Do you avoid discussing some topics online even if you have something you'd like to say about them?
I've been doing this for some time now. Even if it's something that I consider important.
I just don't see the value in participating in a discussion that I have seen countless times already where the same points and arguments happen over and over again. One that I know wilI turn ugly. It's exhausting and I've decided to just opt-out.
184
Comments115
Yeah on another community there is a single user who tends to say stupid stuff just to entice a hell thread I started arguing with them once I realized that there was no further need for the conversation I had won because they started calling me a liar I just block them and went about my day
Or worse yet, Americans.
If the question is open, e.g. "do you like apples?" and the question is in my area of interest, I usually give an answer. But if the question assumes an answer or is deliberately polarizing, e.g. "why don't you like apples?" I pass.
You know who else liked apples? Hitler. Coincidence? No.
Of course it’s not a coincidence. Everyone likes apples. If you disagree it obviously means you’re lying because everyone likes apples.
Everyone is Hitler?
That’s a great point! Not what I was driving at but the logic makes sense to me…
Secretly
How do you like dem apples?
As bottom jeans
Don't forget the boots with the fur.
In the middle of my third paragraph I deleted most of this comment and reminded myself, my perspective is not needed.
I've long stopped engaging in long political debates. Namely because every time, someone is debating you for the sole purpose of winning the argument. There isn't a lot of lee way made to admit fault or see the flaws of any arguments including their own. It just turns into a pointless debate that has no end.
Religion is the same.
It is hard sometimes to talk about the flaws about LGBTQ communities without being branded. There are flaws that I've seen with it and I know they're there and continue to be there. But nobody wants to admit it and hear it, so they just go straight to labeling.
All that anyone ever wants to hear anymore is just a validated response that confirms their opinion. Because people long forgot that opinions are opinions and not any scientific source.
I don't want to talk about it.
Tell me about it... actually, don't.
Religion.
Holy crap are do people on Lemmy seem to have a seething hate for them all. Not interested with debating over something we’ll disagree on. It’s just not a welcome topic here.
I think most of us are tired of the vocal minority that exist IRL that are actively harming others (especially lgbtq+, women, and minorities) and the silent majority that are complicit with it, especially in the US.
Religion also seems to have a hatred of every other belief, explicit or implicit, e.g. if you don't believe in Jesus, you deserve to be tortured eternally. Why would I be tolerant of people that think that's capital g Good?
Plus, how can you have a debate when one side won't keep to the basic rules of evidence.
One last thing you might notice is that it's probably not Buddhism or Daoism that get hostile reactions. That might be worth inspecting.
See, I think this is what they're talking about though. I hate Christianity. I was raised Protestant and because of other factors in my life, Christianity effectively ruined large swathes of my lifespan. It's still an active threat to me, and likely will be for my entire life. I'm likely to be a fairly stringent atheist forever.
All that said, edgy internet atheists are one of the most annoying archetypes to run into online. If even a whiff of a religious topic comes up, they pounce and nip and bark. They satisfy almost every stereotype the religious people have of them because they often seem to delight in the cruelty of knocking on beliefs. Like, my whole top comment still being relevant, religion has a reason to exist. It gives people feelings of hope, love, and belonging. Anyone who has experienced a lack of those can understand why people fall into religion and why it's like any other addiction.
I'm breaking one of my rules right now, talking about religion on social media, but I figured the "meta" aspect of this thread would make it productive. I hope I don't regret it.
Which edgy internet atheist are you referring to? I’m not understanding how your comment relates to the person you replied to?
Yknow, it's really something else to come into a thread discussing topics people don't want to talk about because they get treated to shitty behavior and sealioning, and proceed to sealion on one of those topics.
No one suggested any of the things you are ranting about though. That’s why I’m confused. Someone said that they don’t like talking about religion because it seems to them like lemmy users hate all religion. Someone else responded with a comment saying they believe it’s not all religions and it’s really specific things that most people seem to take issue with, and then you came in ranting about how they are the problem. Wtf?
I just don’t understand how you got that from their comment.
Not doing this with you. If you can't follow the logic between the post topic, this thread's OP, and the common experiences of anyone on the internet, that's fine, just don't discuss. Not going to do the thing where you're "just asking questions" and critiquing every pedantic little point along the way. That's sealioning and it's tiring and lame and why half of the people here don't want to discuss the issues they're bringing up. The only one here who can't seem to follow the logic is you.
Yeah that’s not what I’m doing. You specifically are not making any logical sense, and instead of engaging in conversation, you’re attacking. I was just confused if you misread the comment above you or you replied to the wrong person. Take a look in the mirror at all the accusations you’re hurling.
No, lately it’s literally been, “all religion is a scourge on humanity.” Christianity doesn’t even broach the subject anymore.
People online in general, and it's becoming people in society at large at an alarming rate.
Honestly that sentiment depends on where you are in the world.
There are some parts of the world where it's very common to discuss religion, there are other parts where it's taboo, like you say, it just depends on where you live in the world.
The cool thing is that the internet has brought us all together. However, I find it common that we also assume that others share the same "common sense" that we do, even when "common sense" itself can vary widely from one community to the next.
Yes. Especially Lemmy. People here love turning a discussion into an argument on shit they don't know much about. Subsequently some of the most brazen and obvious strawmanning, wild out of field assumptions, and gaslighting I've seen online—usually with a lot of not reading full comments or disregarding context or 90% of the comment in general. You can constantly call them out on it and try to direct discourse back onto topic instead, but it's almost always futile. For them, it was only ever a competition of feeling superiority of some kind.
I've never seen anything quite like it online. Reddit was mild in comparison.
So glad to see that others are noticing this too... The hive mind effect also feels even stronger than it used to on Reddit, probably because the audience here is less diverse.
Without knowing the data, I'm pretty sure I'm politically and ideologically quite aligned with much of Lemmy's overall user base. Still, often when I point out misinformation or misconceptions even if they "don't fit the narrative" of what I broadly believe, I get downvoted without anyone even responding with a counter argument. It's extra frustrating because I know I probably agree with the opinions of those people downvoting me, it's just that I believe there's more nuance to many topics that I would like to discuss, but unfortunately the Lemmy audience acts as if everything is a black & white situation.
This. I am a leftist, but not the kind who thinks Lenin's self serving ideas translate very well into the modern world. Which in Lemmy terms, apparently makes me a fascist.
More recently I seem to just be a marked man anywhere on .ml, after questioning some seriously petty moderating decisions.
When you're somewhere whose TLD is "Marxist-Lennism" (or some other conjugation thereof), then of course you'd be targetted for being an outsider unless you're literally communist, lol
Lemmy is honestly a pretty awful intersection of censorship and extremism. Reddit is shit because of the monetization push, but Lemmy is honestly far worse when it comes to just normal discussion being randomly removed for stepping outside a very particular orthodoxy.
I disagree. The thing about Lemmy is that if you don't like a specific instance, you can just block it. I spend most of my time in the danish instance feddit.dk and there we have plenty of debates and discussion. I think the beauty of Lemmy is that it no echochamber can reach beyond a specific instance. So yes, there may be extremist instances, but I just don't go there. I stay where the debates are sound and in good faith.
As admitted by some, Lemmy is a haven for outcasts who are insecure and in need of some sort of validation. They're clingy about the things that provide it and touchy about things that threatens it, thus projecting an intensity in their interactions.
I see it as coping with helplessly living within an unfair reality. We need more zen in our lives.
Any comment starting with some varient of "So you..." can almost always be ignored. I think they're framed as summarising an opponents position to lay bare an obvious flaw. But, to me aleast, they just out the commenter as being ignorant or malicious. Ignorant of what the comment they're replying to said, or maliciously trying to misrepresent it.
I think it speaks to a broader problem of online rhetoric where person X tells person Y what person Y thinks and why (and most importantly why they're wrong to think this way) instead of asking them.
my new year’s resolution this year was stop wasting time replying to dumbasses online
it’s not going very well but it’s the thought that counts. we’ll get em next year
Yep, I have written huge comments on my phone, only to hit cancel when I realize that I don't have the energy to deal with it.
In my industry, people can get very toxic really quickly over minor details. I've decided quite a few times to just let things go, even if they are blatantly wrong.
You end up in a situation where the person on the other end really just does not want to drop it, has to "win" no matter what. Even if the subject in itself was something you went to school learning/writing a paper on.
The people that need to "win" drive me crazy. It's not enough to them if you concede on some points, it's not enough if you agree to disagree, they just have to be right 100%, and you realize they won't be happy unless you say "Sorry, I was wrong and you were right." and bow to their superior intelligence.
I've made the mistake of engaging with people like this before and it was a nightmare. Like you said, they wouldn't just drop it, even after I explicitly said "Sorry, but we are going in circles here, we should just end it." after an hour long discussion, where they could've easily taken their "W" from me walking away.
I get the distinct impression that some people are simply unable to concieve of a perspective different from their own. For lack of a better comparison, it's like those Christian movies where everyone, including the atheist, openly believes God exists, but the atheist chooses to be an atheist out of spite or malice or whatever. So for some, disagreement is at best you being a troll or shill or bot, and at worst a frontal attack at their entire conception of the world.
Usually in online arguments I don't expect to convince the person I'm arguing with, but to show anyone else reading the thread that an opposing opinion exists. But that said, sometimes I simply don't engage if I don't have the energy.
I do appreciate posts like those.
My objective when I look through a comment thread, especially in a topic I don't know much about, I'm looking for the well reasoned posts. I admit I'm a human (confirmed via captchas) and love to have my opinions validated, but I also like to read a different take on a situation or issue. And because I am not in a situation where I don't feel like I have to defend my opinion I'm more open to seeing a different perspective.
So thank you for taking the time to write those out - and to others that do that thank you as well.
This! You can never "win" or get the last word, but you can get the other person to show how bad their arguments are. You just have to trust that others will decide on what is right correctly.
What you’re doing isn’t a bad thing. I went through something similar.
Your mental health is more important than any online discussion could ever be. If that means less food for the trolls and sealions, so be it.
I know you're trying to say the opposite, but I agree with the sealion in this regard. The human was being racist, and when the sealion chalkenged them to actually defend their beliefs they proved that they couldn't, and instead of admitting they didn't have any logical reason to hate sealions, they made excuses such as them being busy with other things, when they could have ended the discussion quickly by admitting they were wrong for hating sealions - or, if they did have a good reason for hating sealions, saying it. He was dodging the question and putting it on the sealion for being rude.
You forgot /s right?
Right?
Replace 'sealions' with 'black people'. Do you still think it's ok?
Sealioning is not about the content of the discussion. It is about a discussionstyle.
Don't get the two mixed. If you're trolling: good job! Have some meaningless internetpoints from me!
If you genuinly don't know what the problem with sealioning is, I suggest you read up on it some more:
"Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points—with a loudly-insisted-upon commitment to reasonable debate. It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target's patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. While the questions of the "sea lion" may seem innocent, they're intended maliciously and have harmful consequences. — Amy Johnson, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (May 2019)"
I can see why only seeing that comic makes you come to questions like you asked ("what if it were black people?") But these questions are questions about content rather then the form of sealioning. Of course it is not wrong to ask for sources in a debate. Or to ask questions. It is however, harmful to impose bad-faith, or even ignore boundaries that are given by the other party (hence the sealion being in bed with its debater in the comic, which is entirely inappropriate of the sealion.)
Or another definition:
*"Internet trolls sometimes engage in what is called 'sealioning'. They demand that you keep arguing with them for as long they want you to, even long after you realize that further discussion is pointless. If you announce that you want to stop, they accuse you of being closed-minded or opposed to reason. The practice is obnoxious. Reason should not be silenced, but it needs to take a vacation sometimes. — Walter Sinnot-Armstront, Think Again: How to Reason and Argue (June 2018)." *
Now you see why I didn’t even bother replying
Yeah, I thought about discarding the whole explanation beneath it. But then I remembered that the first time I saw the sea lion comic I was kind of confused about what sealioning was and had similair questions.
If interpreted wrong, the sealion comic seems like a fight against questions and evidence. I interpreted it like that the first time I saw that comic. Now I know better though 😜.
I’m a massive Doctor Who fan and discourse surrounding it has been ‘difficult’ for the last few years. As the quality of the show has varied, some fans have denounced more recent series, and others have become angry that they don’t enjoy the same things as they do. At the end of the day we’re all fans of Doctor Who, we just can’t agree what Doctor Who is, but I think we should accept that and all let each other enjoy the Doctor Who we want to.
Yes.
I won't discuss politics, and I won't share personal info about myself in general
Yeah sometimes I have what might be decent input on a topic but it would then start painting a picture of my profession, so I don't. That also goes for some questions that I have which I could use help with, but are specific enough that I don't post them. It's likely that it doesn't matter; but the whole "the Internet doesn't forget" piece is something to be a little careful about, unfortunately
Absolutely. Not even just online, but IRL too.
I'm a software engineer that works on tech that's extremely contentious in public discourse. Most people have pretty negative assumptions about myself and my work to the point that I hate talking about it. Even most people in my industry can be a bit insufferable. So I'd rather just keep my mouth shut and keep doing my own thing.
I think meal prepping sucks donkey balls and most food that is meal prepped tastes like crap after its sat in the fridge/freezer. I have been personally attacked on more than one occasion for bringing this up so I just don't anymore.
Same here when it comes to food/taste. I criticised vegan mortadella(mostly water and oil) at some point and people absolutely lost it. Got some angry DMs by vegans explaining the concept of enjoyment to me. Not doing that again.
I've met some very kind vegans in real life, but the ones online can be downright vicious.
It cannot be healthy for a person to be that angry all the time. Sorry you experienced that and don't blame you for avoiding it now. People go absolutely insane over weird stuff, especially food related topics. It's weird how much folks stress themselves out over what others are eating/not eating/how their eating it.
Veganism itself is honestly a bit of a cult. In many ways it is an extremist moral position which actually takes on some pretty unhealthy habits just in case fish have feelings.
Huh, I freeze containers of big batches of curries, gumbo, even pastas all the time and they’re still great months and months later.
It really helps choosing the things that work best to freeze. For example chicken breasts suck when reheated, it's the nature of the cut of meat. It's so easy to dry out chicken breast. Additionally, I never freeze starches unless they are "drowned" in sauce. Freezing a bunch of fries is not going to lead to a nice meal later but freezing a stew which has potatoes in it works. Minced meat is very forgiving, same too with chicken thighs, drumsticks. Anything with a higher fat content and already has sauce.
Good Examples: I'll freeze Bolognese sauce, no pasta. Cook the pasta on the day. Curries without rice. Stews. Soups. All of these with fattier cuts of meat and with sauce covering the food. Maybe it protects it. All of these can even taste better from the freezer somehow.
Bad examples: lean steak, pork chops, vegetables. Essentially, anything which has to be cooked almost perfectly to be good. Fresh fruits are gonna suck texturally also but they will be absolutely perfect in smoothies, sauces, syrups etc.
People perceive food very differently. Reheated food tends to have very different texture than fresh, which some people don't mind (or even prefer), especially people who grow up eating lots of frozen food and leftovers.
See I grew up eating a lot of frozen stuff and I think that's why I don't like it. But you're right it's totally a matter of opinion. I also really enjoy cooking so that helps.
All food or just some food? I'd agree with the latter but not the former
I think most foods. Soup, stew, and some sauces I'm fine with reheated/leftover. I still think it changes the flavor though and for sure screws with the texture. Air fryer/convection ovens make some things okay to reheat but again still screws with flavor/texture. I personally just would rather make meals fresh.
Some people just prefer meal prepping and that's fine. There's also a fairly sizable contingent of people that if you asked them if they could just take a pill instead of eating they would be perfectly happy doing so. It's just not for me. I personally really like to cook and I also enjoy eating the things I cook. So I'm kind of on the other side of that spectrum.
Yeah. I figure there's little to no point trying to engage with people online anout topics I feel strongly about. And I mean anything. Like I quit trying to convince people Mike V is actually a worthless skateboarder and king of the kooks, all the way down to the Sex Pistols are a boy band. Not to mention actually important topics like healthcare and reproductive rights. Though, I've quit doing it irl too. I think if anyone I talk to can be convinced to change their mind after talking to me, they're just going to change their mind next time someone else tries. I find it's better to just be the person I want more people to be and live by example. It's the same thing I tell my kids- strive to be the person you want as a friend.
But I also tell my kids no one is allowed to play guns and roses in my house, so come to your own conclusions.
I made this same decision for myself explicitly just a few days ago. It's just bad for my mental health to constantly be arguing with people online, especially with how easily online discussions turn sour in tone. It's so incredibly rare to have an actual fulfilling discussion where both sides are open to having their minds changed, and thus there's really no point to it.
Yes, I do. Sometimes I disagree with something but I know my opinion will not be appreciated and I will be called names for just a different opinion. Often, it's not that I out those opinions in public but I just think them to myself but let other people be as they are. But that nuance will not come across online.
Lemmy has some awful communities (no names), that are heavily skewed in one political view, and discussing anything other than their "absolute facts" or agreeing with the group gets you heavily downvoted and insulted.
It's not a friendly place at times.
After leaving Kbin (for unrelated reasons), where those spaces are blocked by default, I started to wonder if I should leave Lemmy, then realized it was not all that way but only certain spaces, easily blocked ever since 0.19.3. (Reddit had become virtually all that way, so it was making sense to me to think that social media was just becoming that way in general.)
However, saying the names of those spaces out loud is likely to trigger removal by a mod.
This is a real problem for wanting the Fediverse to grow in the future, as unsuspecting new people see that and - the sane ones anyway - don't want any part of it. Every one of us, unless we were warned, learned the hard way about "those places". By ignoring the issues, e.g. by leaving it up to each individual user to block those instances, we allow this situation to perpetuate. I for one think it would be far friendlier to block any instance where there is a >75% chance that a new user would be not merely downvoted but outright insulted and make such communities opt-in rather than the current situation of needing to first detect which ones are that way and then opt-out of each one individually.
Some topics are way too depressing for me to talk about.
I do it because I don't really mind a shit show, but I 100% understand those who want to remain out of it. Lemmy is insanely toxic at times and it's sometimes made me reconsider this platform.
One of the things I used to love about Reddit (obviously pre-enshitification) was the openness and willingness within the community to listen to other perspectives and the calm and intelligent discussion of ideas. That became less and less and I miss it. Lemmy gets that herd mentality and if you don’t 100% agree on all points with certain ideas here then you’re just wrong and downvoted away. So I just choose not to engage
I don't think it's the platform so much, I think there's an inevitability about communication quality dropping as audience size increases
I don't know, there are a lot of nut jobs around here ...
I think Lemmy has large communities of people who are here because...
I think that third group is what tends to cause those issues, lol
IDF and Hamas in the context of warfare.
I just have an interest in modern conflicts, but there's usually a humanitarian crisis that I don't want to overshadow and or discredit.
Most people here (afaik) aren't part of combat communities so there's no point talking about strategy or objectives unless it has an impact on the broader issue.
That kinda sucks. I'm an odd one myself in that I'm extremely interested in history and as an extension war since it has been a huge part in shaping.... Everything. I am simultaneously very anti war politically because of the horrors of course but I do also want to think about strategies etc. Are there any good communities that discuss this without just descending into who's side people should be on. For example I'm on Ukraine side but I can totally enjoy thinking about the question "what do Russia need to achieve to take region X, why is it important to them, what's the timeframe and what equipment is needed". I have read/watched plenty about war strategies up to WW2, maybe a bit of Vietnam etc. Nothing modern really.
Are you the US government?
Lemmy when Stalin starves ten million Ukrainians: 🙈
Lemmy when Mao starves ten million Chinese: 🙉
Information is competition if it can change the world. Information is informative if it is widely known and simply repeated. Choose what innovative thoughts you share carefully. They spread timelessly to open minds once they’re out.
Gender-related stuff is usually good to stay away from if you have anything even slightly critical to say about women and don’t phrase it correctly (such that women can’t be blamed for it). Saying positive/negative stuff is fine for men, bonus points if you bring up how nobody cares about them. Go ahead and downvote me, prove me right.
I tend to avoid certain taboo topics because I assume some day all my social media posts will be linked back to me and I don't have faith in people being capable of understanding all the nuance in what I'm saying and it'll just make it seem like I'm saying something I'm not.
I also don't discuss drugs because they're illegal and I don't do drugs and neither should you and even if you do you're better off shutting the fuck up about it.
Yeah - I left Reddit long before the API crackdown because I realized people don't create special interest subreddits to actually have a mature, intelligent discussion about their topic. They rather are places of worship, where criticism or rather anything but complete adulation is seen as "off topic" at best and as blasphemy at worst. And I'm not even talking about remotely political subreddits, rather than subreddits about e.g. cooking, podcasts, movies, music, etc. The result of which is of course is a completely imbecile crowd of people whose personality is 100% made up of being a fan of some thing, and who are unable to not discuss anything about that thing on a theoretical, non-personal basis. The type of people who send self-made cookies to podcasters hoping to become IRL friends with them ;-)
I discuss all topics that are within the rules to discuss.
Oh really? Name every topic.
The ones I discuss or the ones that are against the rules?
No, the topics that are ALLOWED by the rules
There are too many to list.
Yes and I’ve largely opted out of the same conversations irl too, for my own mental health I have to check out of certain conversations
Yes. But more importantly, I find myself (in hindsight of course) participating in conversations I probably should not be participating in to begin with.
I have a bad habit of leaping without always looking. If you look at my comment history, I’m sure it’ll stick out like a sore thumb. But that is my proverbial cross to bear, and it’s something I feel like I’m getting better at.
But, that aside, there are plenty of things I’d love to discuss with people that I know would not be received well, or like you said, have been discussed to death.
Great question!
All the time.
Yes, sometimes. Though I try to remember that one of the reasons for that phenomenon is just that new people are entering the environment every day, something that will never end. It's easy to think it's always the same people arguing, but it's not. There's just a lot of different people in the world.
When I think it's possible to try to improve the discourse over what we've seen in the past, I'll sometimes make an attempt. When I have the time and energy for it anyway, I don't always.
i usually do. it also helps to check first if the sub is light-hearted and sharing is very welcome.
there's a chance the sub is already at a devolving to name slinging and memes and that requires a different touch.
The block button works for me
Yeah, and the worst is when people are talking about something I know a lot about, getting virtually every detail wrong, and I have to resist saying anything because I know my input will either be ignored, or worse, straight up unwelcome.
Luckily the blessing of being dumb as bricks is that that doesn't happen a lot, but I sure hate when it does.
People are only ready to receive so much Truth.
And
evenespecially then, likely with anger.... and ofc that includes ourselves as well btw.
It's not all that different from irl conversations then, except you cannot look in each others' eyes to gauge sincerity. So ask yourself: why have irl conversations at all - especially when you know they will turn ugly? We cannot really help you further b/c you have hidden behind an alt account here, though I hope this gives you some stuff to think about.
Honestly, my only thought right now is "?"
I don't understand this, do you think I'm someone else from here that's using an alt? Because if you do, I'm not, you got it wrong.
I do avoid some conversations IRL because I know they will get ugly and me giving my opinion isn't necessary or important. There's a saying in my country about never discussing politics or religion. Seeing how some people can get when you disagree with them, I've found it wise to follow it.
Yes because there are certain areas where paid actors, including bots, overwhelm any organic discussion. I have discussions about stuff like that in private chats with people I actually know.
I was typing something, was going to just delete. So yeah
Yeah, there's plenty of topics I avoid discussing on the internet. I'm not here for an argument.
it's been 8 hours and there's no reference to the Monty Python "argument sketch". That's refreshing.
No it isn't.
I don't mind discussing politics or religion, even though I don't repeat myself in the same discussion and don't engage with trolls. However, I absolutely never discuss my family, my personal matters and my racist views.
False. Black bear.
No
Maybe try a more formal debate setting? I know there are some places like "the crucible" that facilitate that.
I doubt you will find anything on Lemmy unless you start up a highly moderated community. Even then, people can bring questions against the moderators.
Discussion and debate are pretty lawless in nature.
I certainly do. Every internet community is a bubble and I do not appreciate getting into fights with a brigade of people who hate me just for having an opinion that does not align with their dogma.
That's probably smart. Even with important things I don't think online arguments have ever swayed anyone. I like being an annoying vegan and arguing about it occasionally, but sometimes it's just frustrating and I have to disconnect for a while.
I actually like annoying vegans. The truth is that you are right and I just don't care enough about the planet. You're far better people than I am. I also think that's an awfully frustrating thing to say to a vegan.
The cognitive dissonance says i should really try to make some kind of vegan food... Don't give up.
I can respect that. I was once where you are and one day I just decided I couldn't justify it anymore. Now I only eat sticks and moss.
But if you wanna try making some vegan food my advice is just don't overthink it, make some pasta and just pan fry some veggies you like and mix 'em through with some olive oil. It's always a tasty time.
Absolutely and specially in this place. But most topics are ok.
Just pretend that we all vaccinate when we are told and you will be fine. :)
Yes there are topics I avoid.
I also weigh in on them, but not as often as I feel the urge.
My plan is to comment less, with higher quality.
Yeah. On my personal pages I either unfollowed or deleted so many people so I don't have to deal with it. On places like lemmy it's not worth the energy.
Sometimes I can't help myself though. I was taught to stand up for myself and for other people as well so it's hard for me to sit back on certain conversations. Somehow this week I actually changed someone's mind (Not on lemmy). It's confusing when that happens lol
Several I never comment on or engage with, several I comment on and very few topics I engage with.
Yeah, there are a few things I can't discuss. I was trying to discuss antisemitism with a group of Jewish people and that was clearly a discussion where there was no point even conversing. Merely asking for information was too much. It's a shame because I've learned a lot from various groups who have expanded my world view by sharing their understanding with me. But ultimately I think any area of discussion can end up being painful and pointless if the people you're conversing with have immovable beliefs - climate change, identity politics, socialism /capitalism are all possible tar-pits