Personally, I think I’ve been banned for supporting a politician that the mods don’t like, and their policies. What does Ye Power Trippin’ Bastards think? My Mod logs: https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&userId=10495266.
You kind of seem like a shitlord that brings negative vibes whenever possible, just from comments alone.
How was I negative?
“Cope,” "seethe, “cry harder;” as examples. Basically just stuff that would harsh the mood if we were all just chilling at a pub. It’s cool that you have different ideas, but there’s a certain toxicity to calling out the misfortune and fears of others that promotes negativity in the community.
You can celebrate your win and different perceptions in ways that don’t feel as rude, hateful, and divisive. You don’t have to, but that means people aren’t going to like you or want you to be a part of the discussion.
Honestly, it’s hard to not make fun of your opponents when they lose. We do it everywhere. Like in sports. I guess you’re right though. Considering the tense nature of the community, I shouldn’t have let the urges get the better of me. Thanks for the reply.
Oh gosh, it’s SO hard not to kick people when they’re down. So glad to hear such an untoxic sentiment from such a good sportsman.
I suppose you have never made fun of anyone in your entire life?
I’m making fun of you right now. I just don’t think losing is something worthy of ridicule.
Humans do it all the time.
I feel that, though sport is kinda in the name, and playful banter makes sense. When we get into politics and laws, people’s futures, there’s more on the table than just teams. Nobody is worrying about their children and family members when a sports team gets thrashed.
And of course, you deserve proper input and not the same hurled right back.
Counterpoint: if you put toxic bullshit out into the world, don’t cry “they’re picking on me” when you get toxic bullshit directed back at you.
Agreed 100%, I just wanted to take the opportunity to explain a simple concept that their parents may have never given them.
True.
I read through the logs and your post/comment history. You sound like at best an edge-lord, and at worst an alt-right troll. This behavior is generally not taken well on most social media platforms, and Community run Fediverse platforms, even more so.
Fact is you can have political opinions, but you also need to understand and be aware of the facts, and the fact is that Donald Trump is a fascist and has on more than one occasion advocated for fascist policies, including extremely hostile and discriminatory policies towards transgender people. This is a fact, it doesn’t care about your feelings, or whether you think that these policies are acceptable, they are still happening and they are hurting people. This is why people are pushing back, and also why you are getting banned or not taken seriously, and you do deserve it, because regardless of what you or anyone else thinks, people are and will get hurt from it.
Honestly you should expect this type of thing to happen more often on Lemmy and fediverse platforms since individually or community run platforms will not tolerate the same type of content a corporate platform will, since their moderation focuses on community health, not ad-friendliness, and one of those things is protecting minority members.
There are a couple things that seem honest, but most of this is just rage baiting or spreading misinformation (fluoride, really? If you’re gonna talk about it being discussed you gotta bring scientific sources to the table). Like, I get it, there’re no decent places to actually discuss politics in this day in age because every space is an echo chamber, but you don’t have to actively goad people into engaging with you. Just try to act like an adult, do your research, and talk within the bounds of your knowledge. Keep in mind that the spaces you’re talking in are often echo chambers that come with some territorial behaviour, unfortunately.
All-in-all, if you want people to be nicer to you, you gotta be nicer to them. Also bring sources if you believe the audience won’t believe you.
So, the fluoride thing. I did provide a source, and this was the one I provided. However, it kept getting deleted by the mods for “misinformation”. You’re right about being nice. I was able to end a heated argument in the community by telling the person I was arguing with that it was ok to disagree, and that they can have themselves an amazing day. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Ok, I see the comment now. Yes, you seem to provide a source, but you claim that the source shows that humans are affected by prolonged exposure. Obviously that’s true, but comes with the obvious caveat that our exposure is nowhere near dangerous levels. I’m no expert, but I have some experiencing in parsing papers and trying to determine legitimacy so I’ll take a stab at what it’s saying.
In this review, it mentions that all the animals studied, problems arose when calculating the amount of fluoride measured against the body weight of the animal. Developmental toxicity occurs at ~13.2 mg/kg of body weight. A litre of water is advised to have .7 mg of flouride in the US. While some states have more or less, they’re all around there. Now, you tell how many litres of water you’d have to drink to actually reach that level of concentration in your body. I’ll give you a hint, it’s at least several times your body weight.
This review also mentions that most flouride is excreted through urine or feces, and 99% of what is preserved is found in the teeth. I didn’t read the studies on what the percentages that are excreted are, but since this review concludes that flouridated water is a non-issue, I’m gonna assume that it’s substantial enough to not be an issue when it comes to flouride buildup.
Here’s the thing though, this study is a review of other studies, why that’s relevant is because of some of the epidemiological data that’s brought up could still show that flouride is bad. However, All studies comparing populations that this review looks at have significant flaws, flaws that the review goes into. The review essentially concludes that all the epidemiological data from other studies are garbage. And rightly so, since a study trying to determine IQ between very different populations is next to impossible to make accurate.
Anyway, the short of it is that this review does not help your case. I’d say if anything, it makes it pretty clear that flouride is not an issue, and that if you’re looking for data to say otherwise, this study recommends much more substantial epidemiological research to be carried out, unlike the epidemiological data they reference in the review.
To get more on topic, I don’t believe most people would have looked more in depth at the article so perhaps they moved the goalposts when they were talking to you. That’s fair to criticize them, but then again, what you’re saying is also not entirely honest. Perhaps you didn’t mean to be dishonest, but still, that just falls under the category of “speak within your limitations”. Acknowledge that you don’t understand or can’t interpret the data. Maybe just ask for help clarifying points. Because what you had said was much too broad for the discussion you were having, and wasn’t remotely helpful, and was, for a lack of a better term, misinformation.
Honestly, the best tactic for catching yourself doing this is to assess others’ goals before attempting to comment on them. For example, don’t start with assuming that governments across the world are proactively poisoning their population. Assume the obvious and go from there. Like considering that governments want healthy populations that are good workforces and produce high quality goods in order for them to compete at the world stage for power, clout, and money. This means producing educated adults, not mindless labour drones. Thus, if there existed credible studies (because not all studies are credible, as this review and many others point out) to increase intellectual output and reduce costs of infrastructure by removing flouride from water (as you wouldn’t bother putting flouride in the water), you can bet that the government would be recommending or even forcing the elemination of flouridated water. There’s just nothing substantial to gain otherwise. Clean teeth or only so much of a positive, and governments, again, do not want a mindless population. We’re in the information age, manual labour is worth a fraction of the GDP output as high quality, educated work is.
Great analysis. I agree with all of this, as I had already read the study. Yes, I already know that fluoride in high concentration is the core issue, but I’m still not onboard with the idea of putting it in the water supply. I have trust issues with the US government. You don’t need fluoride in your water supply to have healthy teeth. You can still have good dental hygiene without having to drink fluoride-laced water for your entire life.
I know people who’ve spent most of their lives drinking bottled water without fluoride and using fluoride free toothpaste who would probably disagree with you on that, as it has been both scientifically and anecdotally in their cases been proven to be beneficial to dental health. The affects of not having it may not be detrimental but it does result in weaker teeth more prone to damage and decay.
That doesn’t mean your teeth will rot out of your head if you don’t get enough of it, but it does mean that early stages of decay which might be reversed by re-mineralization provided in part by healthy levels of fluoride will likely not be reversed, and may instead progress. Which isn’t ideal.
I don’t think they’d disagree with anything you said there. Their problem, I realize, has nothing to do with flouride. It has to do with the duty of government. They clearly realize that flouride is good for teeth. Maybe they don’t quite understand the sheer amount of flouride required for it to be dangerous, but w/e. The problem is, for them, is that they’re not entirely convinced that governments should be trying to protect their citizens. There’s a belief at work here that an individual shouldn’t need assistance with their wellbeing. Or at least not from a large body that doesn’t have any personal relation to the individual. So the paternalism that is assumed to be good for most people because it has a very high likelihood of doing good, a good that vastly outweighs any potential likely con, is assumed to be bad. This is because that’s a liberty and a responsibility that the government has over the public that could be exploited or neglected, and they believe that a vast body like the government suffers so little influence from the public that should something go wrong, the people would be powerless to stop it.
I think their biggest problem, the reason they don’t understand, is that they believe a conspiracy theory about the government trying to hurt people with fluoride. Despite the evidence that shows how high the unsafe levels for fluoride are, and that they are nowhere near that, as well as the fact that its proven to be safe and beneficial at lower levels. They believe that it is being forced upon them by having it in tap water, which it absolutely is not, as highlighted by the fact that I know people who haven’t gotten enough either from drinking bottled or distilled water.
I really don’t see the logic of pushing back against something like this when it doesn’t hurt you and the small benefits will benefit you greatly years later, as well as the fact that it’s done for you at no extra cost, which you can’t say for any of the alternatives. Really they’re complaining about getting something beneficial essentially for free without having to pay extra or do work for it.
a politician that the mods don’t like
A fascist.
and their policies
Fascism.
YDI.
I don’t know if you’re a troll but you definitely didn’t go in there in good faith. For example you tried to pass off a study as a source for Fluoride conspiracies, even though the summary makes it clear this is in reference to far higher doses than what we have in our water. You refused to listen to anyone pointing that out and used the “but people are talking about this” logical fallacy. You were the one talking about it, and even if a million people are talking about it that doesn’t mean there’s any truth to it.
i’ve also been banned for sharing controversial opinions despite being as respectful as possible and i think that’s to be expected if you try to share dissenting perspectives in instances that are unfriendly to it in the tribal environment that defines all social media today.
american politics has morphed into intense tribalism as evidenced by successful efforts like republicans labeling their old guard as rino’s in their rightward shift and democrats demonizing their leftists as tankies in their own similar rightward shift; both of these are one of many examples that all serve to drown out all rational discourse and have led us to our current situation in both the election and the lemmyverse.
i’ve had to switch social media platforms since before it was called social media and doing it so many times over the decades has taught me the hard way not to become so entrenched in any of them that it becomes “painful to leave”; doing so turns that punishment into a reflection of the punisher’s character.
there’s little point in trying to be part of a close minded fold if you don’t naturally fit in; no matter how much of an overwhelming majority it is; and trying to do so will only help make their punishment worse for you if you can’t make it work on the short leash that they will put on you.
you have alternatives on the lemmyverse and they’re self sustaining due to that overwhelming majority’s actions. they can work for you if you don’t want to be on a lemmy leash; but only if you can accept that their own tribalism is born out of experiences like the one you’re having right now and use your own experiences to try to understand where they’re coming from and what they’re trying to share. you will fail many times if you do and they will hammer you on it; but they have their own experiences with leashes and punishments like yours and that makes them more likely to know how to turn something like a ban into a chance to learn.
“Controversial” as in factually and philosophically unclear, or “controversial” as in denialist bigotry to perform ingroup loyalty?
In your case, looks like the former.
In OP’s case… no.
Facts, bro.
