What are some conversation nonstarters in mainstream Lemmy.World?
-
What is your intention with this response? Do you expect me to suddenly give you something you value as a response? That would be silly based on the conversation this far.
You never replied to the question in the post. You just came in with your own silly anti-AI agenda. Essentially showing that this discussion is a nonstarter for you. So I guess this was a valuable discussion after all.
-
No, most people here are mostly well-off and from rich countries, that refuse to even try to understand other people and their positions. While pretending to be open to ideas and other culturs and views. It has little to do with reality.
-
You never replied to the question in the post. You just came in with your own silly anti-AI agenda. Essentially showing that this discussion is a nonstarter for you. So I guess this was a valuable discussion after all.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]You never replied to the question in the post.
I think you might be hallucinating.
-
You never replied to the question in the post.
I think you might be hallucinating.
Just say what you’re alluding to
-
We have a funny thing going as a society where we say violence is always bad on one hand, and then have men solving things with violence as the plot of all our fiction. If you're poor, the state monopoly on violence is also not invisible, so the first message seems as hypocritical as it is.
I'd really, really love it if we had a more balanced discussion that could actually reach AMAB people. I do think socialisation is the main problem here.
Yup. It all starts with how we’re raising boys and what societal norms they’re expected to conform to. The main avenues that we give men to receive approval are limited to physical strength and violence, emotional toughness, sexual prowess/penis size, financial and social power and logical aptitude (which is waning as of late).
If you don’t meet these standards then you have to work hard to internally accept yourself and two of the skills men aren’t taught to practice are emotional intelligence and community building, hence the lonely male epidemic and resulting fits of violence.
We need to raise boys differently, and build a society where they have opportunities to build self-worth and have a community to lean on without feeling ashamed to need emotional support.
All that to say that today we have an epidemic of violent, emotionally inept, unsuccessful men.
-
I'm convinced people railing against wokeness are just AI bots at this point. OP, can you prove you are not a stochastic parrot without saying something silly?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Countering arguments with ad-hominem puts you right up there with AI bots when it comes to providing value to online discussions.
-
Yup. It all starts with how we’re raising boys and what societal norms they’re expected to conform to. The main avenues that we give men to receive approval are limited to physical strength and violence, emotional toughness, sexual prowess/penis size, financial and social power and logical aptitude (which is waning as of late).
If you don’t meet these standards then you have to work hard to internally accept yourself and two of the skills men aren’t taught to practice are emotional intelligence and community building, hence the lonely male epidemic and resulting fits of violence.
We need to raise boys differently, and build a society where they have opportunities to build self-worth and have a community to lean on without feeling ashamed to need emotional support.
All that to say that today we have an epidemic of violent, emotionally inept, unsuccessful men.
All that to say that today we have an epidemic of violent, emotionally inept, unsuccessful men.
Do we, though? I'm not sure if you've come across the Male Sedation Hypothesis but it basically argues that we should be seeing more violence from disenfranchised young men - and yet we aren’t. The hypothesis suggests that this is largely due to porn, video games, and drugs. Rather than acting out, many men are withdrawing from society into their mom’s basements, supplementing real-life relationships and career success with virtual equivalents.
-
I’ve found a few and they seem to be growing as of late:
- questions about Lemmy demographics
- anything discussing negative effects of porn
- benefits of AI
- negative effects of “wokeness”
- critiquing of individuals in trans community
- calling out men as predominant perpetrators of violence towards women
- anything US pro-conservative
One topic that I’ve noticed used to be a nonstarter and is now popular is anti-democrat conversation.
What are other nonstarters you’ve experienced?
EDIT: seemingly asking people what the community doesn’t want to talk about is a nonstarter
EDIT: calling out men as being predominate perps of violence is NOT a nonstarter and accepted within the community. A select few think that’s being a terf but they are wrong.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]> Claims they want to start a conversation
> Acts offended when people actually start a conversation about their posts
-
Just say what you’re alluding to
wrote on last edited by [email protected]You are right in that I never answered the question asked. However, I would not say the conversation is a nonstarter, I asked you a question and you answered it well. That sounds like a discussion to me...
-
Countering arguments with ad-hominem puts you right up there with AI bots when it comes to providing value to online discussions.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Not really... AI bots are bad at providing value because they have no values and don't understand context. You can deliver a scathing reproach that has value as long as it fits the context and reflects your values. But do you consider your response an ad-hominem?
-
Not really... AI bots are bad at providing value because they have no values and don't understand context. You can deliver a scathing reproach that has value as long as it fits the context and reflects your values. But do you consider your response an ad-hominem?
Yes, really. You're effectively saying “everyone who disagrees with my worldview is a bot,” which is a textbook example of ad hominem - dismissing a position based on who is assumed to hold it rather than engaging with the argument itself. That kind of framing is both delusional and extremely bad faith.
To your question: no, what I said isn't ad hominem. Criticizing someone for making an ad hominem isn't the same thing. I'm not using a personal attack to avoid addressing your argument - I'm pointing out that you’re using personal attacks to avoid having one. There's a difference between attacking someone instead of responding to their point and calling out someone for refusing to make one.
-
Yes, really. You're effectively saying “everyone who disagrees with my worldview is a bot,” which is a textbook example of ad hominem - dismissing a position based on who is assumed to hold it rather than engaging with the argument itself. That kind of framing is both delusional and extremely bad faith.
To your question: no, what I said isn't ad hominem. Criticizing someone for making an ad hominem isn't the same thing. I'm not using a personal attack to avoid addressing your argument - I'm pointing out that you’re using personal attacks to avoid having one. There's a difference between attacking someone instead of responding to their point and calling out someone for refusing to make one.
everyone who disagrees with my worldview is a bot
I hardly consider my opinion on AI a "worldview". It is an observation that generative AI use in decision making and creativity reduces cognitive activity. Yes I asked OP to disprove me in an "ad-hominem" manner though. I guess we violently agree on that?
-
everyone who disagrees with my worldview is a bot
I hardly consider my opinion on AI a "worldview". It is an observation that generative AI use in decision making and creativity reduces cognitive activity. Yes I asked OP to disprove me in an "ad-hominem" manner though. I guess we violently agree on that?
Nobody has claimed your views on AI count as a worldview, nor are they in any way relevant to this discussion. The discussion is about you blanket dismissing everyone who criticizes “wokeness” as a bot.
-
Nobody has claimed your views on AI count as a worldview, nor are they in any way relevant to this discussion. The discussion is about you blanket dismissing everyone who criticizes “wokeness” as a bot.
Okay then, swap out AI with wokeness, it still doesn't come to the level of a "worldview". It is still an observation.
-
Okay then, swap out AI with wokeness, it still doesn't come to the level of a "worldview". It is still an observation.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]You can swap out "worldview" with any other term you like as that is neither relevant to the discussion. You're getting hung up on terms and completely ignoring the substance of my argument.
-
You can swap out "worldview" with any other term you like as that is neither relevant to the discussion. You're getting hung up on terms and completely ignoring the substance of my argument.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Yes I had an inflammatory response. I honestly don't perceive OP as making a good faith argument when they say "negative effects of wokeness". It's a thought terminating cliche.
-
Yes I had an inflammatory response. I honestly don't perceive OP as making a good faith argument when they say "negative effects of wokeness". It's a thought terminating cliche.
You're doing a lot of dodging here. The original comment you made wasn’t a neutral “observation” about AI’s impact on cognition - it was a blanket dismissal of people who criticize wokeness by claiming they're bots. That’s textbook ad hominem: attacking the people instead of engaging with what they're saying.
Since then, you’ve shifted the conversation multiple times - from AI and cognition, to whether “worldview” is the right word, to tone and intent - none of which address my original criticism: that dismissing someone as a bot simply for expressing a particular opinion is intellectually lazy and corrosive to actual discussion.
You can claim it's just “an observation” all you want, but the reality is that you made a personal attack in place of an argument. I'm not criticizing you for being mean - I'm criticizing you for sidestepping the discussion entirely.
If you think critics of wokeness are wrong, then show why. Don’t just insult them and pretend that counts as insight.
-
You're doing a lot of dodging here. The original comment you made wasn’t a neutral “observation” about AI’s impact on cognition - it was a blanket dismissal of people who criticize wokeness by claiming they're bots. That’s textbook ad hominem: attacking the people instead of engaging with what they're saying.
Since then, you’ve shifted the conversation multiple times - from AI and cognition, to whether “worldview” is the right word, to tone and intent - none of which address my original criticism: that dismissing someone as a bot simply for expressing a particular opinion is intellectually lazy and corrosive to actual discussion.
You can claim it's just “an observation” all you want, but the reality is that you made a personal attack in place of an argument. I'm not criticizing you for being mean - I'm criticizing you for sidestepping the discussion entirely.
If you think critics of wokeness are wrong, then show why. Don’t just insult them and pretend that counts as insight.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]If you think critics of wokeness are wrong, then show why. Don’t just insult them and pretend that counts as insight.
Why would someone take the time to explain something to someone arguing in bad faith? Sounds like a foolish endeavor.
I'll leave you with the words from OP elsewhere in this thread because it equally applies to you:
Thanks, but I didn’t ask that and your assertion is based on your own bias/opinion
