i can easily agree with 90% of that. The remaining 10% needs asterisks pointing towards further nuanced discussion. I’ll not specify which topics go into which category.
I also agree with most of that, but that doesn’t make it OK to downvote opinions to the contrary for no other reason than “I disagree”.
If comments of different perspectives, made in good faith get downvoted to oblivion then participation is discouraged, debate gets replaced with circle jerking and Lemmy becomes a very boring and out of touch echo chamber just like Reddit.
Downvotes should only be used for comments that are off topic, factually incorrect, hateful or made in bad faith etc.
Downvotes should only be used for comments that are off topic, factually incorrect, hateful or made in bad faith etc.
So something like this comment: https://lemmy.ca/comment/9747509
Which equates not liking Elon Musk with hate groups against minorities?
Usually when people complain about something like “the Lemmy Narrative” they’re usually not bringing nuanced discussion to their posts and are just upset that people aren’t agreeing with their “hot takes.”
That comment received 17 downvotes but the only person willing to reply deleted their comment.
The comment seems rather silly and I’d wager that the writer is making a satirical comment about the repetitive nature of Lemmy’s narrative
rather than legitimately equating people that dislike Musk to the Ku Klux Klan. If anyone was willing to engage the writer rather than just burying the comment then it’s possible you may have seen that.
So the comment is silly and you argue about its interpretation. In other words it did not add anything productive to the conversation?
When I see someone with vague complaints about downvotes and no specific elaboration when pressed, that’s a warning sign that they likely weren’t engaging in productive dialog in the first place and want to blame “the hive mind” for no one liking their “hot take”.
If anyone was willing to engage the writer rather than just burying the comment then it’s possible you may have seen that.
Not the responsibility of everyone else to try to engage to see if a commenter has a relevant taking point and coax it out of them. It’s up to the commenter to make that clear in the first place.
Yes, some jokes are silly and that’s why they’re funny. Although jokes can be harmful, I don’t think that this one was.
Are jokes productive for discussion or discourse? Not necessarily, but I’m not so precious that I’m going to downvote someone for making one.
I mean what’s more likely here, a guy made a joke and a load of sensitive Lemmings downvoted them or a guy was literally comparing people that support Palestine with bigots?
I endorse the use of /s so that we can avoid this type of debate, but whenever you mention it you get a load of complaints.
If you define a “shit take” as a comment that is factually wrong and or harmful, that’s fine and I’ve already said that. If your idea of a “shit take” is “I don’t like / disagree with your opinion” then I hope you’re fine with Lemmy becoming an out of touch echo chamber and I’ve also already said that. Why am I having to repeat myself?
It doesn’t take much browsing here to see plenty of rational disagreements that have been downvoted for failing to conform with the groupthink.
But you can downvote on Facebook. In fact, Facebook is worse because it has a range of emoticons you can use to show your disapproval and/or mockery. So, instead of merely making a number go down, you can actually post a laughing yellow face or a frowny yellow face.
Downvotes are a bad idea. We should have upvotes only.
That doesn’t improve anything. I’ve been on sites with upvotes only and it doesn’t lead to more productive discussions.
Often it results in more people posting low quality replies consisting of nothing more than “you’re an idiot” because they cannot just downvote to indicate that. Meanwhile the person giving incorrect information feels bolstered by the 3 upvotes they have received that people agree with them, while ignoring the posts with 30 upvotes pointing out why they are incorrect.
Often it results in more people posting low quality replies consisting of nothing more than “you’re an idiot” because they cannot just downvote to indicate that.
…they presumably also cannot articulate their disagreement in any more naunced way than that, either.
Okay, so would you rather have them post their disagreement that they cannot articulate in a more nuanced way, or just downvote and not clutter up the feed?
Right. Removing their downvote button isn’t going to cause people to pause and reflect on their positions, so what benefit would it provide to an actual discussion?
If I’m having an actual discussion with someone I disagree with, I’d rather receive a bunch of downvotes from the peanut gallery and keep the messages to people who want to actually discuss, then have the entire peanut gallery flooding the responses with poor quality responses to indicate their disagreement.
Yes, it would be better if people gave more nuanced replies, but let’s accept reality and the fact that not everybody is going to do that. Let’s also accept that you aren’t special and deserving of a long form point by point rebuttal from every single person who disagrees with you.
I can agree to 80% but also disagree with 80%. None of those are simple cut and dry situations and a simple answer is naive at best. And, most importantly, I can say that without sitting on a fence
Couldn’t have said it better myself. It’s nuance that’s almost entirely missing from much of online discussions. In my experience; the more I learn about a topic, the more I realize how much I don’t know/how complex it is. Then there’s also the fact that most simplistic and absolute statements are almost guranteed to be wrong. Not literally all cops are bad.
At the very least it’s much better than it used to be. So long as you’re running hardware that won’t make you jump through hoops to get working, and that’s less common and less awful than it used to be.
I’m a renter, and my parents have never owned a house, so I’ve dealt with landlords all my life. I don’t agree with “landlord bad”. Are there shitty landlords? Yes. But it’s a leap to go from that to “all landlords are bad”.
Can you imagine the backlash from the same left-leaning group that goes “landlord bad” if you applied the same logic to a racial or religious group?
Landlords serve an important purpose in the marketplace and any uncontrolled rampant exploitation is a failure of the government and not the entire group of people who sell the service.
No one’s born a landlord. It’s not comparable to race in any way. Comparing racism to being against unregulated and manufactured housing scarcity feels like a really bad faith argument.
People are born into a religion and are free to leave it or embraced a different religion. It is completely in their choice.
Similarly, people can be born into a family that owns zero to two properties, are free to acquire more or sell what they have. It is completely in their choice.
Why is it okay to judge one group by the actions of “a few bad apples” and not the other?
So while I’m undecided on landlords, I think your logic is flawed. Are you saying that criticising the concept of owning land and charging people for housing is the same as being born into a socially constructed group or the same as choosing or being born into a organization structured around shared beliefs? Because I’m not sure they’re quite the same thing.
No, I’m saying that it’s unfair to criticize an entire group of people for the actions of some people who happen to belong to the same group while the rest are perfectly fine contributors to society.
On the other hand, if the sole purpose of the group is to spread hate/cause unrest/violence then I’d be okay with hating the entire group.
Hating landlord-ism as a concept makes sense to a certain extent, but I’m yet to see a realistic alternative provided by anyone. Hating landlords is something that I don’t agree with. --> this seems to be a controversial stance.
Along the same lines, I hate religion but I don’t hate all religious people. --> this isn’t that controversial a stance. They’re both essentially the same to me.
A realistic alternative? The occupant owns the dwelling. That removes the problem entirely. People can’t afford to buy? Well if you can’t own residential property you don’t live in. Prices will correct.
Alternatively, the government historically has given most middle class Americans the majority of their generational wealth through land gift programs, then you gave first time homeowner loans, which could easily be retooled to give the property to those living there and have all payments go towards ownership,
There’s so many options better than someone fucking you in the ass as hard as they can so you can bearly survive.
I’m not from the US so correct me if I’m wrong - didn’t the governments of US and Canada give away land in what was essentially “bumfuck nowhere”? Isn’t land still cheap in comparable locations?
If only people who live on the property are allowed to own it then prices might go down a bit. Say 50%, a number that I’m pulling out of my ass. I genuinely don’t believe that demand in cities will let prices go down by even that much. But even with a 50% crash, a shit ton of people would never get to live in a city (someone who just moved out of their parents’ home, someone who is recovering from a loss due to a bad business, someone who just immigrated etc.)
So what would be the solution to those people? Live in a few hundred kms away from the city and commute every day?
As much as I’d like to own property in the city that I live in, I don’t think banning landlords will lower prices enough for me to buy a house here. So, I’d rather rent and live in the city than go live in some village.
If we were just a few years short of total collapse in a socialist or communist economic system, would it be OK to call either system bad?
I’ve worked for so many retail corporations that are so single minded to quarterly earning going up to push stock prices up, they don’t even care how much money they actually make, and what they pay people. You can make 2mil a day, and they will fire everyone and close the store because it wasn’t 2.000002mil. A lot of things are breaking.
Israel bad, AI bad, police bad, Elon bad, Capitalism bad, Boeing bad, Microsoft bad, Apple bad, Facebook bad, rich people bad, landlords bad, C.E.O.s bad, ads bad, cars bad, SUVs/trucks very bad, piracy good, bikes good, uBlock Origin good, trains good, Linux good, bats good, Ukraine good, protests good, socialism good …
i can easily agree with 90% of that. The remaining 10% needs asterisks pointing towards further nuanced discussion. I’ll not specify which topics go into which category.
I also agree with most of that, but that doesn’t make it OK to downvote opinions to the contrary for no other reason than “I disagree”.
If comments of different perspectives, made in good faith get downvoted to oblivion then participation is discouraged, debate gets replaced with circle jerking and Lemmy becomes a very boring and out of touch echo chamber just like Reddit.
Downvotes should only be used for comments that are off topic, factually incorrect, hateful or made in bad faith etc.
So something like this comment: https://lemmy.ca/comment/9747509 Which equates not liking Elon Musk with hate groups against minorities?
Usually when people complain about something like “the Lemmy Narrative” they’re usually not bringing nuanced discussion to their posts and are just upset that people aren’t agreeing with their “hot takes.”
That comment received 17 downvotes but the only person willing to reply deleted their comment.
The comment seems rather silly and I’d wager that the writer is making a satirical comment about the repetitive nature of Lemmy’s narrative rather than legitimately equating people that dislike Musk to the Ku Klux Klan. If anyone was willing to engage the writer rather than just burying the comment then it’s possible you may have seen that.
So the comment is silly and you argue about its interpretation. In other words it did not add anything productive to the conversation?
When I see someone with vague complaints about downvotes and no specific elaboration when pressed, that’s a warning sign that they likely weren’t engaging in productive dialog in the first place and want to blame “the hive mind” for no one liking their “hot take”.
Not the responsibility of everyone else to try to engage to see if a commenter has a relevant taking point and coax it out of them. It’s up to the commenter to make that clear in the first place.
Yes, some jokes are silly and that’s why they’re funny. Although jokes can be harmful, I don’t think that this one was.
Are jokes productive for discussion or discourse? Not necessarily, but I’m not so precious that I’m going to downvote someone for making one.
I mean what’s more likely here, a guy made a joke and a load of sensitive Lemmings downvoted them or a guy was literally comparing people that support Palestine with bigots?
I endorse the use of /s so that we can avoid this type of debate, but whenever you mention it you get a load of complaints.
Shit takes get downvoted. Rational disagreements don’t.
If you define a “shit take” as a comment that is factually wrong and or harmful, that’s fine and I’ve already said that. If your idea of a “shit take” is “I don’t like / disagree with your opinion” then I hope you’re fine with Lemmy becoming an out of touch echo chamber and I’ve also already said that. Why am I having to repeat myself?
It doesn’t take much browsing here to see plenty of rational disagreements that have been downvoted for failing to conform with the groupthink.
How you think that people should use downvotes and how they actually use downvotes are two separate things.
If you don’t like it, the solution is simple. You don’t argue until you’re blue in the face to get people to change. You remove downvotes.
Downvotes are a bad idea. We should have upvotes only.
and become facebook? I’d rather not.
But you can downvote on Facebook. In fact, Facebook is worse because it has a range of emoticons you can use to show your disapproval and/or mockery. So, instead of merely making a number go down, you can actually post a laughing yellow face or a frowny yellow face.
That doesn’t improve anything. I’ve been on sites with upvotes only and it doesn’t lead to more productive discussions.
Often it results in more people posting low quality replies consisting of nothing more than “you’re an idiot” because they cannot just downvote to indicate that. Meanwhile the person giving incorrect information feels bolstered by the 3 upvotes they have received that people agree with them, while ignoring the posts with 30 upvotes pointing out why they are incorrect.
…they presumably also cannot articulate their disagreement in any more naunced way than that, either.
Okay, so would you rather have them post their disagreement that they cannot articulate in a more nuanced way, or just downvote and not clutter up the feed?
I’d rather them think on it and actually articulate a position, but that’s a high bar to ask for.
Right. Removing their downvote button isn’t going to cause people to pause and reflect on their positions, so what benefit would it provide to an actual discussion?
If I’m having an actual discussion with someone I disagree with, I’d rather receive a bunch of downvotes from the peanut gallery and keep the messages to people who want to actually discuss, then have the entire peanut gallery flooding the responses with poor quality responses to indicate their disagreement.
Yes, it would be better if people gave more nuanced replies, but let’s accept reality and the fact that not everybody is going to do that. Let’s also accept that you aren’t special and deserving of a long form point by point rebuttal from every single person who disagrees with you.
I can agree to 80% but also disagree with 80%. None of those are simple cut and dry situations and a simple answer is naive at best. And, most importantly, I can say that without sitting on a fence
Couldn’t have said it better myself. It’s nuance that’s almost entirely missing from much of online discussions. In my experience; the more I learn about a topic, the more I realize how much I don’t know/how complex it is. Then there’s also the fact that most simplistic and absolute statements are almost guranteed to be wrong. Not literally all cops are bad.
So why are you the one making simplistic absolute statements here? Are you just making a Strawman you can knock down?
What is this simplistic and absolute statement of mine that you’re refering to here?
I think it’s pretty accurate summary of the general attitude towards things here on Lemmy. In no way is it an absolute statement.
So much for trying to understand the nuance of opposing viewpoints.
Linux good should have been repeated at least 5 times in that list
At the very least it’s much better than it used to be. So long as you’re running hardware that won’t make you jump through hoops to get working, and that’s less common and less awful than it used to be.
Do you have an example on why any of these povs are wrong?
No, I don’t think any of those claims is entirely wrong but I don’t fully agree with most of them either.
What’s this!? Complexity in your opinions!? Don’t 100% agree or disagree on something based on a 3-5 word sentence?! Straight to jail.
Nuance is bad. It tries to make people think and that hurts their head!
Venezuela
I’m a renter, and my parents have never owned a house, so I’ve dealt with landlords all my life. I don’t agree with “landlord bad”. Are there shitty landlords? Yes. But it’s a leap to go from that to “all landlords are bad”.
Can you imagine the backlash from the same left-leaning group that goes “landlord bad” if you applied the same logic to a racial or religious group?
Landlords serve an important purpose in the marketplace and any uncontrolled rampant exploitation is a failure of the government and not the entire group of people who sell the service.
No one’s born a landlord. It’s not comparable to race in any way. Comparing racism to being against unregulated and manufactured housing scarcity feels like a really bad faith argument.
Okay, ignore race, consider only religion.
People are born into a religion and are free to leave it or embraced a different religion. It is completely in their choice.
Similarly, people can be born into a family that owns zero to two properties, are free to acquire more or sell what they have. It is completely in their choice.
Why is it okay to judge one group by the actions of “a few bad apples” and not the other?
So while I’m undecided on landlords, I think your logic is flawed. Are you saying that criticising the concept of owning land and charging people for housing is the same as being born into a socially constructed group or the same as choosing or being born into a organization structured around shared beliefs? Because I’m not sure they’re quite the same thing.
No, I’m saying that it’s unfair to criticize an entire group of people for the actions of some people who happen to belong to the same group while the rest are perfectly fine contributors to society.
On the other hand, if the sole purpose of the group is to spread hate/cause unrest/violence then I’d be okay with hating the entire group.
Hating landlord-ism as a concept makes sense to a certain extent, but I’m yet to see a realistic alternative provided by anyone. Hating landlords is something that I don’t agree with. --> this seems to be a controversial stance.
Along the same lines, I hate religion but I don’t hate all religious people. --> this isn’t that controversial a stance. They’re both essentially the same to me.
A realistic alternative? The occupant owns the dwelling. That removes the problem entirely. People can’t afford to buy? Well if you can’t own residential property you don’t live in. Prices will correct.
Alternatively, the government historically has given most middle class Americans the majority of their generational wealth through land gift programs, then you gave first time homeowner loans, which could easily be retooled to give the property to those living there and have all payments go towards ownership,
There’s so many options better than someone fucking you in the ass as hard as they can so you can bearly survive.
I’m not from the US so correct me if I’m wrong - didn’t the governments of US and Canada give away land in what was essentially “bumfuck nowhere”? Isn’t land still cheap in comparable locations?
If only people who live on the property are allowed to own it then prices might go down a bit. Say 50%, a number that I’m pulling out of my ass. I genuinely don’t believe that demand in cities will let prices go down by even that much. But even with a 50% crash, a shit ton of people would never get to live in a city (someone who just moved out of their parents’ home, someone who is recovering from a loss due to a bad business, someone who just immigrated etc.)
So what would be the solution to those people? Live in a few hundred kms away from the city and commute every day?
As much as I’d like to own property in the city that I live in, I don’t think banning landlords will lower prices enough for me to buy a house here. So, I’d rather rent and live in the city than go live in some village.
Wow, quite an extensive list. Haven’t expected that. Thanks for sharing!
Yeah, I guess there is some truth to it.
Wait, aide from all the others, “Boeing bad” is just a narrative? Dude, have you been living under a rock?
To be honest, I agree with all of these. Seeme line I am at the right place.
Removed by mod
You are the lie
Imo the only actually divisive opinions are around tipping.
If we were just a few years short of total collapse in a socialist or communist economic system, would it be OK to call either system bad?
I’ve worked for so many retail corporations that are so single minded to quarterly earning going up to push stock prices up, they don’t even care how much money they actually make, and what they pay people. You can make 2mil a day, and they will fire everyone and close the store because it wasn’t 2.000002mil. A lot of things are breaking.
Cows are also good. Unless they are raised in a stock yard.