What gets you downvoted?
What sort of post or comment gets you downvoted the most? Especially if you don't think it's bad behavior in the first place, or don't care. Does not have to be on Lemmy, but we are here...
One of the good things about Lemmy IMO is that it's small enough to see the posts that are unpopular. If you do "Top Day" on most channels, you cash reach the bottom, see what people here don't like.
As far as comments, attempting to rebut the person who is telling me my post sucks, is what gets me into negative numbers most often. The OP is going to voite it down, of course, and nobody else cares, usually.
I'm going to lock this one as it's causing too much conflict.
Either nuance in a topic people are very black and white about or not being able to figure out how people can read things as the opposite of what I wrote.
Only happened a couple of times, no regrets.
Asking people to see nuance here and the rest of the web is the worst. You're either left or right. Urban or not. Up or down. There is no in between, partial solutions are useless. Drives me bonkers
If you call both sides right/wrong when both sides are right/wrong, both sides downvote you.
Mention a third option, middle ground, or reasonable compromise is a downvoting.
Tell them to chill, you might have well stuck a hornets nest up you ass. There's a reason you occasionally see people just admitting they were wrong or changing their mind get sent to the front page, its just rare.
I reckon it's the issue of pseudo-anonymity combined with the lack of tone in a text post. If you're talking IRL it's much clearer that you're making a joke or whatever, but all that gets lost in text. Also you generally know who you're talking to IRL, whereas online you don't know if that comment was written by a professor of ethics or a teenager who watched a single video on the topic and is parroting opinions they are now convinced are correct.
That's why I really like the /s marker, unfortunately it gets a lot of hate.
What a constrictive outlook on human dynamic and expression.
What's interesting is that the language allows multiple meanings. The commenter above can either be driven bonkers by presence of nuance or the lack of it and both interpretations are correct.
The first sentence can be seen as being against nuance or it can be seen as being against the online experience of asking for nuance.
The next sentences can be seen as arguments against nuance or examples of behaviour encountered when asking for it.
And the final bonkers can either be against the use of nuance or the repeated responses to it use.
So without further clarification, we can't really be sure which stance the commenter implies.
With only these two situations presented, it's a 50/50, left or right choice, so I'll go ahead and presume it's the latter, since that seems to be more likely encountered in online chats.
If the commenter meant that a black/white mindset drives them nuts, then I redirect my comment, in the sense that:
Yep, I still make the misstake from time to yime and try and give a resonable take on a rant post when I feel like they are too unfair.
Latst time was a few days ago when I responed to a person in a Linux community ranting about how Windows 11 sucks because he didn't know how to use it properly and that it had the audacity to not include drivers for 20 year old equipment.
I got massively downvoted and after I explained that I was an IT tech that didn't run Linux on my main machine, I was weirdly called out and some idiot claimed that you can't be an IT tech if you are not running Linux as your main computer OS.
It was kinda funny, I was bashed contiously by the open community for a minor disagreement, while I believe that I stayed polite throughout the conversation
Linux users drive me crazy. They clearly see that Windows users try to use Linux like it's Windows and encounter problems. Why can't they see that trying to use Windows like it's Linux will have the same issues?
You can be an IT technician with Windows on your main machine. Whether you should be is a different question.
If my needs were better served by Linux on my main machine, then yeah, I'd go Linux, but since Windows better suit my needs at the moment I don't.
I did run Linux as my main OS for about two years, but then my needs changed and I went back to Windows.
Heh, I get down votes from both sides a fair bit. In one part I am supportive of views, but raise obvious issues in other areas. This makes the For team upset. The Against team hates me too because my stance is on the For team's side. The result is an inbox full of fine examples of how in-fighting destroys the grass while the other side of the fence has no idea they're apathetically winning.
Almost all of this comes down to people attempting to express their self-assessed virtuosity as superior to others, or they are driven by a manipulative fallacy—argumentun ad populum is a big one in echo chambers—causing them to easily sway closer to extremes with little critical thought first.
This is why we are supposed to discuss and not argue, remaining constantly open to exploring and contemplating new information. It is not about who is right or wrong, rather the discourse and learning from it. But that's not the default setting in many Lemmy communities.
The older I get the less patience I have for actual morons. if someone wants to put words in my mouth I don't have to be there for it. I just block and move on.
That first one is where I feel I've seen myself and others get downvoted more than anything else listed here. Maybe it is recency bias from that one thread the other day lol.
I agree, but it's also very easy for this mindset to lead people to equate two very different-in-magnitude evils as "the same".
Honestly though in all actuality there are very few topics where nuance does exist like with guns for example: it's a very nuanced issue and calls for bans without acknowledging the reality that for many in America relying on the justice and police systems is not always a good or even safe option when it comes to personal safety, but at the end of the day you either ban them or you don't and any extra asterisks are minutiae, so people don't really care about your personal reasons they just want to know what side you fall on in the conflict.
So often nuance-enjoyers come off as effectively saying "what if we rape but only sometimes?" on the topic of whether rape should be a crime in society.
Every topic has nuance.
Every. Single. Topic.
There is even nuance when talking about nazis. Like the fact that they rose to power by giving people economic solutions prior to speed running pure evil. That doesn't anything that they did was good, because the nuance is in how they implemented those economic actions. The small details that made it work so they could rise to power at that point point time in that location.
Nuance doesn't mean good or evil, just complexity and more details than most people think about. Sometimes it isn't super relevant, and can be used to distract from the high level details, but it is still there. Nuance with racial disparity is keeping in mind that a lot of racism is implemented in different ways regionally, while still being racism.
That isn't nuance. That is weaponized compromise.
The fiddly details about consent and coercion in relation to rape would be about nuance.
Asking why you're getting downvoted is usually the easiest way to get downvotes.
But I often wish I would get a comment about downvotes. It's easy enough to see why I'm getting downvoted when I post stupid shit, but sometimes I feel like even the most uncontroversial post or comment will get at least one downvote. I want to know when I'm wrong, so I can learn!
Like, the other day there was a post getting downvoted to oblivion and nobody told OP anything. I commented my reason and OP actually seemed to be learning from that, edited the post and the downvotes stopped accumulating.
I've seen completely normal and innocuous statements heavily downvoted here. Some people seem to just downvote everything and other people seem to downvote anything that already has downvotes. But one thing is for certain, it's treated as a like/dislike button, not as a meter for content that does or doesn't contribute to the subject.
I don't think either of the popular behavior descriptions of "upvote if it contributes" or "upvote if you like it" really describe why most people upvote/downvote. My personal downvote criteria is more of a checklist:
If any of those are true, depending on the severity I'll leave it be or downvote. I'd imagine most people are similar.
Those are all reasons I downvote too, but I'd lump them all into the "doesn't contribute to the conversation/community" category. I'll also report something if it's dangerous misinformation, or very hostile towards an individual.
I had a conversation with someone about one of my downvotes posts, which helped to understand yet another stupid derailing tactic that terrible people use to stifle conversation. I really appreciated their feedback, even if I didn't see any way to avoid the misunderstanding.
Anything slightly "feminist". You know, like pointing out that women do the majority of unpaid care work. Or saying it's not nice to objectify women. Or sometimes mentioning the word women will do it.
Lemmy has a much, much, much better crowd than reddit, but it definitely still got the "not all men", "I only ever comment on stories about extremely rare false rape accusations" crowd.
I remember on Reddit once I commented a very vague description of a very personal experience I had with SA. Not fucking joking, people were defending this person they knew literally nothing about, except for the fact that I had said "oh yeah, I've experienced SA".
I haven't seen anything that bad on Lemmy yet so hopefully it stays chill.
I'm so sorry to hear that. Anyone with a shred of integrity approaching the issue will see that the statistics do not point to some pervasive false accusation culture, but rather a systemic issue of SA perpetuated primarily toward women for almost all of human history. It doesn't mean that any other types of issues should be discarded, but reddit would have you think that every other rape accusation is false, and that all the true ones are against men.
It's just an obvious bias on their part that is continually perpetuated by men dominating the platform on the mainstream subs. Lemmy has been better in that regard, because I think folks here are a little better about checking their biases for better discussion.
The problem is that this topic is very complex and very opinionated, and any opinion has very dangerous logical consequences if it's even slightly wrong. So you get people arguing tiny semantics against people with traumatic personal experiences, which is not a good recipe.
It's better, but very far away from good. My comment and the other one mentioning the same thing are already the ones with the most downvotes in this thread. So thanks to the downvoters for proving my point, I guess.
I'm guilty of this because I genuinely don't see why "not all men" is bad. As an example, I see a concerning amount of women who emotionally abuse their husbands or boyfriends publicly in subtle ways, but there isn't a huge culture around avoiding all women. As a dude, saying that "not all men" is negative doesn't seem that different from saying "I'm not racist, but..." or "I'm not sexist, but..." because the conversation never seems to be about men with red flags or the people in power who don't do anything when SA is reported.
What am I missing or not getting?
Let's leave aside the labels (sexist, racist, etc) for a moment, because these conversations tend toward applying/avoiding those and it just loses a lot of nuance.
Let's metaphor this, because I think that helps. Is it possible for someone with millions of dollars to have a truly bad day? Of course it is. Is it possible for them to be hurt by someone with way less money than them? Obviously, yes. Positions of privilege never fully insulate anyone from hurt or harm, and those in worse positions can perpetuate harm. That's fully understood and accepted.
I don't think anyone with integrity would say that women are in a position of power relative to men. Women have been systemically and systematically oppressed for virtually all of human history. A woman even being able to talk back to a man without severe physical consequences is an insanely recent development at scale in our world. There are still dozens of countries that are not letting women wear what they choose, marry who they choose, go to school. Men (as a group) have never been subjected to anything remotely close to anything like this, and in fact have perpetuated it for all time.
Now, there are some whackos out there who hate all men because of that. They're super, super rare, and they're wrong. Most women are indeed wary about random men, especially if they have experienced assault or harassment, but that is a far cry from hating all men.
To boil it down, there's a huge historical and modern difference in the way the genders/sexes are treated, and that cannot be ignored just so we can try to achieve the utopian world of no distinction. We have work to do as a society, as genders, and as individuals to repair this gap together. Good men belong right next to us, doing that work. And every good man I've ever met has willingly done so. Instead of asking "why are you avoiding me?", they give us space and support. Instead of asking "why not men?", they do the work to support fellow men instead of asking women to do it for them. Instead of saying "not all men", they actively engage in not being those men and are content in that.
While I don't think what you said is wrong (though I have some semantic disagreements; I don't think men are privileged but do think that women are disprivileged), I don't think it's that relevant. Power dynamics are far more complex than what you're describing. While you can conclude that women on average have less power than men on average, that doesn't mean there aren't a huge amount of men subordinate to other men, women subordinate to other women, or men subordinate to women. In all of those cases, some higher figure is abusing their power, whether it's by SA, violence, manipulation, or especially not holding someone else accountable.
The way I see it is that by making blanket statements implying that men are the problem, you're distracting yourself from the root problem while alienating a good chunk of people who would support your cause, including male SA victims. It (anecdotally) seems like the pool of vocal SA victims is in actuality limited to just women who have been assaulted by a man. That division seems unnecessary. It's the same way of thinking that alienates women who have Autism or adults who have ADHD; people only talk about the biggest or most substantial sub-group rather than the group as a whole.
I'm with you. I spent a LOT of time in r/TwoXChromosomes before moving to lemmy to try and understand that commmunity, and their arguments for why "not all men" is bad basically boiled down to "we're tired of having to include that at the bottom of every post, just let us rant." Which like, okay... but you're spreading information and culture by making a public rant post. If you refer to "men", that by default means "men in general", not "some men". So yes, you really should specify which ones you're talking about every time. The exception is if you do specify a subset of men or even singular man, in which case, yes, "not all men" comments are unnecessary at worst.
to kind of sum it up, I think "not all men" tends to be kind of a red flag in the same vein as "all lives matter". Not quite as bad, and obviously it's contextually different as "not all men" refers to feminism rather than race relations, but I think it kind of makes the point as a metaphor.
You'd think a niche social media network populated by tech obsessed weirdos would be a bit more inclusive.
Anything that's true but people don't like.
It's very misused as the disagree button rather than the not relevant button.
It is neither. It is just a downvote button. It may be “misuse” to you, but to others maybe not.
Just talk about how you genuinely enjoy Microsoft Windows as an operating system.
Saying something centrist instead of left-wing. I feel like I'm left of center in most places, but right of center here. Stuff like "we should try to just have a well regulated capitalist system instead of going full on socialist, because as bad as capitalism is, socialism has been shown to be worse," would get me downvoted into oblivion.
uh...
One issue is that socialism means different things depending on who you ask.
If they mean pure socialism, it’s true.
what is pure socialism?
If you make a comment like that on the wrong instance, that happens, but it's not like that on every instance. Commie instances are filled with tankies and they have always been very dogmatic, just exhibiting nuance and historical awareness will get you those massive downvotes. Also deeper comment chains on more neutral instances can be weird, but that's probably small sample bias because few people will dig down that deep.
Posting for the sake of intelligent discussion; Philosophy.
Nobody understands the term "Devils Advocate" on lemmy. It's just "TROLL". I can't possibly discuss a viewpoint online, that I don't personally believe without instantly being labeled a troll.
I don't brain like most people brain. I like to explore and discover the aspect of things which made us land on those decisions or opinions. Turns out, most people don't like that.
It's fine to argue devil's advocate, but you should clearly mark it as such so people don't think it's your true opinion - tone is hard enough as it is to get through text, never mind outright devil's advocacy.
Devil's Advocate = Russian Nazi Capitalist Shrill in Filipino Putin propaganda farm.
See, this guy gets it.
"Why are you advocating for the devil? He has enough advocates!" /s
I certainly do like that! Is there anything you want to have a discussion about? Feel free to reply to this comment if you do...
Wrong politics. Too dry of satire. Too absurd of memes. Pictures of Charles III.
EDIT: Oh, and cigar posts. Some small handful of shit pieces downvote me everytime I post in the Cigar/Tobacco community.
I can't imagine going out of your way to downvote people like that. I don't have an interest in cigars so I just ignore those communities. If I went around downvoting post in communities I have a problem with, I'd be doing that all day.
Right? If you don't like the subject matter, just block the community. No point in pissing on every post in a very small, niche, mostly harmless community.
Should see my blocked communities list. Granted 80% is extremely niche porn or non-English speaking, it's still very easy to not care and tap three dots, tap Block Community. A really big part of Reddit actually being good was curating the feed and Lemmy is no different. Why wouldn't someone want to see only stuff they care about when going on Lemmy? Way more effort to downvote lol
I wish Lemmy had a "reduce posts from this community" option. We have scaled sort at least.
AI isn't stealing your art. Text to image stable diffusion literally can't output a copy of your work.
And if you post your art online for free, you have no expectation of anyone not using your work to the extent that fair use allows. AI looking at your work for training is the same as a human looking at your work for inspiration.
I thought we saw instances recently of AI outputting verbatim snippets of its text input? It's not impossible, I mean the well-known problem of overfitting is a simple example of how it can happen.
That's true, but I was only talking about art and stable diffusion. I know it's more of a problem with LLMs but AFAIK every time someone finds a way to get it to quote something copyrighted verbatim, it'll just cease to function. The most I've ever been able to get it to do are things they've already been pretty much agreed to be fair use, like summaries and criticisms.
And yeah over fitting is a problem in some models, but the ones taking your money like Dall-E have systems in place to mitigate it. I think it's only considered theft as much as when a comedian hears a joke way in the past and forgets that it was already used in someone else's routine. It's not really a problem until the entire routine is just someone else's routine.
I agree, for some reason majority opinion on this website hates AI.
Here is an essay I did on AI, by the way:
People have long said that new technology only creates more jobs. To those people, I would like to direct your attention to the cart-horse. Around a hundred years ago, before electric cars, people used to go around on horses, or in carts and wagons pulled by horses. Horses were an integral part of the transport system, and most horses were employed as such, even being bred specifically to cope with higher demand on people needing to go places. With the advent of the car, large swathes of the horse population became unnecessary, and the population dwindled to a new equilibrium as fewer horses were needed in transport, but fewer horses were also bred. Compared to the busy, hard life horses had to put up with only a few decades ago, most horses nowadays, although there a fewer of them, live a life of comparative luxury, living in fields most of the day where they are free to graze, are given good food by their owners that care about them, and are only occasionally ridden by humans, and even when they are, it is far more relaxed and more of an enjoyable activity than horse-riding was when it was the only way to get somewhere, and done on a daily basis.
Humans often have this idea that they are special. That they are the only ones that can weave cloth – until it is automated. That they are the only ones who can make pottery – until it is automated. That human labour is the only way to get power – until power production is automated with the advent of electricity. That they are the only ones can be ‘creative’, who can write stories, make art, play music – until that is automated too. True, in all those cases, humans were still involved in the process to some extent, mostly for quality control and maintenance, but far fewer humans are needed to create the same amount of stuff – whether physical goods or more ‘idea-like’ stuff such as art – than before. In fact, recent progress has shown video games that were even tested and quality controlled by AI, as well as being programmed by AI and using AI generated assets, doing away with the need for humans entirely. This is analogous to the true scenario that I outlined in the first paragraph, and is not necessarily a bad thing.
It is quite likely that, in an impossible to predict timespan (it may be 20 years, it may be much more), humans will have developed technology with the capacity to completely create all the things we need, and more – good food, comfortable shelter, entertainment, and so on. Some will argue that this cessation of the need for humans to work will results in economic collapse and mass hardships, but this is a small minded perspective, often viewed through a capitalistic lens. The horses didn’t have a population explosion and lack of resources due to their work being gone, on the contrary, their numbers dwindled – which is not a bad thing, as long as it is through natural means, which it was, it just means that every individual has more attention and resources – and their lives improved, since they no longer had to endure hard labour every day just to survive. It is certainly attainable for the same thing to happen to us. Population growth is already falling in developed countries, and only people who are unable to image a world without human labour see this as a bad thing. If less humans work every year, and more AIs do their jobs, it balances out, and is a way to ease into a world where there is very little to no human labour, and all our needs and most of our wants are produced by AI.
As much as many people dislike the sentiment, this would not work in a capitalistic world where what someone gets is dependent on what they contribute to society, for self-evident reasons (those being that no one would need to contribute anything to society if it is all being done by robots), and therefore in a world where all necessary labour is done by AI, we would have to move to a system where everyone gets resources simply by dint of existing, rather than needing to contribute anything themselves. You can call this socialism if you want, it doesn’t really matter what you call it. This system would have the benefit of reducing stress caused by the feeling that you are obligated to do something, while not removing the ability to contribute something if you want – after all, it is necessary labour that has been abolished, not all labour, and just as horses are still used as a novelty and entertainment today, and many people value hand-made pottery, food, etc., over manufactured counterparts, there is likely to still be a desire for art, objects, and stories made by humans even in such a world where all necessary labour has been abolished.
This also deals with the counterpoint made by many that people will struggle for a sense of meaning and purpose in a world where there is no necessary labour – first of all, people struggle for meaning and purpose even when they do work necessarily, and second of all, as mentioned above, they can still do unnecessary, but still valued labour, and get the same meaning and purpose from that.
Some people, myself included, think that although the above scenario may work in theory, in practise it would be difficult to get the billionaires and billionaires’ puppets in government to agree to such a sensible system when the huge benefit to everyone may come at a small cost to themselves – even if the cost is just ego, even if they could still keep all their material resources. I admit, I don’t see a good solution to this problem myself, but, in conclusion, I hope we can think of one together, as this is a world many, including myself, would like to live in.
The meta bit is that specifically here, it's sort of a derail of the main topic. Some downvotes I'm sure are for that. As for why this essay might generally attract downvotes? I'll follow your locomotive off the track.
I mean, 1. It's a frickin' essay. 2. Comes off as a little cold and sorta "I know better than you do", and 3. seems to completely miss the point of what I interpret as most folks dislike of AI in the current incarnations we are seeing (which isn't a real sci-fi type general AI that gets society to the end point of your essay). I don't think I've ever seen anyone worrying about "what will I do to find purpose in a fully-automated-gay-space-luxury-communism?" (overemphasis mine of course). It's now and the next so many years, not some far off future that (I interpret) folks seem to be worrying about. It's income stability now, careers to go into now, disinformation now, degradation of the internet and media now. I think the zeitgeist here is that it's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better. I don't think anyone on Lemmy really has high hopes for major players in current economic systems to use AI-as-it-exists-now to make anything better of the world in aggregate. It ain't the tools, it's those who wield them.
When I reply to a comment with a laugh or what have you. I like them too know I laughed but since I'm not adding to the conversation I guess I'm getting voted down. I do it anyway.
I wish either in addition to or in place of votes, we could tag a post or comment with a small fixed selection of emojis. To signify it was funny, cool, thoughtful, etc.
And then maybe even filter or sort posts based upon the metrics that arise from the above.
You go back to Facebook damn you. ;)
I'd be down with that for sure!
Asking for support with questions that others think are really easy to solve. Was a big problem on reddit as well.
Anything mentioning furry. Which is a shame, because I hoped the internet had outgrown such immaturity.
Although, looking through my history, apparently anything that criticizes Windows or AI, which is odd considering the demographics here.
That would be weird, I would think you'd be downvoted for, on the contrary, liking Windows. But the AI thing I have seen, even if I don't understand it.
I actually expressed my views on AI in another comment.
Haven't had many experiences like here, most people seem either positive or indifferent (both furry stuff and femboy/gnc). It doesn't come up as much here though so it's possible I just missed it.
Deviating from the group narrative is the major one.
The content of your post doesn't really matter if you're making the right sounding noises. As long as you somehow indicate that you're "one of us" then you're probably safe. If you talk shit about Facebook/AI/Elon Musk/Capitalism/Police etc. it doesn't really matter if what you're saying is literally true. If you're speaking to the right audience you're going to get pats on the back nevertheless. Conversely when someone like me then comes and points out that no, Elon Musk actually did not turn off Starlink in Crimea to prevent the Ukrainian attack I'm guranteed to get downvoted for it despite the fact that I'm correct.
I'm guessing the two mains reasons people downvote comments like that are cognitive dissonance; refusal to accept new information that goes against your prior beliefs and alternatively the false assumption that if someone is in any way defending an unpopular person/idea they then must be one of the "other" and thus we can dissmiss what they say without even considering it.
Saying something positive about the United States, or something negative about CCP.
Oh yeah. I'm pretty new to all of this but just mentioning the fact that the CCP is doing raunchy stuff got me downvoted to hell. Even when those replies were provided with links to articles and facts I am being called racist.
That’s just lemmy.ml. Most other users on Lemmy are not like that. I would strongly consider changing instances of you are not too invested in your current one.
It's not going to work if the instances determine what behaviour is acceptable on Lemmy.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this but there are many different instances with many different rules. I’m sure you can find one that is close to your viewpoints.
Personally I don’t think it’s important to be exactly in line with your instance but I do find a subset of Lemmy.ml users noxious enough that I try to minimize my interactions with their instance.
"Racist" is over used so much now that it's losing its impact, which is horrible, since it needs to remain an ugly word.
Whenever I say that America is a continent instead of a country, and similar things.
Fun fact: as I discovered, "continents" are defined differently depending on which country you're in, they are not the same worldwide. In Europe, America is a big continent and includes both north and south, and the continent including Australia is called "Oceania". In "America" (USA), there's North and South America as separate continents, and the continent including Australia is called .. Australia... and yes, the USA is just America, because, yeah.
Yes, "continent" is a cultural category, and as such, definitions will vary across cultures. So if Europe considers America, north and south, to be one big continent, though they are connected by only a narrow strip of land, how is it that Europe and Asia are different continents, and nobody can quite agree where one becomes the other? They're not even on different tectonic plates, like North and South America are!
I've never heard people in an online forum go "I'm European" only to have someone argue back "Well ackchyually it's Afro-Eurasia!" And yet this pedantic argument is constantly made for the Americas.
What is it about these particular words that frazzles people's brains and makes them forget that homonyms exist? The two continents are collectively called "America", and "United States of America" gets shortened to "America". Like all other homonyms in human language, these two pronouns are distinguished by context.
It must really confuse the hell out of people that the America's Cup isn't named after the Americas, or the United States of America. The America's Cup is named after a racing yacht, which was named after the nickname for the United States of America, which was named for its location. So, I say America is not a continent, or a country. It's a boat.
Seriously, though, I'm guessing the downvotes for saying that are for pedantry.
Thank you for being a voice of reason here. I've never understood this argument, yes the same word can refer to two different things and both sides can simultaneously be right (and wrong) about the usage of the word.
It's like no one has ever met two people who share the same name, most reasonable people don't argue with random people "You can't be Joe! My friend is named Joe and you aren't him!".
And to compound the fact I've noticed that people's native languages and place of birth tend to determine where they fall on the argument. You guys realize that words can sound and be spelled similar and mean something different things in different languages and cultures, right?
Don't you know? They rewrote history and geography so they get to be the only Americans, while the continent is divided into North and South. Forget all the maps, documents, letters, and stuff that referred to the New Word as "America" for centuries. Forget about the first national documents in countries like Mexico referring to themselves as Americans. Nope. They get to steal the name because #power.
So now it's time to read the "but 'United Mexican States' is Mexico, so 'United States of America' deserves to be America", ignoring the fact that Mexico derives from the native name of a portion of Mexico City, so it's not remotely the same (see first paragraph).
This comment answers the AskLemmy about things that annoy me...
That’s the secret real reason for the Panama Canal. Divide and conquer baby.
Enjoying Apple products.
Lately, basically saying that hamas did a big mistake and Gaza would be in a better situation now if they (hamas) were smarter human beings.
Anything about issues men have.
According to Lemmy unless you are trans or gay no man has ever had any issue and it's absolutely never the fault of women. But now you bring up that issue let me downvote and tell you about the issues women have from men.
In my experience, this has been more of a Reddit thing than a Lemmy thing.
I'll just piggy back onto this and say that downvotes come when people have generalized views and assume these are facts.
And downvotes my way are usually because I don't care about people's feelings on the internet.
Can I be honest? Religion. Anything related to it, somehow will get someone downvote me. Even if I just mention "God" or something. I get that I should "separate the church from the state" or I should be secular here or whatevs, and I respect that. It's not like every time I mention I force it down to everyone's throat!
Tbh I wanted to make a post that greet everyone on Lemmy that are doing Ramadhan fasting at first, but now I don't even feel like doing that. There's no point of posting it, I guess, if it got downvoted and no one wants to see it.
I guess this means that Lemmy isn't much different from Reddit...
Lemmy is Reddit Extreme. Only the people who reacted the strongest to Reddit's policies move(d) over.
This is very true. You even got a down vote for saying it.
Well I would like to wish you and anyone else who's celebrating a Happy Ramadan.
Thank you, sorry for being negative.
Happy Ramadhan for those who celebrate it!!
Tbh its such a complex topic that unless someone has studied it extensively/experienced it, they can’t really understand the extreme nuance behind it, and also the fact is true that people who claim themselves as ‘religious’ are mostly pieces of shit
I see myself as a practicing person but frankly the people who drive me nuts are always the people who follow the same faith, and tbh I think this might have to do with conservatism and the refusal to listen to others/accept you were wrong rather than religion itself, people somehow refuse to believe they are wrong even if you show it from their own scripture
Some blame is still on lemmy though, people somehow don’t seem to have any knowledge on this subject and make the most absurd claims and also somehow get upvoted to heaven, and I don’t bother correcting because its no good, ig this is just conservatism as well but of a different sort, unless u are an atheist, you are stupid/dumb
Ramadan Mubarak if you are involved though! I have always found it very fun!
Lemmy really isn't that different from reddit at all, its just got more Linux memes. All the problems that exist on reddit outside of the IPO exist on lemmy in a smaller fashion, and sometimes not so smaller.
I don't hate you for being a Muslim, I feel sorry for you. You can't choose what you believe, and your natural personality combined with your experiences and upbringing made you a Muslim. You are negatively impacted by Islam's restrictions - such as Ramadan, for example.
But I also feel sorry for all the non religious people religion harms, and more so.
Yeah, mentioning anything Christian, or saying something was taken out of context when someone quotes the Bible, instantly turns into a debate and how I'm pro slavery. It just goes off the rails.
Opinions. People seem to hate opinions, whether they're provided with an explanation or not. Facts are also downvoted on a regular base.
Well, see that's just your opinion, man
Yeah.
When tankies are on about nuking the west or genociding "white libruls" they tend to dogpile you for calling them fascist pigfuckers.
Can't tell if they like the attention or not because they always share a pic of a pig shitting on its own balls.
Is it an initiation right? a call to arms? is it a sexual advance?! We may never know.
Speaking out against communism/tankie propaganda.
Defending Imperial units to people who prefer metric.
Calling US customary units "Imperial"
They're Imperial units in Britain, though most of us know that they're a bit silly
They're different quantities there, too.
You're right, my bad. Freedom Units, or Irony Units, if you're feeling saucy.
Based on what I seen on Lemmy. Being an Conservative. Don't believe me. Go to a Conservative community and look at all the downvoted bombed posts.
EDIT "Based on what I seen on Lemmy". I'm talking about World and .ml.
.ml is literally a Marxist Leninist instance saying that right wing PoV gets down voted there is akin to observing that bears indeed shit in the woods
Posting pro-continuation of human existence when everybody else celebrating human extinction.
Mentioning downvotes. Or upvotes. The first rule of vote club is...
No smoking?
Have fun and be yourself :)
downvote liberally?
No cuts no buts no coconuts
When I talk about driving my Tesla, while playing on my iPhone, and chugging Starbucks out of my custom Stanley. With my Windows laptop on the passenger side.
At least it's not an Apple laptop, or I'd be annoyed.
I'd take an Apple over a chromebook any day.
(Yes I know you can load Linux on the Chromebook, but if I had to daily one or the other OS, apple > chrome)
If someone was giving me it for free? Yeah I'd have the Macbook too, the hardware is lovely (the software not so much).
To buy myself? Chromebooks can be a great deal, and they're ideal for a non-tech-savvy relative who needs a basic computer but that you don't want to be on-call for tech support!
I guess the Apple is more capable? Very much a lesser of two evils situation you've posited, though.
Pretty much, I can use more than a web browser and run all kinds programs.
YOU SON OF A BITCH! WE USE THINKPAD IN THIS INSTANCE!
Don't you mean playing with your iPhone while your Tesla drives itself?
Shit even more reason to downvote me.
being a shit ass 😔
No one seems to know or care that "begging the question" means using circular logic and not that something has led to an event where people are begging to ask a question.
An example of properly begging the question could be, "does your mom know you're gay?" It's a yes or no question, but you can't answer it properly if you are straight. That's begging the question.
Whenever I point this out, I get down voted, which leads to the question: why y'all prefer being wrong?
Links to reddit
I can understand that, we want to get away from that site, not be constantly linking to it. If there's something interesting someone said there, say it yourself here.
Slagging China, pointing out hydrogen vehicles are a stupid idea, lots of snide responses
Are hydrogen vehicles a stupid idea?
Here's my reasons:
And while BEVs have heavy, hard to recycle batteries, they also have possibly the simplest drivetrain available. Everything is solid state, except for a few motor bearings, there's no fancy metals and there's very few components to the whole system.
Good points, this probably explains why I've not heard much about hydrogen fuel cell cars since modern electric cars picked up. Ultimately the hydrogen cars seem no worse than conventional ICEs, but given that EVs are developing pretty well now there's not that much need for the hydrogen ones anymore.
Yeah now I want to hear about it
I answered above your comment
Thx, good points
Disagreeing with the consensus of the post and the comments. When the post has an agenda or a viewpoint that every comment so far heartily agrees with, I just move on and let the little echo chamber echo.
Point out tankies' abundant similarities to the pigs in Animal Farm.
🇬🇴🇴🇩 🇹🇮🇲🇪🇸
I have no idea because I use browser tools to hide the element that shows vote scores. If people don't like what I have to say and want me to know about it they can take the time to write a response.
that was the most wasted up vote I ever gave.
🥲
When you wrestle a pig you get covered in mud and the pig enjoys it.
Calling out IDF trolls.
Then they amass, obfuscate the thread with a billion replies, manufacturing "outrage" and then mass report the whole thing and bam I'm banned from world news.
Literally didn't utter a single insult. But since I was adamant and making the IDF troll feel uncomfortable with the evidence that Israel is willfully slaughtering children, I was "being disrespectful" and they banned me.
And Americans get very triggered when you note that there is literally no evidence against the notion that gun control works. They just jump in with shitty NRA perpetuated fallacies. Never a lick of data to support their bullshit. And there's a mountain of studies proving gun control works. It works as surely as antibiotics.
Pointing out casual misogyny/sexism, it's extremely common on Lemmy (not surprising when the platform mostly only appealed to nerdy young dudes up until recently)
I've gotten downvoted for saying that full remote may not be the best for employers.
I had to resist the urge to downvote you right now.
Thank you.
And you are right. Even some employees might benefit from office days. I am quite a fan of „meeting days“, like one of the workdays is exclusively for meetings. And one of those in the month is onside.
Of course certain jobs cannot function remote or fully remote. Like if you have clients visiting you etc.
It's weird, everyone was rightly outraged at companies that forced employees to return to office, but that has somehow turned into any working in the office being evil. If you can work fully remote then that's great; some teams get a lot more done face-to-face. It's not a fucking conspiracy by the people who invested in office space rentals!
I got down voted and flamed because my career as a commercial wireman (construction) relies on offices being occupied. So much relies on employees being in these high rises people can't grasp the chain of economical collapses of these buildings being empty.
If someone is downvoted, someone else comments and gets upvoted, and you reply to the upvoted comment to defend the downvoted comment, you will get downvoted. Probably 95% of the time. It doesn't matter how right they are, or how mistaken the upvoted one is.
Especially getting into an argument with the upvoted one and hanging onto the downvoted one's side.
Also, being downvoted is likely to get you downvoted more. That contributes to the above effect.
Without pre-existing up/downvotes, the best way to get downvoted is to be needlessly aggressive without being funny.
To get a downvote from me, just try to use "of" as a verb. (E.g., "would of")!
You shoulda included "woulda" in your phrase list
Honestly, "woulda" is fine. It's like gotta', it's a typed out version of how something we actually say would sound. It doesn't look like it's trying to be a real word.
"Would of" is not something that anyone says. It's like mixing up "your" and "you're", except worse imo because it's like "of" is being used as an adverb/verb/auxiliary verb or something.
Siding with the police
Easy one. Communism is the future of mankind, prove me wrong
Anything that doesn't suck the dick of the gun lobby. Easily that. Second place isn't even close. Even just asking "how?" when they claim their guns are the solutions will get you downvoted. They'll ask questions and then downvote you for answering.
And of course, it's only in threads on gun violence (when they're doing damage control) or about marginalized groups (when they're drumming up sales). Make the same comments under a post they haven't thought to brigade and they won't be even slightly unpopular.
There are pro-gun people on Lemmy!?
I'm trying to change the way we refer to gun owners. I'm not settled on an actual name yet, but for the moment I'm referring to them as "shitebag cowards afraid of their own shadows"
It needs work, I admit
Not every gun owner is a POS like you say they are. A decent chunk of gun owners would be willing to give up their weapons if it legitimately helped society substantially. There's also legitimate reasons to have a gun if you have a home in a high-crime area or are otherwise a target. Why would you lump those groups in with NRA lobbyists?
Those are not the views of the people who represent them, nor does it routinely turn up in dicussions about gun control.
If guns actually delivered on this promise, America wouldn't have "high crime areas" in the first place. It would be the safest country in the world by a huge margin.
Instead, the crime rate in the USA is functionally identical to other wealthy countries, only with a layer of gun violence on top that the rest of the world simply doesn't have.
Americas gun laws help far more criminals than they dissuade. Even in the rare cases where a criminal can't just buy a gun from any store that sells them, "responsible gun owners" arm hundreds of thousands of criminals every year with their poorly secured firearms.
If they don't like being lumped in with lobbyists, reactionaries and idiots, they can take it up with them because I'm not going to include a 5 page "not all gun owners" disclaimer at the top of every post so that nobody gets their feelings hurt. This shit is killing people for fucks sake.
They hate when you refer to the legal gun owners who do mass shootings and execute their partners as "former responsible gun owners".
Not enough to stop selling domestic abusers guns or anything, but boy do they get pissy.
Being right 😂
I too suffer from always being the most correct person in every thread I visit 😮💨
Funny how that works
Posting links to the Epic Games store. Not praising it, not telling people to spend money on it, just posting links to their free game giveaways in a community specifically for free game giveaways, compete with a
[Epic]tag that they can filter out if they don't want to see it.Obviously the downvotes are a minority, but it's still a bit weird.
Any truth that upsets the hivemind.
I've learned that people who refer to communities as "hiveminds" sometimes just don't understand what they're doing wrong. Other times the community really is that bad.
Gaming communities are a great example of both
I've been lurking for months before joining and honestly, the voting appears quite random. If you post a comment early in any thread, it'll probably get upvoted even when it's totally silly and inane, as long if it can be construed as being in good faith. Write that same shit a few hours later, it'll go into the abyss.
I'd say it's still better than on That Other Site where you can get a good idea from the headline alone what the hackneyed 'top' comments will be like.
NTA - Your house, your rulez!1!!!1!1!
I'm broadly leftist, generally anti-authoritarian, and pro-civil rights and liberties.
...Including the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms of their choosing.
I tend to come off as an absolute asshole in all debates and arguments even when I am agreeing with people or praising them regardless of if I am right/wrong or winning/losing because I'm probably mildly on the spectrum.
I feel this in my bones (except I know I am in the spectrum).
Jup, I'm a high functioning autist and especially in written discussions I tend to get misinterpreted. I doesn't help that English is my 4th language either.
Also an Autist and english is my first language, don't blame your language skills too much, they will find a way to misinterpret you anyway, you can trust me on this.
Even before you mentioned the spectrum your self description reminded me of a friend of mine whos also on the spectrum. I am as well and let me tell you, I feel like on reddit and here we get downvotes if we drop the mask too far. Everyones looking for hidden meanings in all of our words and no one simply responds to what we say, they respond to what they think we mean and it's infuriating.
Saying something that is insufficiently negative about Elon Musk. Or Mark Zuckerberg, he's another one on the "villain" list.
Anyone with money doing public good is a recipe for a fun thread
Most fun I can recall recently was pointing out how Meta is actually one of the main driving forces behind the availability and development of open-source large language models. Meta's pytorch framework is one of the foundation pieces of many LLMs industry-wide. Meta has released a bunch of major open-source libraries and frameworks. Their open LLaMA model weights are the starting point for many fine-tuned models floating around out there.
But no, Mark Zuckerberg is an evil lizard man, so can't mention anything nice he might be responsible for.
Doesn't help that AI is a hot-button topic in its own right.
Lemmy is more usable than kbin so when I moved, I found myself posting and commenting more. I think I've received at least one downvote every time I've done anything. 😆
I don't mind. If it can improve some poor sad shlub's day slightly, smack my downvote.
Suggesting to stockbros that viewing money as both debt but also, specifically, debt that doesn't have to be paid back and isn't owed to anyone or anything anyway (thus making it, by definition, not debt) is, at best, problematic.
Tbf, most of them still think that federal banks create most of the money in circulation and, just to be clear, that is not true. The vast, vast majority of money in circulation is created by private banks when they issue loans.
Edit: sorry, I should add, money is debt. If its not debt, it's not money. A bank note is a fancy I.O.U.
I got downvoted recently for saying "If you’re friends with someone, wouldn’t you want to know if they’re also friends with someone problematic?" and "I would definitely want to know if my friends were close with people who’d been in prison."
Defending violence from the bland corporate talking points of non-violent resistance.
People will say the dumbest "violence is never the answer" and then get upset when you point out they clearly don't believe that.
Violence is a tool, and it should be used when necessary
This statement is an immediate bannable offense in many places, but the 2nd amendment allows for firearm ownership. Many states have stand your ground or home defense laws supporting lethal home defense. In America, our founding is justified by the need for violent resistance against tyrannical governments.
I know these aren't directly contradictory things, but it feels like doublespeak, the way the topics are viewed.
Pointing out that the replies to this thread are loaded with centrists and conservatives who are big amgy that they aren't praised for their genius when they take their right wing and centrist PoV opinions to known leftist and tanky instances instead of neutral discussion spaces.
Hey look, it's working!
Any comment in regards to better personal budgeting gets down votes and the typical "avocado toast" response.
Anytime I mention something vaguely positive about religion. I'm a former religious studies scholar who studied comparative religions. I have two degrees in the subject. I don't think I'm saying anything controversial: the main thing I usually write is that you cannot usually say that a religion is a monolith - they are pretty complex phenomenon with many variations within them. You can say that Salafis are the totality of Islam. You can't say that evangelicals are the totality of Christianity. You can't say 969 in Burma is the totality of Buddhism. You can't say Hindutva is Hinduism. You can't say that the Settlers on the West Bank are the totality of Judaism. Religions without any variation or complexity usually die after a generation or two. I don't just have these arguments online, I am used to have them with students and with friends. But nuance has few safe harbors on the internet....
trashing OS'es that I hate namely Windows and IOS so far. I get that it comes off as elitism and fine with getting downvoted. If I am expressing myself like this, than other users express themselves by downvoting. Nothing wrong here.
Most recently? Pointing out that the Soviet Union were serious contenders in the space race.
Taking a dump on Systemd apparently
Controversial stuff of course, but people here seem less likely to take the context of the post or comment into consideration than they did on reddit. The instance or community something is posted in doesn’t seem to make a difference. On lemmy you get a ton of public gut reactions like you would on twitter. This is opposed to a forum-style where posts only face ‘real’ public scrutiny if they become popular in their respective communities to the point where they hit the front page. Perhaps with more users this effect will diminish, although if mastadon grows substantially our posts will be viewed by a large number of people twitter-style which would substantially impact interaction quality imo.
I cannot speak for my downvoters, but if one were to go by what people say, it boils down to my hypergraphia/vocabulary, my opinions/conclusions on certain topics, and often what seems like hate for me that spans multiple places and leaks over to wherever I am.
Tried to follow the link but it's not working.
Really? It's a Lemmy one.
Apparently posting a very old meme that is funny because it's not funny. Also making a reference to something not many people know about, moaning about learning to use new software being waste of time (I don't understand what was the issue. Maybe I was off-topic), and having an opinion that Apple is any good.
No idea. I don't keep track
Pretty much anything anti-American or pointing out hypocrisy of the West. And just like Reddit, it gets removed and silenced often. Or just downvoted to oblivion and then name calling.
Lemmy is very much like Reddit in the sense that it is "one of us... One of us.... One of us"
no idea. never check.
Just mention you're vegan in passing on social media (as in 'this is something I don't eat anymore as I became vegan', for example) is a fine way to have some mouthbreather slurping at you about bacon and down voting your posts.
Misreading something. I have dyslexia and there have been times I misread a topic and then got super confused by the respond. Recently there was an article where Kamala Harris said to speed up Marijuana reclassification and my dyslexic brain read that as speed up research for marijuana. So I said that’s not how research works you can’t just speed it up and was so confused by everyone responding to me. Wasn’t til the next day I saw the post and read it properly. So usually my own foolishness.
There are a lot of people who still think nuclear power is the answer to all our problems. It really doesn't matter if I produce facts and evidence to show renewables are way cheaper and quicker to build, these people continue to reflexively downvote.
Not arguing either way, but I'd love to see the stats! Are you a proponent of nuclear energy as a piece of the solution, or would you rather see renewables used entirely instead?
I don't see a use case for new nuclear but existing plants should be kept running as long as it makes financial sense to do so.
Solar PV + Storage, Utility Scale = $46 - $102
Wind + Storage, Onshore = $42 - $114
Nuclear = $141 - $221
https://www.lazard.com/media/nltb551p/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf
Thanks for posting! Should be enough to follow the thread and look into it at least.
You’re correct about renewables being cheaper… but faster is a more nuanced discussion.
In the Canadian province I live in we generate 70% of our electricity with natural gas fired power plants. Roughly 20 TWh annually.
To replace that 20 TWh/yr with solar power, we’d need to build ~150 more solar farms the same size as the largest solar farm in Canada. Plus enough storage to cover the grid at night or when the weather is cloudy.
To replace that with nuclear power, we’d need 2 plants the same size as the smallest nuclear power plant in Ontario.
The nuclear plants are significantly more expensive than the solar, that much is certain.
But there are logistical limitations on how many new sources we can interconnect on the power grid in a given year. We simply can’t connect that much new renewables quickly.
It doesn’t need to be a choice, we can do both renewables and nuclear. But if we want to get off of fossil fuels in the next decade, nuclear will get us there sooner.
This is what I'm talking about.
Some comparables for new nuclear in the West:
"But throughout its decade of construction, the project has also been plagued by cascading delays and climbing costs. The first reactor was scheduled to come online in 2016; it’s hitting that milestone seven years later. The total price tag has more than doubled — to more than $30 billion."
https://grist.org/energy/first-us-nuclear-reactor-40-years-online-georgia/
It took more than 10 years and was massively over budget.
"The plant in Somerset, which has been under construction since 2016, is now expected to be finished by 2031 and cost up to £35bn, France’s EDF said. However, the cost will be far higher once inflation is taken into account, because EDF is using 2015 prices."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/hinkley-point-c-could-be-delayed-to-2031-and-cost-up-to-35bn-says-edf#:~:text=1%20month%20old-,Hinkley%20Point%20C%20could%20be%20delayed%20to%202031%20and,to%20£35bn%2C%20says%20EDF&text=The%20owner%20of%20Hinkley%20Point,cost%20£2.3bn%20more.
So current estimates are at least 15 years and also massively over budget.
Please tell me again how new nuclear will get us there sooner if we want to get off fossil fuels in the next decade.
I think you may have misunderstood friend. You’re not wrong and I’m not arguing against any of your points.
A wind or solar farm is indeed much faster and cheaper to build than a nuclear power plant. Wind and solar farms take 8-18 months on average. Recent nuclear power plants have been taking 7-10 years.
The nuance isn’t the time required for a single project, it’s the sheer number of renewable projects required that is the issue.
I live in Canada, a single digit number of nuclear power plants here could replace all of the fossil fuel based electricity generation in our grid. That’s something that could be built within 10 years.
We’d need ~1000 new wind and solar farms (not to mention storage) to do the same. We can’t make that happen within 10 years due to supply chain and grid interconnection bottlenecks limiting the number of concurrent projects we can do.
I would ecstatically overjoyed to be proven wrong about this. But we need to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and we can’t do that quickly with renewables alone.
Frankly we’re fucked either way, but we’re less fucked if we build nuclear power in addition to as much renewable power as we possibly can make happen.
Fair point, I get a little snippy on this subject due to the overwhelming amount of bullshit I encounter.
What do you think about this?
"Connecting solar and wind capacity levels needed to reach net-zero grids by 2035 could require as much as $25-50 billion in transmission investments. This includes spending on new interconnection facilities, network upgrades to existing transmission infrastructure, new high voltage lines to connect renewable rich areas and upgrades to inter-regional transmission capacity.'
https://economics.td.com/ca-interconnection-challenges
It sounds like it's mostly down to a lack of investment in the grid which is completely solvable pretty quickly. Given this, I'm still not seeing a case for new nuclear. Do you have any sources to support your argument that it's still needed?
Anything critical about Biden on /politics is big bad. Only on /politics though.
That's because they're trying to push a Trump loss more than they care about adhering to downvote rules. I mean, fair enough tbh.
I want people to represent themselves really well, through their writing. I forget to consider their feels.
Telling a joke that takes just a little bit of thinking to get and isn't immediately obvious.
Especially satire/sarcasm without denoting it with an "/s."
That's not a thinking problem that's a "there's not enough information in your post to tell" problem
The truth.
My most downvoted one should be about Nintendo and Yuzu, I think. I don't agree with some of their overly aggressive methods, but I argueed against emulation of the current gen and don't think it is wrong for them to try and stop it (which of course didn't work, that's a different topic). Sucks for Citra and Pizza though.
Read my comment history
I listen to, and enjoy, the Joe Rogan podcast.
What about it do you enjoy? 🤨
Being logical and telling people nuclear power isn't a good option when we have such cheap renewables and storage.
It wouldn't be my first choice, but it is surprisingly safe compared to other non renewable fuels, and quite efficient.
I am NOT advocating for building non-renewables.
I'm not sure you fully understand the amount of energy storage a country would need in order to run for days on just that while then also being able to recharge the storage while also powering itself when the wind does start blowing again.
One of us definitely doesn't understand utility scale storage very much, that seems true.
Well no wonder you get downvoted if this is how you deal with the subject.
One of us presented their argument couched in an ad-hominem then claimed the other person was behaving badly after the response.
I personally feel like I am understanding this situation, but I could be wrong.
Ad hominem? I simply expressed my doubt about your claim and even specified what I think the flaw in your argument to be. If I believe you to be wrong then by definition it means that you don't fully understand what you're talking about. I apologize if that came thru as an insult but that wasn't my intention.
You presented a highly unlikely scenario where there is no renewables generation "for days" with no explanation or caveats and intimated I didn't understand something about it. I believe I understand your scenario and I don't believe it's likely or should be heavily weighted when trying to plan and deploy utility scale storage.
Did I outline things clearly or do you want to clarify anything?
Hi different guy here. If it's at all likely to happen more than ~once a year it should be taken into account as a vulnerability of the system
I live in Finland. At winter time there's effectively zero solar energy production and more often than not the coldest days are also the calmest. On days like this the price of electricity skyrockets because closer to half of the energy production is down and we're entirely dependent on nuclear and hydro power. It's also when the need for heating is the highest. Conversely on a warm windy days the price of electricity sometimes falls to negative because of the massive amount of wind farms generating at full power.
It's not in any way unlikely scenario. It happens every single time the wind stops blowing at winter. For example literally at the moment of me writing this. Wind energy production is 57MW and Solar 2MW (granted that it's dark outside). Hydro 2000MW and nuclear 3000MW
You deserve those downvotes, it's much better than coal
I don't want any new coal plants ever. Not sure why you would think I did.
Because most people who don't like nuclear energy think we can all change everything to renewables right away. This is obviously not possible (otherwise countries not bound by the financial interests of oil companies etc. would have already done it); the real options to cover the gaps in renewables (until their tech develops) are nuclear or fossil fuels. Nuclear is significantly safer and less polluting than coal.
Renewable installations are growing at an incredible rate, a rate much much higher than older forms of generation.
Nuclear takes forever to build. I get the argument: it's all the regulations. Ok, but when your plant can potentially cause centuries of problems if stuff goes wrong, it needs regulation. We know we can't trust capitalism to make it safe.
It just makes sense based on their prices that renewables and storage are winning.
More likely you're getting downvotes for the fallacious "I'm obviously being the logical one, everyone disagreeing with me must be illogical" form your comment takes.
And deservedly so.
We are in a thread about down votes, friend.
Anything that contradicts the hateful propaganda of the American ruling class. Or if you write something progressive and anti-imperialist. For example, If you say that modern Ukraine is a corrupted right wing state, you get downvoted immediately. Or if you don't share their hatred of Russia, China, Communism and anything that is somehow different from their racist AmeriKKKan empire. Even from the anticommunist comments here, it's clear. Lemmyworld have a huge nazi problem.
"If gender is a social construct then gender dysphoria is a purely mental illness and treating it with surgery is abhorrent to the exact same level as lobotomising hysterical women in the past."
I assume downvotes still aren't being federated on kbin because a lot of my more nuanced opinions don't seem to get bombed into oblivion here like on the rest of the interwebs.
I know this is probably bait, but I'd figured I'd try to explain the flaw in that logic.
Ignoring the fact that gender dysphoria is a real thing whereas hysteria isn't, there's a more fundamental issue:
I'm not sure how you can make this your premise; back then hysteria was very much "a real thing". Also one could say that doctors have manipulated people undergoing surgery now into giving consent
I could go into academic research and stuff that shows that it is real, but honestly I wouldn't find that convincing myself anyway. Research into mental health has historically been very slow and problematic.
Instead, nowadays I like to look at this through the angle of consent and agency.
If you look into trans communities like on Reddit and the fediverse, you find that a lot of them have positive personal experiences with going through surgeries. This is something as a community they talk about and recommend to each other as something that will help. I guess you might find people that don't like it, or insist that there should be more nuance or whatever. I don't know, I'm not trans and don't want to speak for them. As outsiders, we have no right to say what they can and can't do with their bodies if it doesn't cause anyone else harm.
Female hysteria, however, has always been a possessive thing. It's always been my wife must have hysteria because she wants to vote. My wife must have something wrong with her because she refuses to do the dishes. The women themselves don't really have a say, and if they do they only get listened to if they are good little wives.
I'd be highly skeptical if doctors were able to manipulate trans people into having surgeries. For starters, in many nationstates trans awareness and support is non-existent at best and genocidal at worst. Doctors absolutely would not want to force an unnecessary treatment that is also frowned upon by the state. Trans people have to fight so hard to get all the diagnosis and paperwork that they need to feel happy, and they sure as hell wouldn't do that if they didn't know it was helpful.
And, of course, with the rise of the internet and easy communication, if any medical practice is considered unethical or unhelpful, the community would turn on it super fast. Look at how badly conversion therapy for LGBT and autistic folks is seen nowadays.
absolutely, consent is the key.
I still think gender is purely performative and surgery can't fundamentally change that (currently).
I hope one day we get rid of all trans people ... because they can finish transitioning. /bait
Those ideas get you banned, not downvoted.
Anywhere that bans ideas isn't a place I want to be anyway. The woke crowd are fond of saying sunlight is the best disinfectant and just as fond of unironically sweeping dissent under the rug.
Not being silenced by actual fascists and being able to interrogate my beliefs was key in becoming better informed on a lot of subjects that don't have any place in my actual life.
You're being downvoted because you're operating with a theoretical framework which doesn't match what we actually see in reality.
I guess that's a no to Discussions around the DiscWorld novels and DiscWorld universe then?
Actually DiscWorld is a major candidate to explain the fact that the Earth is flat yes, thanks for the heads up
Feminists's subjects,
Transgender's subjects,
Minority's subjects,
Leftists's subjects,
Yep, world is fucked.
You'll get downvoted for Right-leaning subjects farrrrr more quickly and harshly than ever espousing any kind of Left-leaning viewpoint.
What? Are you even on the same platform as us? Those are all popular, heavily upvoted subjects on Lemmy.
French and France as a nation, will always be untolerant ah ah.