we need to address it. But it's not currently clear as of how.
Where?
Everywhere. Just look for anything that goes against (even slightly) the leftist perspective, such as:
And so on. The quality of the argument doesn't matter, what matters is that it doesn't fit the leftist agenda, so it gets downvoted like crazy.
Go ahead, try playing devil's advocate sometime (and don't say the equivalent of "I'm a leftist, but...") and cite your sources and see how well your post does vs comments that ignore facts and spout common leftist rhetoric, the lower effort post will get more votes and yours will probably go negative.
Aside from criticism of Biden/Dems, in all of those cases you're taking a position that is, in general, not true. Just because you have some facts that suggest the economy is better than we think, or that socialism doesn't work better than capitalism, doesn't make you correct. Just because a fact is correct doesn't make it true. The truth is that capitalism is killing us all, and nitpicking that narrative really doesn't help anybody. Facts that disagree with that truth are usually either misleading or literally just fabrications themselves.
Let me just explain what I'm hearing here: "I believe X to be true, and anything that goes against that must be false." That's culty thinking.
Here's how it should work: "I believe X to be true, but fact A goes against that, so I'll look for more facts to prove or disprove X." Science is all about making a hypothesis and finding evidence both for and against it, and then making a new hypothesis with that new information.
So the reaction to a well thought out argument that goes against your belief shouldn't be to downvote and move on, but to challenge your opinion and look for evidence both for and against it. Take your belief as one hypothesis, take the alternative as another, and find facts that support each. Then go with the opinion that has the better evidence, or form a new one based on your findings.
Right, but I have already challenged my opinion far more than is necessary, I'm not going to start over. I used to think of myself as a capitalist, and as a liberal. But then I challenged my beliefs, and I found that they didn't hold water. By I believe the transitive property, that means I no longer need to seriously consider whether capitalism or liberalism are reasonable views to hold.
As a result, unless I see a whole lot of new information on the subject, I am going to assume that any fact which seems to suggest capitalism or liberalism are valid systems is actually just misleading or false. And you should too. People have been having these debates with themselves for 150+ years, and all of the smartest people came up with the answer of socialism (Einstein, MLK, Lenin, etc). Meanwhile, all of the grifters and Nazi lovers came up with capitalism/liberalism
Einstein was a fan of socialism, but he was also very critical of Lenin saying he and the Bolsheviks had established a "regime of terror." So it's unclear what system he'd actually be in favor of, since socialism tends toward authoritarianism.
MLK was more of a democratic socialist (e.g. someone like Bernie Sanders), and he was staunchly anti-communist.
So each of those three are very different from each other.
No, Nazis hate capitalism and liberalism, by definition.
Fascism is wholly against international free market capitalism, and against any form of capitalism within the state that does not directly benefit the state. Fascist regimes consistently interfere in capitalist mechanisms.
They hate liberalism because the needs of the state supercede that rights, wants, and needs of the individual. Fascism is actually defined as being anti-liberalism, so they're pretty much diametrically opposed.
So either you don't understand fascism, or you're applying the term to something completely different.
I don't know for certain that fascists love capitalism, but capitalists sure love fascism. Most of the Uber wealthy in the mid 20th century were more than happy to work with the Nazis. And the Nazis certainly were not opposed to working with those capitalists. The two ideologies are very similar: both steadily constrict the power of the government into fewer and fewer hands, until you get situations like Nazi Germany or present day USA, where one group of a few thousand has near complete control over the country.
I was using socialism as a blanket term for "the left" there (do you know a better one?). All 3 of them were further left than Bernie Sanders, which I'd argue makes them socialists (the blanket term)
Not sure where you're getting the idea socialism tends towards authoritarianism, it has more defenses to it than capitalism. Capitalism literally demands that a company do everything it can to co-opt the government, because if you don't, your competitors will. By contrast, socialism is commonly referred to as "workplace democracy". It has distributing power as widely as possible as its central tenet, IE workers owning the means of production.
You're literally a different user. Do you have two accounts?
Nope, just someone who has the same problem.
I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist, but I was curious for specific examples from them.
It's kind of hard to just pull examples out of thin air. It seems when people are down voted like crazy, they stop posting to that community as much.
They didn't have many comments, I briefly looked through them and couldn't seem to find what they were talking about.
Yeah folks on Lemmy want you to believe we are above at that but man people can be nasty here
Being an expert in any arena is fucking annoying when you have to deal with idiots.
Oh yeah, I am an expert in my arena as well (been a Secutor for almost 15yrs) and I have to constantly deal with these idiots.
"Oh, I'm a Murmillo, look at me!" Bitch you can't even see out that damn helmet.
"Hurr Durr, I'm a super cool Dimachaerus." Most people can't properly fight with a sword and you're gonna use two?
So I completely get you.
Gladiatorial vindt is easy, you just use Russell Crowe
What you say is never as important as how you say it. I noticed that if I came off as a self-righteous dickhead, people would disagree with me out of principle and if the person was still wrong they'd bring neutral "Sure, but" arguments to avoid the same thing happening to them.
The only time you can be a jackass is if you do it in a funny way or the person is so far gone it's the equivalent of default dancing on their grave.
In real life, maybe. But this does not line up with my experience at all on here or reddit. The up and down vote buttons are overwhelmingly used as agree/disagree buttons.
I try to be respectful in my disagreements, and often fail, but they usually doesn't have much of an influence how bring mercilessly down voted for disagreeing with the hive. And I've always watched people I vehemently disagree with, who have made reasonable and respectful disagreements, get down voted tons while people attacking them will get tons of upvotes.
It's nice to think that we respect different opinions if they are represented respectfully, but it does not seem to reflect the reality I've seen.
Respectfully (I'm honestly trying here, I hope it doesn't come off otherwise), I still don't agree. I've seen plenty of times where I'll respectfully disagree with someone and the other poster will be a complete dick back for no reason, but still line up with the agreement of the hive and get plenty more upvotes than I got.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that it will influence the outcome, but from my experience, clearly "agreeing with the hive" is overwhelmingly the most important factor when it comes to how many upvotes or downvotes you'll get. It's certainly not universal, as I've been surprised sometimes by how well my disagreement has been received, but generally speaking it's the case.
And we aren't talking about simply being wrong or right. One can be wrong, but not really strongly disagree, and still be accepted. I wouldn't be surprised that (removing being nasty), the harder you make it to maintain the position of the hive mind the more likely it is to get downvoted.
I can't think of a better system, but it's still deeply flawed when it comes to promoting quality posts.
All that matters is whether you’re speaking for or against the prevailing assumptions of the site/the subreddit. Most people on the internet are not experts on the topic but somehow already have their minds made up.
Also, Lemmy is not better than Reddit in this regard. Dominant opinion > everything else.
This is not only true on the internet. People are more interested in preserving their assumptions than learning something.
You're right, and it takes humility to admit that you're wrong and someone else is right. Personally, I will try to argue for my belief based on the reasons I'm holding it in the first place; but if I can see that I'm wrong and everything I'm googling is matching what the other person says, then I'd rather have beliefs that match reality than be right.
Case and point: https://lemmy.zip/post/7995540?scrollToComments=true
That's the funny thing: I'd you change your beliefs to match reality then you are right. You just weren't before.
Average internet interaction be like:
Really? I take the opposing stance because i'm BUILT DIFRENT, get tilted other sentience, trolololo /s
God, i hope we get shadowrun style vr one day so we can literally electrocute those kindsa 'people'
Reddit is great for watching communities being radicalized. Wehther they do it themselves or they get a psyops push is up to everyone's guess but I've watched it several times.
SRS: Started out as a community pointing out misoginy and racism, ended up as a very weird hate group. I didn't watch it that closely, only saw the result.
some tumbler centered sub i followed, I forgot the name: same story, started quite light hearted, making fun of stupid shit said by kids on tumbler, turned into a right wing hategroup. This one I witnessed. They ran out of material quick, started posting lame shit but now they gave it their own, made up context in the comments. After a while, people who pointed out obvious satire got downvoted.
/r/TumblrInAction turned into fascist propaganda really fucking quick
i miss when it was just making fun of otherkin :(
Yepp
Quite often when I see the person who is "technically correct" getting down voted heavily there's usually at least one of several other factors coming into play that would easily explain the down votes.
For instance they edited their comment to add something like "Edit: The down votes just prove I'm right", they're being uncivil or disproportionately aggressive, they're resorting to logical fallacies and arguing around the other people instead of debating with them, or they're just adding confrontational/controversial hot takes in a community that doesn't embrace that type of thing.
And honestly, you can be totally factually correct 100% of the time, but still be a drain on the community or take down the quality of a sub. If mostly all you are doing is punching down on ignorant people instead of building bridges and leading them to the factually correct conclusions, then you are probably a drain on the community and discussion. If you're basically doing nothing but feeding the trolls, then you're also helping to undermine the quality of the sub.
They didn't say anything about Reddit, Rooter. Did you reply to the wrong comment?
I believe that old people should be shot at birth
Happens everywhere where there's voting involved. Convincing argument I feel sounds right > argument that's actually right.
Yeah, I think humans are predisposed to make decisions with our gut rather than objectively reviewing available evidence.
It’s probably an evolutionary thing. For ancient humans, quick decisive action to do what feels right probably let you pass on genes better than taking time and consideration to choose what IS right.
Oh no
To be fair, it was only in the last couple years that it became that bad. It's still better than Elon's white nationalist vehicle of a social media site.
I was blanket banned from supposedly leftist subs for posting in PCM and the_donald - obviously trolling the shit out of them.
Fuck 'em, fuck spez, fuck their power-drunk mods, and fuck their total lack of understanding of what makes their site work, let alone good.
Mods everywhere are cunts. Including Lemmy. I'm sure @[email protected] will agree that he's a cunt.
Lemmy doesn't fix all the problems, but it fixes some, and improves others, which is something.
agreed, upvoted
Tbf, I think I got banned from a vegan sublemmy for having an opinion that wasn't even necessarily pro-meat, but not necessarily pro-vegan either. I forget what it even was lol
I once got banned for racism - for making fun of a non-existent race.
What, did you say something like Vulcans are stuffy?
I said "non-existent race".
How did you make fun of said non-existent race? Curious about this one.
I said "typical Vogons" or something like that. I don't remember exactly what non-existent race I used. The whole point of my comment was to mock racism itself, and I got banned for racism.
I got banned because I said a transgender person that broke the law (raped and murdered someone) should face the same consequences regardless of what gender they identified as... I have nothing against transgender people but I bet you can guess what rule they said I broke. Honestly when it comes to transgender issues I think that's everyone's personal thing and I have no right to tell someone else what to do in that department.
There's no better type of "correct" than "technically correct" hahaha
Was it Elder Scrolls related?
My favorite is how ignorant people are so certain about some issue that top scientists are unsure about.
If you point out that we don't know whether there's any life in the galaxy except on Earth, folks will say there has to be because look how many other planets there are, or even say you're arrogantly self centered for entertaining the idea that there isn't.
And you aren't even saying there isn't life, just that we don't know... which is true.
Doesn't discredit the idea that life is out there, it's just being honest with the data we have collected, so far.
I suspect life is everywhere. I base this on the fact that our DNA complexity is currently around 2.5-3 billion years older than the planet. Intelligent, and more importantly multicellular, life is the variable that can't be determined quite yet. The step from single cellular life to multicellular life has happened a few times on Earth, but all of those times have been in the last billion years. I personally believe that is because we are just about as young as intelligent life could possibly be, since the universe was actively hostile to life prior to about 7.5 billion years ago.
I also like the idea that for a few hundred million years (around half a billion years after the big bang) the entire universe was the correct temperature for life to have developed literally everywhere and anywhere.
That doesn't mean DNA existed before the earth. It is possible that at low complexities different factors dominated the exponential increase assumed to reach that figure
"I base this on the fact that our DNA complexity is currently around 2.5-3 billion years older than the planet."
That isn't a fact, it's extrapolation based on a simple exponential fit to rough estimates of present-day genome complexity.
Even if we knew complexity always grew exponentially, which we don't, small changes in an exponential fit will greatly affect an extrapolation.
And we don't know what the genome complexity was of the first prokaryotes, not to mention any number of forms of life that might have gone extinct between then and now.
For example, there was a group a of multi-cellular life that flourished long before the current group, but they lived for millions of years. We'll probably never know anything about their genetic complexity.
Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.
The odds of existing within a region close enough to find each other is rather small. The odds of existing during the same time period in history are infinitely approaching zero. Humans have existed for a very short amount of time, and we're currently more likely to wipe ourselves out than we are to leave the solar system in a spacecraft.
That doesn't mean life couldn't possibly exist, just that it's extremely unlikely that we will ever cross paths.
Can we say we are 99.999% certain?
Is there Intelligent life is the real question.
No we can't. We have almost zero information about how rare life is.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66786611
Only 120 light years away. That would imply the milky way is teaming.
Amen, same with the machine learning haters nowadays, pretending they know exactly how the llms work that not even the scientists working on them understand. And they can extrapolate how useless and bad this technology is
I think part of this particular problem stems from experts in the field making pretty wild claims while not still not completely understanding the tech.
Now a lot of this is prompted by market and media interest, but companies like Open AI taking advantage of this interest by making obtuse claims for funding purposes isn't exactly helping.
It IS wild, it is very special that we have a new field we don't fully understand how or why it works. No need to excuse blatant misinformation from just people guesstimating using their basic IT skills
50,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong
One word Echo chamber
That's two words.
If you can sound confident in a reddit-y way, being right doesn't matter. If it seems like the threads going that way just disengage, it's not worth it.
My favourite thing about this is that most of the AIs like chatgpt and its copycats use Reddit as a source of data.
Then they make shit up, sound confident, and mislead people.
All it needs to do is also repeat the same four tired memes, and it would be a high karma user.
One important aspect is to make a snarky comment starting with "it's almost as if".
Pretty much, seriously, fuck reddit... it's the only service I've ever been banned with in my 33 years of life, and I keep seeing others who have an unfair ban either on the site or from the site.
What's the old saying? If you run into an asshole, fuck him, if you CONSTANTLY run into assholes, you might be the asshole...
The only site I've been suspended in was X (twitter) recently, and it was on a lurker account I mainly use to follow people and rarely ever post on, and it was after coming back to the app after a few weeks of absence lol.
Automated modding seems to fail on those sites, while giving users modding powers is always abused. I guess it's manageable if there's support, which X doesn't seem to have anymore.
A lot of subreddits have the wildest and most complicated rules. Said the word "aardvark" on the third Wednesday of the month? BAN
Narrator: it was his supervisor
It's been such a 180°.
I used to use Cunningham's Law to find out expert nuances before a presentation to C-suite execs.
These days I tell people online about the things I'm an expert in and was brought in at ridiculous consulting fees to talk about and get dumb disagreement, especially when it goes against hivemind.
Social media got much worse over the past decade. I've gotten the sense there's a bit of a generational aspect at play as well, in terms of the emboldening to spout BS from ignorance as long as being paid attention to and a thin skin in being debated with.
It's your tone, bro. You can't just keep blaming everyone else for not getting your message across. Doesn't mean you aren't knowledgeable, just that you have poor communication skills
No, it's more confirmation bias and the fact I actively avoid appeals to authority.
I know full well if I pointed out my background in certain situations, I'd get a massive amount of agreement even if what I'm saying is against common narratives.
But the difference I'm commenting on is less about how people perceive what I write about and more the shift in how common it is for people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about to have the confidence and wherewithal to debate a topic entirely out of their element with little more than an appeal to gut feelings.
Wait, did they add a cool down for unpopular commenting?
Literally me on Lemmy every 2 seconds ngl Imma just leave or stop commenting this community is dogshit
Lemmy has the people who were too dickish to handle reddit. It is the worst.
does this include yourself or are you the special exception?
No, I'm here too.
Fair.
I mean... *we* don't.:-P
Democracy in a nutshell
Popularity in a nutshell
Yes, the two are entirely unrelated. /s
This is democracy... manifest.
Technically, gang rape is entirely democratic.
No, it's not. Unless you use the definition of democracy that only fascists use to attack the concept.
Democracy isn't a total dictatorship of the majority. The term implies protection of basic human rights, even if 50+% vote in favor of something that would violate them.
No, you’re confusing the concept with the implementation. Nothing about the concept of democracy says that human rights MUST be protected, it’s just something that enough widespread agreement exists on that we assume it to be universal.
In the US, those fundamental assumptions are protected by the constitution, but that can technically be amended with a large enough majority.
As a more practical example, consider children, who do not have the right to vote and therefore must accept whatever the majority of adults decides. Their human rights only extend as far as the right to free housing, food, healthcare, and education, but they do not get the right to self-determination. As long as their parents feed, clothe, and house them, they can practically and legally keep them as indentured servants until they reach the age of majority. Perfectly democratic.
I disagree completely. Protection of human rights is a fundamental part of the concept of democracy.
A political system that decides everything purely based on majority vote, with no protections whatsoever for minority rights, is NOT a democracy.
You may call it one, but then you're simply redefining the word.
What you're thinking of is commonly called a constitutional democracy.
A pure democracy would literally just decide everything by majority vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
What you're calling "pure democracy" is called Ochlocracy or mob rule.
Court of public opinion in a nutshell
That’s… how democracy works
This is why Quora is so sanitized unlike Reddit: you actually get to see the (alleged) qualification of the OP. I'm not saying this would get to be an appeal to authority, but blatantly contradicting the expert while you're none of it wouldn't be so easy to get away with in the other forums