What is your most lukewarm take?
-
Something that's not super controversial, but you still really stand by it.
The future ain't what be it used to be.
-
I don't want to hear about your dog or baby.
What about baby dogs?
-
There's no incentive for showing compassion online, apart from virtue signaling
That's a very depressing take, and I think it says more about you than anything else.
-
People who are the most uptight about manners and language are the rudest and most vile shit talkers.
A great realization that I had was that many of my language pet peeves were really preferences and not hard and fast rules. Language constantly evolves, regardless of how any one person feels. Clinging to my pet peeves was really just a form of elitism.
-
What about baby dogs?
oh, go on then
-
Something that's not super controversial, but you still really stand by it.
The most important political issues are education and the environment, because those determine the future.
-
What about baby dogs?
I don't like puppies. Also unrelated Christmas. I'm a kid's cartoon antagonist ready to happen.
-
Something that's not super controversial, but you still really stand by it.
We're about due for another asteroid impact.
-
That's a very depressing take, and I think it says more about you than anything else.
What does it say about me? I don't think online culture promotes compassion, although I think it's the main value in human existence
-
This makes so little sense. Why would I care about signalling my 'virtue' to a bunch of anonymous people who have no idea who I am? I can say something nice or harsh because I believe it was affect the people who read it, even though I'll never meet them. That is rational even if it doesn't benefit me, if I care about the experiences of other people. But acting a certain way to gain positive regard for an anonymous identity is dumb af.
And the main reason I or anyone else acts compassionately online is probably just that it's the first and easiest reaction. I don't troll or harass people, even if I would suffer no consequences from it, simply because I have no interest in doing so. I say something nice because that's what I want to say, it's not an effort or a cost.
I think you missed the point completely. What I meant is people are busy sending thoughts and prayers to war & disaster victims but fail to show true compassion when someone online is going through a difficult time or otherwise misguided
-
There's no incentive for showing compassion online, apart from virtue signaling
I think most people get a dopamine response from being kind.
-
What does it say about me? I don't think online culture promotes compassion, although I think it's the main value in human existence
Phrasing matters here. There are many similar words you could have used, and I would probably agree with many of them, but you went with:
There's no incentive for showing compassion online, apart from virtue signaling.
If you believe there is NO other reason to be nice, other than virtue signaling, that means that EVERY time you see someone being nice online, you assume that they are only doing it to create the illusion of being a nice person.
This is where phrasing comes in.
If you said many or most people are only nice for this reason, we could debate the quantity, but for the most part I'd agree with that.
But you said there is no other incentive. I have no interest in virtue signaling, but I do like to be compassionate online. I can think of various reasons why I personally show compassion online. Since you can't think of a single other reason, it must be because you've never experienced them. I must assume that any time that I see you showing compassion, it must be because you are virtue signaling, because that's the only reason you've ever experienced, and you assume that everyone else is doing the same.
Perhaps you didn't mean exactly what you wrote, but based on the words you used, that's what you told us.
-
Something that's not super controversial, but you still really stand by it.
I like putting black cardamom in my chai
-
Something that's not super controversial, but you still really stand by it.
A violent revolution won't solve anything
-
Phrasing matters here. There are many similar words you could have used, and I would probably agree with many of them, but you went with:
There's no incentive for showing compassion online, apart from virtue signaling.
If you believe there is NO other reason to be nice, other than virtue signaling, that means that EVERY time you see someone being nice online, you assume that they are only doing it to create the illusion of being a nice person.
This is where phrasing comes in.
If you said many or most people are only nice for this reason, we could debate the quantity, but for the most part I'd agree with that.
But you said there is no other incentive. I have no interest in virtue signaling, but I do like to be compassionate online. I can think of various reasons why I personally show compassion online. Since you can't think of a single other reason, it must be because you've never experienced them. I must assume that any time that I see you showing compassion, it must be because you are virtue signaling, because that's the only reason you've ever experienced, and you assume that everyone else is doing the same.
Perhaps you didn't mean exactly what you wrote, but based on the words you used, that's what you told us.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Excuse my phrasing, but I stand by what I wrote. Tried to keep it brief.
Online platforms today do not offer any incentive for true positive behaviour, due to lack of community.
By the way your response and all the downvoting kinda proves my point. Compassion shows also in how you process what you read
-
I think most people get a dopamine response from being kind.
Ok well maybe there is a very very tiny incentive (compared to real world behaviour) but it really pales in comparison to all the general cold-heartedness
-
Something that's not super controversial, but you still really stand by it.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Anti-Stratfordians are classist kooks who completely ignore historical research, historical context, and evolving literary criticism, and thereby miss what actually makes Shakespeare uniquely enduring among his peers. I know I'm actually in the mainstream here. I just hate them sooooo much, it... it was like flames... FLAMES on the side of my face...
-
There's no incentive for showing compassion online, apart from virtue signaling
wrote last edited by [email protected]There's no incentive to virtue signal either, though.
For most users there's no incentives of any kind, and they go to their default, which is alternatingly butthurt and mildly helpful. A minority are sadistic, virtue signaling or similar. And of course, everyone is horny.
-
Something that's not super controversial, but you still really stand by it.
You sit on top of a Kawasaki Jet Ski.
You sit in a SeaDoo Jett Ski.
-
A violent revolution won't solve anything
wrote last edited by [email protected]That's warmish on Lemmy, although even here 99% of them are armchair revolutionaries and actually quite comfortable as things are.
