What are some conversation nonstarters in mainstream Lemmy.World?
-
I'm not even from the Lemmy world instance. I'm from the instance that specifically rails against AI slop. Thank you for being silly.
Do you have anything of value to contribute?
-
Fair, so what are some other unobvious non-starters
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Being obvious is almost a requirement. It's hard to instantly reject something you haven't heard much about.
Like, "ancient Egypt never existed" would get curiosity at the very least, despite the fact it's around as factually incorrect as flat Earth theory. A socially harmful belief like "left handed people are of the devil" would get a stronger negative response yet, once people know you're serious, but not at the same level as "gay people are of the devil".
-
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.
Another is the non-monolithic nature of (real) science and the requirement for (real) scientific methods (e.g., replicated, non-sponsored studies).
-
Being obvious is almost a requirement. It's hard to instantly reject something you haven't heard much about.
Like, "ancient Egypt never existed" would get curiosity at the very least, despite the fact it's around as factually incorrect as flat Earth theory. A socially harmful belief like "left handed people are of the devil" would get a stronger negative response yet, once people know you're serious, but not at the same level as "gay people are of the devil".
Alright…since you’re being devil’s advocate I’ll lay out some criteria:
- Topic would almost entirely be received negatively
- You feel that it’s not something that the community would or should immediately balk at
- It’s a serious discussion
-
Another is the non-monolithic nature of (real) science and the requirement for (real) scientific methods (e.g., replicated, non-sponsored studies).
You’re saying that people don’t want to discuss how science could be wrong or not universally true?
Yeah people just hear, “a study shows XYZ” and think, oh truth. When in fact there’s a lot of manipulation that goes into these studies similar to statistics and there are constantly debates among scientists who disagree with each other’s assertions.
-
Alright…since you’re being devil’s advocate I’ll lay out some criteria:
- Topic would almost entirely be received negatively
- You feel that it’s not something that the community would or should immediately balk at
- It’s a serious discussion
wrote on last edited by [email protected]You feel that it’s not something that the community would or should immediately balk at
This happened to you recently, right? This post itself is getting a negative reaction because we can tell, and it comes across as whiny.
People have opinions on and offline. You can contradict them, which is okay, but people are never going to like it, and that's okay. Lemmy has a strongly left-wing, open-source bent, and reacts accordingly.
-
Do you have anything of value to contribute?
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.
-
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.
Seriously. Men are perceived as dangerous by default and that influences how we think about solving problems.
-
You feel that it’s not something that the community would or should immediately balk at
This happened to you recently, right? This post itself is getting a negative reaction because we can tell, and it comes across as whiny.
People have opinions on and offline. You can contradict them, which is okay, but people are never going to like it, and that's okay. Lemmy has a strongly left-wing, open-source bent, and reacts accordingly.
I’m trying to gauge where the community has landed as of late, because like I said in the original post, there have been big shifts like opinions on Democrats and in regards to your questions, I’ve experience some strange intersection between misogyny and pro-transness.
-
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.
