Lemmy is kinda bad

  • 0 Posts
  • 51 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 19th, 2023

help-circle














  • amio@lemmy.worldtoFediverse@lemmy.world•Returning to the fediverse is hard.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Listen I have left leaning politics but does every other post have to be about some political shit on the all tab,

    Just every other? You must’ve spent quite some time filtering shit already, then.

    You see, if you don’t like all the ragebait you are No True Leftist. Disagree with anyone at any time? Gotta hand that card in, bro, 'cause you’ve got to be some fascist or something. Or “shitlib” or whatever cringe terminology the tankies use. This may come as a shock to you but at least Random Angry Dipshit was kind enough to inform you about your entire political stance that you thought was something radically different. Neat trick, right? Aren’t you grateful? I know I am.

    I feel like I’m forced into this box that is my subscribed feed or I have to actively search out new communities because all is just a political circle jerk that I don’t care about.

    Correct! It’s also an unappealing and rather significant workload trying to find real activity on real communities on here to subscribe to, so /all is kinda it. Discoverability is garbage, one of many upshots of the way the federation gimmick was implemented.

    Not to mention the moment I came back I saw a fucking flow chart on the instances drama of the week. If I wasn’t so dedicated to dropping Reddit I think the average Joe would have left by now seeing all of this.

    I’m sure they mostly do, if they ever even learn of this place at all. That’s why it keeps being like this. Parts of the fedv are indistinguishable from satire or outright trolling - that’s not counting explicitly blatant troll instances like ml, gr*d and hb. I’d seriously thought some of the leftist infighting meme was… y’know, a meme… Or that “here, I disagree with this one thing you said and now you’re banned from X communities”, from people who spent the last sentence whining about Reddit moderators. (They are right in isolation, just big blubbering hypocrites.)

    I’m not saying there ISNT other type of content on lemmy or piefed it just feels like the stuff that floats to the top is political

    Engagementbait on a platform that isn’t even pushing “the algorithm” that way. Nifty, right?

    It’s not going to change, or even get any less of a pain to try to curate unless tooling gets better. It won’t, because the Lemmy devs at least are tankie idiots who have no interest in making anything easy to curate (because then, the very first thing to go is their main shitholes for being blatant assholes to everyone except dictators)

    Edit: on that note, instance blocks on ml, gr*d and hb are an absolute must


  • Anything can be a bannable offense when someone is enough of a little internet fascist. Probably won’t kill the fedv off entirely but is damn sure not a selling point for anyone not already here.

    “Hey, you know the people who get all officious and pissy about the tiniest atom of your every utterance? No, not the altright, the ot- yeah. How would you like to go discuss shit on a forum where half the major instances act like that? No, not Reddit, you wouldn’t have heard of it as it’s pretty niche for some reason. No? Yeah, didn’t think so.”


  • I think this level of privileging the antivaxxer rhetoric is just irresponsible - if it would help, maybe. But they are not arguing in good faith, out of good information, or any other good impulse. Similarly to the Flat Earth bullshit and most other CTs you can point at, it’s about feeling superior. Moon landing and flat earth CTs are almost lethally cringe but patchouli bullshit instead of vaccines means people literally die in droves, of a solved problem.

    My point is that it never strengthens your position to disagree with things you know are correct, just to try to make a point. If your initial counter argument is “vaccines don’t cause deadly side effects”, you can immediately be brushed off as having no idea what you’re talking about, since it’s well documented that they do.

    Huh? Typo or false syllogism? You wouldn’t get much of an opportunity to disagree with anything correct, they’re antivaxxers. Anyway, you wouldn’t deny that. You would, even more correctly, point out that the 'rona was still the worse deal if you were actually rationally worried about any outcome. This is the sort of thing I mean when I say jumping through hoops to try and make something reasonable out of a fundamentally unreasonable position. It isn’t going to help, because you cannot keep it up. Sooner or later you’ll reach the end of where carefully not discussing anything in the discussion can get you.


  • Of course, if people are just blatantly ignoring or refuting established scientific results, there’s not much you can do…

    Well… there you are, unfortunately. That will happen pretty much literally every time, no matter what you do, because it was never about the science. It will never be about the science, because we already know they’re completely wrong about everything and therefore they need to make science irrelevant.

    Conspiracy theories sell people the idea that they’re seeing through “the bullshit” (sum total of human expertise, generally) which is a powerful feeling, that the dull world of undeniable facts and logic can’t quite measure up to. Too easy to deny them anyway, you see. The package tends to come with a bunch of rationalizations for why, the instant you seem like you’re not buying it, they no longer have to listen to anything you say.

    Acknowledging that plenty of common vaccines have extremely rare, but nonetheless potentially severe side effects.

    Unfortunately, if you don’t also want to acknowledge the ones that are blatant lies, you are instantly The Enemy. Given stuff like belief perseverance and the backlash effect it’s understandable to want to try, though.

    Being “supportive” when arguing against known bullshit is not my forte, so I wouldn’t be the one to get good results out of the supposed strat of… agreeing them out of their position(?), but I am damn curious about what it’d look like.

    To me personally, the choice is easy (I press the button), but I recognise that people see this as a dilemma.

    A false one, to belabor the point, but it’s not relevant anyway. The reality is that if you get within light years of the concrete thought experiment, they’ll be real suspicious. If any part of it is remotely realistic, you’ll lose them instantly: “do you want a thousand times higher risk of death, and also help spread a potentially lethal and disfiguring infection?” cannot be made to sound all that reasonable.