I’ve been doing this for some time now. Even if it’s something that I consider important.
I just don’t see the value in participating in a discussion that I have seen countless times already where the same points and arguments happen over and over again. One that I know wilI turn ugly. It’s exhausting and I’ve decided to just opt-out.
deleted by creator
Yeah on another community there is a single user who tends to say stupid stuff just to entice a hell thread I started arguing with them once I realized that there was no further need for the conversation I had won because they started calling me a liar I just block them and went about my day
Yeah. Why argue with cunts?
Because someone is WRONG on the Internet and I have to tell them. Really seems like a human compulsion.
Or worse yet, Americans.
If the question is open, e.g. “do you like apples?” and the question is in my area of interest, I usually give an answer. But if the question assumes an answer or is deliberately polarizing, e.g. “why don’t you like apples?” I pass.
You know who else liked apples? Hitler. Coincidence? No.
Coincidence? No.
Of course it’s not a coincidence. Everyone likes apples. If you disagree it obviously means you’re lying because everyone likes apples.
Everyone is Hitler?
That’s a great point! Not what I was driving at but the logic makes sense to me…
Secretly
How do you like dem apples?
As bottom jeans
Don’t forget the boots with the fur.
In the middle of my third paragraph I deleted most of this comment and reminded myself, my perspective is not needed.
I’ve long stopped engaging in long political debates. Namely because every time, someone is debating you for the sole purpose of winning the argument. There isn’t a lot of lee way made to admit fault or see the flaws of any arguments including their own. It just turns into a pointless debate that has no end.
Religion is the same.
It is hard sometimes to talk about the flaws about LGBTQ communities without being branded. There are flaws that I’ve seen with it and I know they’re there and continue to be there. But nobody wants to admit it and hear it, so they just go straight to labeling.
All that anyone ever wants to hear anymore is just a validated response that confirms their opinion. Because people long forgot that opinions are opinions and not any scientific source.
I don’t want to talk about it.
Tell me about it… actually, don’t.
Religion.
Holy crap are do people on Lemmy seem to have a seething hate for them all. Not interested with debating over something we’ll disagree on. It’s just not a welcome topic here.
I think most of us are tired of the vocal minority that exist IRL that are actively harming others (especially lgbtq+, women, and minorities) and the silent majority that are complicit with it, especially in the US.
Religion also seems to have a hatred of every other belief, explicit or implicit, e.g. if you don’t believe in Jesus, you deserve to be tortured eternally. Why would I be tolerant of people that think that’s capital g Good?
Plus, how can you have a debate when one side won’t keep to the basic rules of evidence.
One last thing you might notice is that it’s probably not Buddhism or Daoism that get hostile reactions. That might be worth inspecting.
See, I think this is what they’re talking about though. I hate Christianity. I was raised Protestant and because of other factors in my life, Christianity effectively ruined large swathes of my lifespan. It’s still an active threat to me, and likely will be for my entire life. I’m likely to be a fairly stringent atheist forever.
All that said, edgy internet atheists are one of the most annoying archetypes to run into online. If even a whiff of a religious topic comes up, they pounce and nip and bark. They satisfy almost every stereotype the religious people have of them because they often seem to delight in the cruelty of knocking on beliefs. Like, my whole top comment still being relevant, religion has a reason to exist. It gives people feelings of hope, love, and belonging. Anyone who has experienced a lack of those can understand why people fall into religion and why it’s like any other addiction.
I’m breaking one of my rules right now, talking about religion on social media, but I figured the “meta” aspect of this thread would make it productive. I hope I don’t regret it.
Which edgy internet atheist are you referring to? I’m not understanding how your comment relates to the person you replied to?
Yknow, it’s really something else to come into a thread discussing topics people don’t want to talk about because they get treated to shitty behavior and sealioning, and proceed to sealion on one of those topics.
No one suggested any of the things you are ranting about though. That’s why I’m confused. Someone said that they don’t like talking about religion because it seems to them like lemmy users hate all religion. Someone else responded with a comment saying they believe it’s not all religions and it’s really specific things that most people seem to take issue with, and then you came in ranting about how they are the problem. Wtf?
I just don’t understand how you got that from their comment.
Not doing this with you. If you can’t follow the logic between the post topic, this thread’s OP, and the common experiences of anyone on the internet, that’s fine, just don’t discuss. Not going to do the thing where you’re “just asking questions” and critiquing every pedantic little point along the way. That’s sealioning and it’s tiring and lame and why half of the people here don’t want to discuss the issues they’re bringing up. The only one here who can’t seem to follow the logic is you.
Yeah that’s not what I’m doing. You specifically are not making any logical sense, and instead of engaging in conversation, you’re attacking. I was just confused if you misread the comment above you or you replied to the wrong person. Take a look in the mirror at all the accusations you’re hurling.
No, lately it’s literally been, “all religion is a scourge on humanity.” Christianity doesn’t even broach the subject anymore.
I think most of us are tired of the vocal minority that exist IRL that are actively harming others (especially lgbtq+, women, and minorities) and the silent majority that are complicit with it, especially in the US.
Would you agree that a great deal of opposition to LGBTQ+, feminists, and minorities is similarly a reaction to a vocal minority from each of those groups that adopts a militant, hostile tone towards mainstream society and/or religion? If we accept that the existence of a vocal minority with problematic positions and behavior justifies treating all members of that group with a lack of respect, then we are doomed. We cannot allow the traumatized and incoherent members of society to modulate the interactions between different social factions.
Religion also seems to have a hatred of every other belief, explicit or implicit, e.g. if you don’t believe in Jesus, you deserve to be tortured eternally. Why would I be tolerant of people that think that’s capital g Good?
This is completely incorrect and reductive of the infinite variety of religions that exist. Even limited to just Christianity, most Christians would disagree with your assertion that people “deserve to be tortured eternally”. This is an example of you taking the opinions of certain mentally disturbed individuals who happen to identify as religious, and extrapolating them to apply to all religious people. Allowing the crazy people to dictate the terms of the conversation.
Practically nobody keeps to the basic rules of evidence, religious or otherwise.
Buddhists and Daoists are much less relevant and known to Western civilization, so they are rarely even mentioned, let alone critiqued. I have no doubt there are plenty of Indian atheists who could absolutely dissect Buddhism and how it’s actually problematic at times, but they’re simply not on Reddit or Lemmy.
Would you agree that a great deal of opposition to LGBTQ+, feminists, and minorities is similarly a reaction to a vocal minority from each of those groups that adopts a militant, hostile tone towards mainstream society and/or religion?
No. That’s victim blaming and disgusting. Women, lgbtq+, and other minorities actually get persecuted in modern times, not just offended while they clutch pearls. If you remain ignorant of that, it’s willful and you need to be a better person.
This is completely incorrect and reductive of the infinite variety of religions that exist. Even limited to just Christianity, most Christians would disagree with your assertion that people “deserve to be tortured eternally”.
No, my dude, I went to Catholic school for many years, attended Baptist services for many years, and most Christians don’t go around saying, “Maybe God got that whole hell thing wrong.”
Women, lgbtq+, and other minorities actually get persecuted in modern times
As do religious people. The world is much larger than America and Western Europe my friend, people all around the world are literally killed for their religion on a daily basis.
Then you should be familiar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states
To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”
Nothing in there about torture. And that’s just the most mainstream Christian branch, there are innumerable alternative interpretations, some of which deny the existence of hell entirely. Such as annihilationism which is most commonly associated with Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovahs Witnesses today, but has been present in varying forms throughout Christian history.
Yeah, I hear hell isn’t that bad /s. Catholics also say “Happy are the persecuted” so stfu. I can quote just as much BS as you can. And being persecuted isn’t carte blanche to be a dick to others.
being persecuted isn’t carte blanche to be a dick to others.
That’s precisely my point. When I called out the hostile and dickish behavior of some feminists, LGBTQ+, and minorities, your response was:
That’s victim blaming and disgusting. Women, lgbtq+, and other minorities actually get persecuted in modern times, not just offended while they clutch pearls. If you remain ignorant of that, it’s willful and you need to be a better person.
You can’t have it both ways. Is it okay to act like a dick to other human beings if you belong to a “persecuted” group? If not, then why is it disgusting of me to point out such behavior?
What I see from the lgbtq+ community is: “Leave us alone,” when their rights and existence are threatened and I think it’s ok to defend those things.
What I see from the religious community is: “Let’s threaten the rights and existence of the lgbtq+ community,” though they never use such neutral language. I don’t think it’s ok to commit violence, directly or otherwise, against people because they have a different sexual orientation, gender, race, or creed. It’s not a defensive reaction, it’s an offensive preemptive attack.
So it’s not equivalent. Stop pretending it is.
You’re not here in good faith. You’re not clever. You haven’t set up a brilliant rhetorical trap; you’ve just shown how ignorant you willingly remain.
You’re not worth any more of my time, so you’re blocked. Don’t expect anything further.
People online in general, and it’s becoming people in society at large at an alarming rate.
deleted by creator
Honestly that sentiment depends on where you are in the world.
There are some parts of the world where it’s very common to discuss religion, there are other parts where it’s taboo, like you say, it just depends on where you live in the world.
The cool thing is that the internet has brought us all together. However, I find it common that we also assume that others share the same “common sense” that we do, even when “common sense” itself can vary widely from one community to the next.
Yes. Especially Lemmy. People here love turning a discussion into an argument on shit they don’t know much about. Subsequently some of the most brazen and obvious strawmanning, wild out of field assumptions, and gaslighting I’ve seen online—usually with a lot of not reading full comments or disregarding context or 90% of the comment in general. You can constantly call them out on it and try to direct discourse back onto topic instead, but it’s almost always futile. For them, it was only ever a competition of feeling superiority of some kind.
I’ve never seen anything quite like it online. Reddit was mild in comparison.
So glad to see that others are noticing this too… The hive mind effect also feels even stronger than it used to on Reddit, probably because the audience here is less diverse.
Without knowing the data, I’m pretty sure I’m politically and ideologically quite aligned with much of Lemmy’s overall user base. Still, often when I point out misinformation or misconceptions even if they “don’t fit the narrative” of what I broadly believe, I get downvoted without anyone even responding with a counter argument. It’s extra frustrating because I know I probably agree with the opinions of those people downvoting me, it’s just that I believe there’s more nuance to many topics that I would like to discuss, but unfortunately the Lemmy audience acts as if everything is a black & white situation.
This. I am a leftist, but not the kind who thinks Lenin’s self serving ideas translate very well into the modern world. Which in Lemmy terms, apparently makes me a fascist.
More recently I seem to just be a marked man anywhere on .ml, after questioning some seriously petty moderating decisions.
When you’re somewhere whose TLD is “Marxist-Lennism” (or some other conjugation thereof), then of course you’d be targetted for being an outsider unless you’re literally communist, lol
Lemmy is honestly a pretty awful intersection of censorship and extremism. Reddit is shit because of the monetization push, but Lemmy is honestly far worse when it comes to just normal discussion being randomly removed for stepping outside a very particular orthodoxy.
I disagree. The thing about Lemmy is that if you don’t like a specific instance, you can just block it. I spend most of my time in the danish instance feddit.dk and there we have plenty of debates and discussion. I think the beauty of Lemmy is that it no echochamber can reach beyond a specific instance. So yes, there may be extremist instances, but I just don’t go there. I stay where the debates are sound and in good faith.
As admitted by some, Lemmy is a haven for outcasts who are insecure and in need of some sort of validation. They’re clingy about the things that provide it and touchy about things that threatens it, thus projecting an intensity in their interactions.
I see it as coping with helplessly living within an unfair reality. We need more zen in our lives.
Any comment starting with some varient of “So you…” can almost always be ignored. I think they’re framed as summarising an opponents position to lay bare an obvious flaw. But, to me aleast, they just out the commenter as being ignorant or malicious. Ignorant of what the comment they’re replying to said, or maliciously trying to misrepresent it.
I think it speaks to a broader problem of online rhetoric where person X tells person Y what person Y thinks and why (and most importantly why they’re wrong to think this way) instead of asking them.
my new year’s resolution this year was stop wasting time replying to dumbasses online
it’s not going very well but it’s the thought that counts. we’ll get em next year
Yep, I have written huge comments on my phone, only to hit cancel when I realize that I don’t have the energy to deal with it.
In my industry, people can get very toxic really quickly over minor details. I’ve decided quite a few times to just let things go, even if they are blatantly wrong.
You end up in a situation where the person on the other end really just does not want to drop it, has to “win” no matter what. Even if the subject in itself was something you went to school learning/writing a paper on.
The people that need to “win” drive me crazy. It’s not enough to them if you concede on some points, it’s not enough if you agree to disagree, they just have to be right 100%, and you realize they won’t be happy unless you say “Sorry, I was wrong and you were right.” and bow to their superior intelligence.
I’ve made the mistake of engaging with people like this before and it was a nightmare. Like you said, they wouldn’t just drop it, even after I explicitly said “Sorry, but we are going in circles here, we should just end it.” after an hour long discussion, where they could’ve easily taken their “W” from me walking away.
I get the distinct impression that some people are simply unable to concieve of a perspective different from their own. For lack of a better comparison, it’s like those Christian movies where everyone, including the atheist, openly believes God exists, but the atheist chooses to be an atheist out of spite or malice or whatever. So for some, disagreement is at best you being a troll or shill or bot, and at worst a frontal attack at their entire conception of the world.
What you’re doing isn’t a bad thing. I went through something similar.
Your mental health is more important than any online discussion could ever be. If that means less food for the trolls and sealions, so be it.
I know you’re trying to say the opposite, but I agree with the sealion in this regard. The human was being racist, and when the sealion chalkenged them to actually defend their beliefs they proved that they couldn’t, and instead of admitting they didn’t have any logical reason to hate sealions, they made excuses such as them being busy with other things, when they could have ended the discussion quickly by admitting they were wrong for hating sealions - or, if they did have a good reason for hating sealions, saying it. He was dodging the question and putting it on the sealion for being rude.
You forgot /s right?
Right?
Now you see why I didn’t even bother replying
Yeah, I thought about discarding the whole explanation beneath it. But then I remembered that the first time I saw the sea lion comic I was kind of confused about what sealioning was and had similair questions.
If interpreted wrong, the sealion comic seems like a fight against questions and evidence. I interpreted it like that the first time I saw that comic. Now I know better though 😜.
Replace ‘sealions’ with ‘black people’. Do you still think it’s ok?
Sealioning is not about the content of the discussion. It is about a discussionstyle.
Don’t get the two mixed. If you’re trolling: good job! Have some meaningless internetpoints from me!
If you genuinly don’t know what the problem with sealioning is, I suggest you read up on it some more:
“Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points—with a loudly-insisted-upon commitment to reasonable debate. It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target’s patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. While the questions of the “sea lion” may seem innocent, they’re intended maliciously and have harmful consequences. — Amy Johnson, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (May 2019)”
I can see why only seeing that comic makes you come to questions like you asked (“what if it were black people?”) But these questions are questions about content rather then the form of sealioning. Of course it is not wrong to ask for sources in a debate. Or to ask questions. It is however, harmful to impose bad-faith, or even ignore boundaries that are given by the other party (hence the sealion being in bed with its debater in the comic, which is entirely inappropriate of the sealion.)
Or another definition:
*“Internet trolls sometimes engage in what is called ‘sealioning’. They demand that you keep arguing with them for as long they want you to, even long after you realize that further discussion is pointless. If you announce that you want to stop, they accuse you of being closed-minded or opposed to reason. The practice is obnoxious. Reason should not be silenced, but it needs to take a vacation sometimes. — Walter Sinnot-Armstront, Think Again: How to Reason and Argue (June 2018).” *
Usually in online arguments I don’t expect to convince the person I’m arguing with, but to show anyone else reading the thread that an opposing opinion exists. But that said, sometimes I simply don’t engage if I don’t have the energy.
I do appreciate posts like those.
My objective when I look through a comment thread, especially in a topic I don’t know much about, I’m looking for the well reasoned posts. I admit I’m a human (confirmed via captchas) and love to have my opinions validated, but I also like to read a different take on a situation or issue. And because I am not in a situation where I don’t feel like I have to defend my opinion I’m more open to seeing a different perspective.
So thank you for taking the time to write those out - and to others that do that thank you as well.
This! You can never “win” or get the last word, but you can get the other person to show how bad their arguments are. You just have to trust that others will decide on what is right correctly.
I’m a massive Doctor Who fan and discourse surrounding it has been ‘difficult’ for the last few years. As the quality of the show has varied, some fans have denounced more recent series, and others have become angry that they don’t enjoy the same things as they do. At the end of the day we’re all fans of Doctor Who, we just can’t agree what Doctor Who is, but I think we should accept that and all let each other enjoy the Doctor Who we want to.
Absolutely. Spend enough time on the internet and you’ll learn to conserve your energy
