What are the biases of Lemmy?
-
Or communists defending the CCP seemingly entirely due to their name
Wait til they hear the CCP is more capitalist than actually communist, of course they don't read up on history
-
But what about Star Gate?
Probably not big enough fan base as it's quite niche, only ever was on Syfy and usually on cable. Trek and wars had more lore and cinema.
-
Unfortunately it's just harder to be a Star Wars fan since Disney bought it.
Disney ruined it.
-
Yes! Meow meow.
Ok, uh… is this, like, a… catgirl thing? That's a thing, innit? Catgirl femboy? Catboy? Catfemboy? Just a catgirl?
Honestly, this is what I get for making too many references not applicable to me.
I did try Arch at some point. Didn't work out, even though I was following instructions online. Probably because I didn't have the socks. I still don't have 'em.
-
Unfortunately it’s just harder to be a Star Wars fan since Disney bought it.
Paramount is trying very hard to create the same difficulty to love Star Trek with their Section 31 movie.
Paramount ruined nutrek to be honest, at first they had STD to drive up subscription numbers. Having kurtzman was probably the worst thing for nutrek, he said it himself he dint care about the series
-
I didn't make it past 15 minutes of watching it. I bailed when it became immediately obvious this was an attempt at a Star Trek version of Suicide Squad of quirky misfits. That whole concept is not what Section 31 had been sold to us in the various Star Trek series'. What we were expecting were the best minds recruited across Starfleet performing morally questionable actions in service of their (possibly twisted notion) of the "greater good".
Julian Bashir working for Section 31 had no place in that movie version of the agency of the same name. Nor did Malcolm Reed. The movie version of Section 31 made a joke of 30 years of espionage and political intrigue.
Sec 31 worked better as a subplot in the trek series, never should've been a show of its own
-
I think youre reading way too much into what tried to be an inclusive name.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Or I've read the instance info and framing references beyond my personal status don't scare me.
Not particularly surprised that Americans are defensive about .world not being their personal property that must conform to their worldview though.
-
Ok, uh… is this, like, a… catgirl thing? That's a thing, innit? Catgirl femboy? Catboy? Catfemboy? Just a catgirl?
Honestly, this is what I get for making too many references not applicable to me.
I did try Arch at some point. Didn't work out, even though I was following instructions online. Probably because I didn't have the socks. I still don't have 'em.
You should get the socks and try again.
-
I don't think Nintendo sucks. I'm also older and remember what they did to gaming when it started. They still put out title after title of quality games.
They still put out title after title of quality games.
Me doubt
-
I’ve seen people advocate for communism here and asked them to name an example of a communist government of a major country that hasn’t devolved quickly into a dictatorship, and let me tell you, the hysteria and rage could power a small city. I’m fairly progressive, I like to think, but it seems like a lot of lemmings have gone so far down the anti-capitalist rabbit hole they’ve literally come out the other side in China and are wearing Mao stickers.
wrote last edited by [email protected]an example of a communist government of a major country that hasn’t devolved quickly into a dictatorship
I'm not feeling rage or hysteria, but I find a number of issues with this "test" that could easily cause frustration with anyone who has major criticisms of capitalism. My response is long not because of some irrational anger, but because things are complex and nuanced.
You consider yourself to be "fairly progressive"? I'm going to give you an analogy. It's not great, but it hits on a few major issues relevant to your "test". Imagine a MAGA fan asked you in 2026 to "name a thriving woke government agency" or "a government agency that still advocates for DEI" to make a point about your ideals. How does that sound to you?
First, you'd like argue that the term "woke" and "DEI" means different things to different people. That the term has been transformed into some deranged negatively charged approximation used as almost a slur colloquially. The same is true for "communist/ism" and "socialist/ism". The current US "powers that be" have taken ownership of terms originally used by progressives. Woke was an "eyes open" state of awareness of the systemic racism baked into society. Now it is often considered "naively believing that forced equality makes things better". DEI was an attempt to correct these systemic issues by encouraging or even enforcing diversity in groups of people who make decisions and influence decisions. Now it, and I'd argue "Affirmative Action" as well, is starting to mean a movement to "give power/opportunity to people because they are minorities whether or not they are sufficiently qualified". Understand, I'm not in agreement with the transformation of these terms or the sentiment of the new "meanings" but I see them being used in the US in this manner more often. This makes every conversation confusing if you want to have a legitimate discussion of the ideas. It doesn't help that the terms socialism and communism were never concrete terms to begin with.
Second, you'd be aware that there is literally a powerful force actively attempting to purge the original concepts of "woke" and "DEI" from government agencies. The current administration is working very hard to sabotage any agencies that recognize inequality or try to diversify. The administration has likely broken the law in its efforts to oust any agency leadership who promote these concepts. The administration wants to make the lives of any workers who agree with those concepts very difficult. Any agencies that are based on those core concepts are being spun down or turned into shells that somehow still have a name that implies they haven't changed but in reality their leadership is working to ensure that the agency now serves the opposite function.
That's what it is like being openly socialist or communist in today's world. Everything bad is "socialist" or "communist" - it has been since the revolution in Russia. People have a knee jerk reaction on hearing those words. It's strongly associated with North Korea, Stalin, and the CCP. Endless stories of violent authoritarianism, surveillance states, and the suppression of free speech. Tons of media - Animal Farm, 1984. As an aside, consider the violent suppression of climate or pro Palestine protesters, or the use of surveillance technology to spy on citizens... in capitalist nations.
Back to my point - if you are advocating for socialism, the West will work diligently to prop up existing capitalist leadership to prevent your success, possibly even help them rig elections. Propaganda will be spread among your population. If you manage to get elected, expect to be labeled extremist or even terrorist. Expect embargos, sanctions, and other economic warfare. Expect actual terrorists funded by the West to attempt to sabotage your nation. Expect or attempt to perform coups. Lobbyists would be throwing money you desperately need at your nation if it would just capitulate. Yes, even citizens might work against you because they are quite wealthy and powerful and your going to upset that. Or maybe honest citizens who've heard capitalism is great and socialism is bad and they don't want to live in a bad nation. What's the most effect method to survive a situation like that? You are under siege, paranoid, distrustful, woefully outmatched. Use your authority to defend your ideals and your hold on the government, sell out and become corrupt, or get squeezed out by a political opponent (or ally, trust noone) that is working for and funded by the West looking to restore their influence over your nation. Now you have a dictatorship.
-
Copyright good unless it's major companies/brands whatever (basically if not indie = bad)
-
I wouldn't put it that far, they are closer to reddit
I mean, liberalism is on the right-wing.
-
I think that's a false dichotomy though, because that assumes gender standards and presentations are universally consistent, when in practice it is often highly dependent on social context and individual perception.
What defines someone as masculine in the US is not 1:1 with the concept of masculinity in China, or France, or Kenya, for instance. On top of that, one's personal understanding of masculinity and femininity likely differs slightly (or greatly) from the general standards of the society around them.
The easiest concept of gender is to just trust people when they tell you who they are. It's entirely an internal, personal understanding of identity, and it's mutable.
What defines someone as masculine in the US is not 1:1 with the concept of masculinity in China, or France, or Kenya, for instance. On top of that, one's personal understanding of masculinity and femininity likely differs slightly (or greatly) from the general standards of the society around them.
For that I'd say this applies to the country in question
Just not across borders. -
You're both arguing anchored on hyper-reductive takes on what people think.
People who think "Piracy OK" rarelly think that "All Piracy is OK" (for example people who think Piracy for personal profit is OK are pretty rare) and similarly those who think "AI is bad" seldom think it's all bad (I have yet to hear a negative take on AI Character Recognition)
If one takes those two sentences as absolutes with none of that nuance and then extrapolates from such artificially narrowed premises, then of course the result will be ridiculous and contradictory.
-
I think you're right on all these points, though it depends a bit on what part of the Fediverse you're exposed to.
On the point of anti-capitalism, I agree, but (again, depending on the part of the Fediverse) there's also an incredibly high amount of open-minded people here, compared to other more mainstream social media (like Reddit). I speak much from my perspective of being from lemmy.zip, which I'm impressed by the healthiness of the community since I joined. But there are also less "healthy" instances like lemmy.ml which is considered by many to be infested with tankies (anti-capitalism?).
And yes, the average age seems to be around mid-30s to me, based solely on how people speak and what they reminisce about.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I think what muddles the water on the "Leftwing" character of Lemmy is that there are two kinds here: those whose personal Principles (mainly around the importance reducing the suffering and increasing the happiness of others, rather than just themselves) which lead them to support leftwing policies and those support Political forces or ideologies which are deemed Leftwing, and hence see themselves as Leftwing.
IMHO it's last group that explains in Lemmy things like authoritarian leftwingers (i.e. tankies) and people who think they're leftwingers because they tribalistically support certain mainstream political parties who claim to be Left but are at best moral liberal and even that second to their very rightwing broader stand on general Equality and quality of life for the many (such as the US Democrats, UK Labour, German SPD and so on).
My impression is that Lemmy has a much higher proportion of Principled Left-wingers than the wider society.
This is probably why if you're not in an instance that blocks the tankie instances, in between the tankies, the principled types and the mainstream "leftwing" party tribalists it almost feels like there are 3 kinds of "Left" in Lemmy.
-
Trans people are almost attacked or banned all other platforms or at least astroturfed, it does make sense
That's fair. Is Reddit also like that now? I haven't used it in a couple of years.
-
Sec 31 worked better as a subplot in the trek series, never should've been a show of its own
I think Sec 31 (version from show, not movie) could absolutely have worked as a standalone show. It would essentially be "CIA in space". As Sec 31 was a clandestine organization, they would not only have adversaries working against their chosen goals, but also other competing clandestine organizations (like the Romulan Tal Shiar or the Cardassian Obsidian Order) working to thwart them. There would be all kinds of wonderful stories of team ups and betrayals as their various goals overlapped.
When I think about that possible version, it makes what they actually delivered even worse.
-
What defines someone as masculine in the US is not 1:1 with the concept of masculinity in China, or France, or Kenya, for instance. On top of that, one's personal understanding of masculinity and femininity likely differs slightly (or greatly) from the general standards of the society around them.
For that I'd say this applies to the country in question
Just not across borders.That's still assuming gender norms are consistent even within a given country, though. E.g. masculinity among Asian Americans is often seen as "lesser than" compared to white Americans by virtue of racial physiology alone. The concept of having a full beard is masculine, but if you're unable to grow a full beard, does that make your gender presentation inherently less masculine than someone who can?
Everything is subjective, with "norms" only illustrating a loose general trend that is very inconsistent and changes over time, to the point that I think it's a useless comparison. If a man chooses to dress and act femme but insists they're a man and are happy having a penis, just trust them. No need to try to arbitrarily place them on a gradient of "partially trans in denial" if that's not how they identify.
-
an example of a communist government of a major country that hasn’t devolved quickly into a dictatorship
I'm not feeling rage or hysteria, but I find a number of issues with this "test" that could easily cause frustration with anyone who has major criticisms of capitalism. My response is long not because of some irrational anger, but because things are complex and nuanced.
You consider yourself to be "fairly progressive"? I'm going to give you an analogy. It's not great, but it hits on a few major issues relevant to your "test". Imagine a MAGA fan asked you in 2026 to "name a thriving woke government agency" or "a government agency that still advocates for DEI" to make a point about your ideals. How does that sound to you?
First, you'd like argue that the term "woke" and "DEI" means different things to different people. That the term has been transformed into some deranged negatively charged approximation used as almost a slur colloquially. The same is true for "communist/ism" and "socialist/ism". The current US "powers that be" have taken ownership of terms originally used by progressives. Woke was an "eyes open" state of awareness of the systemic racism baked into society. Now it is often considered "naively believing that forced equality makes things better". DEI was an attempt to correct these systemic issues by encouraging or even enforcing diversity in groups of people who make decisions and influence decisions. Now it, and I'd argue "Affirmative Action" as well, is starting to mean a movement to "give power/opportunity to people because they are minorities whether or not they are sufficiently qualified". Understand, I'm not in agreement with the transformation of these terms or the sentiment of the new "meanings" but I see them being used in the US in this manner more often. This makes every conversation confusing if you want to have a legitimate discussion of the ideas. It doesn't help that the terms socialism and communism were never concrete terms to begin with.
Second, you'd be aware that there is literally a powerful force actively attempting to purge the original concepts of "woke" and "DEI" from government agencies. The current administration is working very hard to sabotage any agencies that recognize inequality or try to diversify. The administration has likely broken the law in its efforts to oust any agency leadership who promote these concepts. The administration wants to make the lives of any workers who agree with those concepts very difficult. Any agencies that are based on those core concepts are being spun down or turned into shells that somehow still have a name that implies they haven't changed but in reality their leadership is working to ensure that the agency now serves the opposite function.
That's what it is like being openly socialist or communist in today's world. Everything bad is "socialist" or "communist" - it has been since the revolution in Russia. People have a knee jerk reaction on hearing those words. It's strongly associated with North Korea, Stalin, and the CCP. Endless stories of violent authoritarianism, surveillance states, and the suppression of free speech. Tons of media - Animal Farm, 1984. As an aside, consider the violent suppression of climate or pro Palestine protesters, or the use of surveillance technology to spy on citizens... in capitalist nations.
Back to my point - if you are advocating for socialism, the West will work diligently to prop up existing capitalist leadership to prevent your success, possibly even help them rig elections. Propaganda will be spread among your population. If you manage to get elected, expect to be labeled extremist or even terrorist. Expect embargos, sanctions, and other economic warfare. Expect actual terrorists funded by the West to attempt to sabotage your nation. Expect or attempt to perform coups. Lobbyists would be throwing money you desperately need at your nation if it would just capitulate. Yes, even citizens might work against you because they are quite wealthy and powerful and your going to upset that. Or maybe honest citizens who've heard capitalism is great and socialism is bad and they don't want to live in a bad nation. What's the most effect method to survive a situation like that? You are under siege, paranoid, distrustful, woefully outmatched. Use your authority to defend your ideals and your hold on the government, sell out and become corrupt, or get squeezed out by a political opponent (or ally, trust noone) that is working for and funded by the West looking to restore their influence over your nation. Now you have a dictatorship.
You made a lot of assumptions about me in your comment. I’m not going to bother with them, because that’s honestly your job to handle.
I don’t equate communism with (democratic) socialism. I consider myself a democratic socialist, and that’s part of the reason I consider myself progressive. The main difference is that democratic socialism makes room for multiple political parties, while communism accommodates only one. This is the essence of tyranny. No progressive should advocate for communism, because communism is another form of authoritarianism: subjugation to state rule.
I have my problems with “woke” culture, just as I do with conservative culture. But most of my problems with woke culture have to do with their rhetoric and means of achieving their goals, rather than the goals themselves. A racially mixed workplace is something I highly value; achieving it by means of affirmative action is not something I support, because I think 50+ years of it have shown that it doesn’t really work. Yes, it has been shown to improve interracial relations in the workplace, but it has also been shown to cause workers to question the competency of coworkers that benefit from it, and make those who don’t feel discriminated against. This is not what it was intended for. It was supposed to counter inherent racist biases in corporate hiring systems. Instead, it’s become a system that is the very least viewed as a loophole for non-white employees. Obviously, not every case is an example of a non-white employee gaining an unfair advantage over a white employee, probably only a small fraction qualify as such, but as a system it has created the perception that Whites are being discriminated against. And its proponents have done virtually nothing to address that. That needs to change. I’m not saying the spirit of affirmative action needs to end, but its implementation need to change.
If and when you respond, I would encourage you to not make assumptions about my stance. I don’t fit into the political boxes neatly.
-
World == USA
Incredible US bias here to the point where many discussions completely ignore the existence of the rest of the world.
Lemmy is actually worse than reddit here. The only network that at least tries to be cosmopolitan is Mastodon and that's why it just feels so much healthier there.
Yeah. I've had several discussions talking about what happens in other countries and someone starts complaining about how it is typical American behavior.
