There is a decent argument historically that communism and other left movements are extremist, racist, and anti-lgbtq. When you start banning concepts, you open your communities up to several things.
Group think
Banning of other radical ideologies that you may agree with
You alienate those people from exposure to better concepts
You jump start compaction cycles for large scale propaganda organizations that could lead to actual violence
I provided four reasons why this was relevant and you jumped from communism to whataboutism? Talk about being intellectually lazy (Or a state-sponsored account)
Left-leaning radical ideologies are banned all the time and usually use the same laws set up to ban far-right movements. I am not begging the question but feel free to continue spouting off the names of logical fallacies. I almost have a bingo.
I deal with propaganda and strategic messaging professionally, so by all means attempt to lecture.
There is a decent argument historically that communism and other left movements are extremist, racist, and anti-lgbtq.
We’re talking about today. On a relatively new community. Frankly, I see no reason to tolerate the bigots you’re so keen on coddling until they take over and make this another version of reddit’s the_donald, complete with organizing nazi rallies. Particularly not with the vague and spurious “there is a decent argument” hand wavy FUD that you didn’t explain as a justification. Are a lot of people saying it?
Moving onto your 4 points, let’s look at how they worked so well over at reddit, with all the virtuous acceptance of intolerance and nazi-coddling they’ve done, shall we?
Group think
No, reddit has never had groupthink. Not for an instant. Thank god they let the bigots in otherwise they’d have groupthink!
Banning of other radical ideologies that you may agree with
Post anything on conservative even slightly counter to their bigoted orthodoxy and see how that goes. Hell, suggest that fascism is not amenable to reason and must be opposed with force anywhere on reddit and see how that goes.
You alienate those people from exposure to better concepts
They had abundant exposure to better concepts on reddit. Look how well that’s worked so far. Clearly the answer is to let them spread their shit all over lemmy.
You jump start compaction cycles for large scale propaganda organizations that could lead to actual violence
the_donald literally promoted and helped organize a nazi rally where Heather Heyer was run over and killed by a nazi’s car. On lovely ol’ bigot-coddling reddit. The sub was not banned for years afterwards. I do not want that for lemmy. I left reddit the instant an alternative that didn’t welcome bigotry got enough users.
Not everywhere has to entertain bigots. There’s already too many places that do. A community that welcomes bigots is unwelcoming to everyone but bigots. But holy shit, does it ever drive engagement.
Yes, I started with the reasons why left-leaning movements have been restricted historically right out of the gate. It is not coddling bigots. It is providing context on why any form of radical idea is restricted, including ideas that we tend to celebrate in these communities. Communist propaganda has historically put fourth that anything that is not communist is inherently fascist. Is that your definition of fascism? Are folks allowed to talk about the French protests? To many they are based in fascism.
In my opinion, you are literally promoting groupthink and closing yourself off to ideas by attempting to ban content that you disagree with based on your own definitions. Life is a little more nuanced when you are not talking about specific issues by which you know the full context.
Also, is it a relatively new community or is it an established one that you want to preserve the culture of? I am getting very mixed messages from you.
Asking for proof of this is like asking for proof that the Constitution exists. It’s a very common thing I referenced. Western anarchism has a more positive history but largely linked to furtherment of the cause over actual progression of liberties.
My point in bringing it up is that it’s extremely easy to craft a narrative that starts including relatively positive forms of speech in with the banning. That includes these little forums and your approach is exactly what happened on Reddit eventually leading to the current influx of members here now. The second you start restricting speech is when the forum starts consolidating power.
Donald Trump was elected president primarily because he could control his messaging and direct different narratives to different demographics. He was unable to do that as president so he lost the next election. By encouraging the siloing of information sources, you enable that behavior.
I don’t want Nazis but the best way to turn them is not by sending them into a forum where they are left unchecked.
Asking for proof of this is like asking for proof that the Constitution exists. It’s a very common thing I referenced. Western anarchism has a more positive history but largely linked to furtherment of the cause over actual progression of liberties.
So you’re using historical examples of dictatorial communist regimes to tar the entire modern left as permanently and irredeemably bigoted. Got what you meant from the very beginning in its entirety in perfect crystal clarity. Meanwhile, the bigots are talking about eradicating trans people right now.
My point in bringing it up is that it’s extremely easy to craft a narrative that starts including relatively positive forms of speech in with the banning.
Your point is that because some communist dictatorships were bigoted, we should tolerate bigotry from fascists right now in new communities. No. For starters, bigots are still perfectly welcome on reddit and twitter and facebook and 4chan and stormfront and so on. Not everywhere has to be welcoming to bigots. Not everywhere has to be a high minded polyannish naive community where no one locks their doors and if we just engage with bigots on their terms everything will be hunky dory and they’ll stop wanting to genocide my friends. Not everywhere needs to be a complicit platform for hate.
your approach is exactly what happened on Reddit eventually leading to the current influx of members here now
reddit welcomed bigots since day one. Lemmy needn’t.
I don’t want Nazis but the best way to turn them is not by sending them into a forum where they are left unchecked.
Do they not already have enough recruiting grounds already for your liking? Why let them have this one too? Why should people on lemmy have to deal with all the hate against minorities? Why must bigots be welcome just to make others unwelcome?
My point here is not that I am. My point is that others would. The fact that you still do not understand that after reiterating it repeatedly in every single reply indicates to me that you are either not reading my replies or not in this discussion in good faith. You are what this community should leave behind. There was way too much of this on Reddit.
Their moderation policy basically allowed any abhorrent view as long as it was expressed in a “civil” manner.
Trolls and racists could say things like “well, in my humble opinion, black people are just inherently violent and unintelligent” and anyone who got irate and called them out would get a warning and/or banned.
This is my #1 also. So many people "just asking questions"
I also hate the circlejerk of people going "I cannot possibly comprehend being gay/trans/disabled/whatever but I let them do what they want!" They're not aliens, you can listen to them explain what they are going through and have empathy. It's not very complicated.
Oh don’t get me started on the sealioning from the bigots! “But we need to have more Valuable Discussion™ about my horseshit that’s been debunked a million times already!”
I think it’s a good attitude to serve as a stepping stone away from bigotry, it appeals to the bigots by offering some common ground while giving them a path to becoming less outwardly bigoted. Social progress takes time, especially with attitudes engrained as much as homophobia used to be.
Agreed, I grew up in a very conservative area and was pretty homophobic when I started college.
"They can do whatever they want, just don't ask me to like it" was an important stepping stone towards "oh shit, love is love" and finally actually listening to the experience of gay people.
Ultimately "live and let live" is all we can ask of anyone. If that is their attitude then they aren't a bigot. People are expecting too much of other people now - not embracing someone does not make someone a bigot.
Your starting position to me is honestly enough but unfortunately many people are way away from that. As a gay guy, I'd be happy with people just saying "do whatever you want want, just don't ask me to like it". The problem is too many people claim that with words but then actually act differently.
Don't understand why you stereotyped people and basically insulted them and then wondered why people are offended? Yea? No one wants to see your fucking junk either. No, just because you're not gay doesn't make you any more or less likely to do what you are accusing them of.
reddit never functioned as a stepping stone away from bigotry. A lot of mods were content to offer their subs and users to serve as stepping stones for bigots to walk all over, though.
Boost, to my understanding, is only a thing on Kbin. Ernest coded Kbin to have better connectivity with Mastodon (Boost was originally our analogue for a retweet) then Lemmy does, and that's one of the options he made (the Microblog section being another. The non-Kbin instances (so all of lemmy, and thus most of the people who can read this thread) just don't have a Boost button.
That being said Boost has changed a bit in terms of how it works since it was created, and it's gonna keep being changed (literally they have said they are working on it lol). For me I basically Boost anything I upvote as a force of habit at this point.
Edit: And to those even from Kbin who don't know since I see some of you in the comments - It's currently like a super upvote. Boost something and it'll make the comment rise higher in the thread, like higher upvoted comments on a reddit thread would go up to the top. (Less if it's changed since the time I learned that from some other fediverse schmuck lmao).
Thanks for the insight. So if I boost something it's only relevant for kbin-users? I actually like it a lot. I can upvote something but still make a distinction to what I consider a quality contribution or something that requires more exposure.
I have not tested it with accounts from other instances or platforms but:
Boost - Do so on a Microblog page on a Kbin magazine - Kbin users can see it higher in the Hot/Active, as well as Mastodon users seeing something retweeted via that hashtag (kbin.social/m/gaming's microblog would be visible to them via #gaming).
Boost - On a Microblog page on a Lemmy Instance - Pretty sure only Kbin can see it lol. Lemmy can't see the microblog stuff I don't think, and Mastodon can't see Microblog content there either irc.
Boost - Do so on a Thread on Kbin - Influence the comment order in the same means as Reddit upvotes. I.E. If I boost a particular (parent) comment, and no other comment has a boost, that comment shoots to the top as if on Reddit I upvoted a comment and every other (parent) comment on the thread had 0 or negative points.
Per the above - I HAVE ZERO IDEA IF ANYONE ON LEMMY IS INFLUENCED BY THIS IN THEIR HOT/ACTIVE VIEW. If you know, tell me lol.
Again I may be wrong.
Edit: If someone from Lemmy can confirm: Is the parent comment below mine on this thread by WalnutWalrus? If so, yes kbin boosts in a thread influence the hot/active comment ordering for lemmy users when they view a thread too (I boosted it to test).
When I sort by hot on Lemmy and kbin, I get a different order on each site. Sometimes it’s similar, but it can vary quite a bit. It doesn’t seem like boosts affect the comment order on Lemmy.
Kbin has two parts (unlike lemmy). The Reddit half, and the Twitter half. Reddit half is Threads.
Thread = A normal Reddit post. Forum style, you make a thread, people comment on it (I.E. what we're doing right now)
Comment = A comment on a thread.
The other half is the Twitter half, the Microblog.
Post = A tweet.
Replies = Comments on a tweet.
Things you post on the threads will federate across kbin and lemmy. Things you post on the microblog is federated across kbin, and mastodon via the hashtag of the magazine (i.e. kbin.social/m/gaming's microblog corelates to #gaming on mastodon, /m/doctorwho to #doctorwho, etc). We, via kbin, will see microblogs on lemmy communities as well but I'm not sure if anyone see's those but kbin users lol.
Just from quickly poking around, I think Boost only alters the comment order for kbin instances. Lemmy only seems affected by upvotes & downvotes. Lemmy also seems to give each post or comment an automatic upvote (or maybe that is just lemmy.world, idk), whereas kbin does not do this. I am also not sure if the automatic upvote transfers between kbin and Lemmy. This all being said, I could also just be completely wrong and misinterpreting things lol.
As a side-note, I can only seem to get my posts and comments to show if I boost my own post... I am not sure if that is just a kbin thing or something unique to my particular instance.
As a side-note, I can only seem to get my posts and comments to show if I boost my own post... I am not sure if that is just a kbin thing or something unique to my particular instance.
I'm going to assume the latter. I've made posts and comments (just here on kbin.social mind you) without upvoting and boosting, come back an hour later and others have seen it/commented/upvoted/etc so what you're describing definitely does not seem normal.
One thing I try to keep in mind when boosting content is that if (hypothetically) someone is following me from a microblogging platform, what they will get from me in their feed is a) my original posts and b) whatever content I boost. So it has the potential of affecting visibility of content beyond the original threads or community it belongs to. This is especially true if you make use of the microblogging function in kbin to interact with the broader Fediverse, in which case people might follow you from there.
In consequence, I try to boost content that I think has a general interest beyond the specific thread it is located in, and that I think calls for extra attention. If I merely agree with something or find it valuable in context I stick to just upvoting.
There is of course no problem with following a different philosophy - there's no real reason to worry about whether your profile lends itself to being followed by Mastodon users. But it's something to be aware of when figuring out how to use the function. :)
It's rather the opposite, as it is the alternative to an algorithm choosing which content will be visible. Algorithms are easily abused - a curated list of real people you follow and trust to share interesting content less so.
On kbin it's a little different thhough, as content widely boosted across the fediverse is given improved visibility by default. In this system we rely more on servers full of bad actors being defederated.
1 ‘hole’ if you can call it that. Imagine if the straw started life as a solid cylinder and you had to bore out the inside to turn it into a straw: if that were the case, you would drill 1 hole all the way through it.
Another analogy is a donut. Would you agree that a donut has just 1 hole? I would say yes. Now stretch that donut vertically untill you have a giant cylinder with a hole in the middle. That’s basically now just a straw. The fact you stretched it doesn’t increase the number of holes it has.
Imagine if the straw started life as a solid cylinder and you had to bore out the inside to turn it into a straw
This would mean a straw has a hole, yes. It would be like a donut indeed - donuts are first whole, then have the hole punched out of them. This meets a dictionary definition of a hole (a perforation). A subtractive process has removed an area, leaving a hole.
But straws aren't manufactured this way, their solid bits are additively formed around the empty area. I personally don't think this meets the definition.
Your topological argument is strong though - both a donut and straw share the same topological feature, but when we use these math abstractions, things can be a bit weird. For instance, a hollow torus (imagine a creme-filled donut that has not yet had its shell penetrated to fill it) has two holes. One might not expect this since it looks like it still only obviously has one, but the "inner torus" consisting of negative space (that represents the hollow) is itself a valid topological hole as well.
But straws aren’t manufactured this way, their solid bits are additively formed around the empty area. I personally don’t think this meets the definition.”
By this logic, how I make a doughnut changes whether it has a hole.
If I make a long string of dough and then connect the ends together and cook it (a forming process) it doesn’t have a hole.
If I cut a hole in a dough disc and then cook (a perforation) it has a hole. Even though the final result is identical?
On the matter of the doughnut: If you make them at home, you’re almost always just rolling a cylinder and then making it a circle. I have never actually punched a hole out of a doughnut. That would mess up the toroidal shape.
Maybe she’s not, but I am. An intact straw has zero holes. If you stick a pin in the side, it has one. If you stick a pin all the way through, it has two.
No, topologically there would be no holes until the moment of contact. This is the same as there being no hole when drilling through from only one side until the surface on the opposing side is broken.
But here’s the thing. Take that doughnut and stretch it until it’s a cube with two square cutouts in it. Stretch in some of the inner walls. Now you have a house, with a door and a window. Now: does the house have two holes - a door and a window - or does it have one hole?
Locally has two extrinsic holes, that is holes relative to things outside and inside the house, globally has one intrinsic hole. We say that the door is a hole respect to the wall no to the house itself. So both the door and the window are holes locally. But we never say the house has holes, we talk about walls and ceilings so globally that house has 1 hole. Another way of thinking it is that if the house can be deformed into a filled doughnut then it can be compressed to a circle and that’s the definition of a 1-hole.
So as you begin to bore, that is one hole. But when you go through the other side, you have in fact made two holes. I think a donut can actually be thought of either as one hole or two holes, or more correctly; two holes that are the same hole.
Back to the straw; if you make another hole in the side of the straw half way up, would it still have one hole? Or two holes? Or three holes?
A bit like thinking of the human digestive tract, most of us would agree that your mouth is a different hole to your anus, but we agree that they are in two ends of the same system
A lot of the initiatives are ineffective by design because the real goal is to give the consumers agency over the problem. Corporations have known that individual effort is a drop in the bucket but by framing the problem as not not a “corporate” problem but a “society” problem, they can keep not fixing it, for profit.
Pretty much. Only large scale solutions will have any chance of working. A lot of it implies stuff like recycling or figure out ways of turning waste into something non-harmful. So anything you see on an individual level is pretty much guaranteed to be pointless.
A corporate problem and a societal problem are two sides of the same coin. Corporations don't make money in isolation, they make money because they sell things that (directly or ultimately) are bought by consumers.
You could choose to imagine a scenario where the CEOs of Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, etc just voluntarily decide to stop extracting oil overnight, and think that would be more impactful than billions of individual consumers slashing their demand for carbon-intensive products and fuels. But if the consumers don't change their behaviour and continue to demand this stuff, other companies would just step in to fill the gap, takeover the old oil fields, etc.
The sustainable way to change corporate behaviour is through changing their end-consumers' behaviour - i.e. if end-consumers stop directly buying carbon-intensive products and stop buying from carbon-intensive companies.
I think there is two important points that you haven’t considered:
Information asymmetry: in economics, this is the situation where one party has more/better information than the other. Of course a big corporation will have more information about a product I’m using that I would on every product I use, especially given that they can hire as many specialists as they want. Because of this, consumers should not be expected to take care of all societal change through their choices
You seem to imply that these companies only exist to satisfy a customer need. While this is partially true, this completely omits the fact that since 15 years, every company has a marketing department, whose sole purpose is to suscit this need in the consumer mind. Company are not just need-fulfilling machines, but also self feeding systems. You can’t talk about the fact that renewing your phone emits a lot of carbon without talking about the fact that every phone company spends millions at making you want to renew it
The MOST sustainable way to change corporate behavior is to make it prohibitively expensive for them to engage in behavior that is bad for the environment by levying major financial penalties and taxes on the offending corporations.
Corps frame it as an individualist problem because they don’t want regulation, which is really the only viable way to attack the problem (and regulations needs to be backed by treaties with teeth since it is a global problem).
You can’t expect every consumer to research every product and service they buy to make sure these products were made with an acceptable footprint. And if low-footprint products/services are more expensive or somehow not quite as good, there will be a financial incentive to use higher footprint products (if individuals acted “rationally,” this is what they would do).
Consumers are also voters. Corporations are not. Whether through the products we purchase at the shops or the politicians we elect at the ballot box, it will be the behaviour of individuals that creates the incentive set within which corporations profit-maximise.
Telling ourselves that this is a corporate problem and our individual behaviour doesn't matter is a comforting fairy tale but it will accomplish little.
Capital has already shifted toward green energy and renewable systems. Capitalism is way ahead of any other process in terms of fighting climate change
You're comparing the collective influence of lobbyists, donors and pressure groups with the individual influence of a single voter - no shit the former looks bigger.
The collective influence of voters in choosing (say) Trump over Clinton, or Biden over Trump, or Macron over Le Pen, or voting for Brexit, has influenced the direction of these Western democracies in recent years dramatically more than any group of lobbyists could dream of.
You're telling yourself a comforting fairytale that society is directed by some powerful secret cabals pulling the strings so you as an individual are absolved from having to do your bit with how you spend your money and how you vote. If everyone thinks like you, nothing will improve. So fucking irresponsible.
Please don’t invent strawman arguments. I haven’t compared collective influence to individual influence, and I haven’t mentioned any hidden cabal or fairytale story. Everything is out in the open and I’m happy to provide my source: www.sciencedirect.com/…/S0261379421001256
I think the point is not that the individual should abandon efforts to modify their own habits. The point is that we should also be focusing just as much if not more energy on efforts to regulate and/or change industries that are responsible for more emissions by orders of magnitude. Some small but significant subset of the population going vegan, buying electric cars, or biking to work isn't going to offset the biggest offenders.
The biggest offenders are fighting tooth and nail to be as profitable as possible at literally any cost. You can be damn sure that if what they produce becomes less desirable in one industry, they will try their hardest to get picked up in some other industry. They'll have scientists finding some way to be useful somewhere and demonstrating it with research and lobbyists that will then get the government to mandate/subsidize it so that they make as much money as possible.
I've personally tried to "vote with my wallet" but industries have found ways to green-wash their products to give the impression that choosing their products would be the responsible choice when in reality it is not. Ensuring that your spending only goes to companies making an honest effort to do all they can to be carbon neutral or environmentally friendly is more than a full time job at this point. The only way is to ensure that governing bodies dictate the behavior of these organizations and even individuals so that it is no longer up to the organization/individual to "do the right thing".
Without proactive, strong government intervention we will be well, well, well beyond the point of no return by the time "voting with our wallets" and "modifying our behaviors" changes industries and society enough to have a significant impact.
The amount of profit and money in the oil industry will ensure that it's product remains relevant for as long as possible. If it's not through gasoline, it will be something else.
Meanwhile they'll be doing their best to sabotage and lobby against any competition to make it harder for individuals to even have the opportunity to do the right thing. The change has to come from the top (government mandates) in order for it to have any meaningful impact any time soon.
Both are true. The oil companies will lobby to maintain their position, yes. But you’ll also make the choice to drive places when maybe you could cycle
People boycotting certain products only really works if an alternative is available and attainable, or the demand is elastic.
For example, if I go to any grocery store, all the pasta, rice, buckwheat, bread and other staples are packaged into single-use plastic, as are hygiene products like toothpaste and shampoo. I have no choice but to be part of the plastic waste problem since there is no alternative and the demand for food is not elastic—I literally can't go without food and basic hygiene.
But I can and will avoid buying problematic products like teflon cookware, fast fashion, ICE vehicles, tech products with severe privacy/ownership/repairability issues since there are alternatives available and if not, I can go without since eg Alexa smart speakers are not essential for life.
Hence, we need to hold companies, whose products are problematic while not having alternatives and that are essential for life, responsible and force them to change to less problematic practices. In short, eg single-use plastics should be regulated out of existence wherever possible.
And for products that have better alternatives, we need to raise awareness about them and raise their social acceptance/desirability (make them cool). Plus we need to increase their availability and attainability—what use of is an ethical alternative product if it's not easily available in my country or if the price is not affordable to everyone who can afford the "normal" version?
That's not really what OP is saying though? They're talking about corporate efforts to make it seems like the consumers are the problem, not them, and many are still falling for it. As long as the awareness of this is not raised and more people aren't pointing fingers at the corporates the whole don't buy their product is never going to be effective, same for advocating for regulations (rather, especially the regulations). You're assuming everyone knows the root of the problem already, but that's just not the case here.
This is a frustrating kind of defeatist attitiude I'm finding is getting more and more common.
It comes from a place of unwillingness for personal and habitual change. It's hard to accept that we all have to change our lifestyles and accept that how we're living is going to have to change. That there is exists some scenario whereby we all continue living exactly how we're doing now with the same consumer behaviour and expect a bit of regulations to change everything. Or delay changing until after these regulations are in place, when in reality BOTH needs to happen.
What's the point in sitting on your ass complaining about the behaviours of other individuals and organisations when the only thing you have direct control over is your life.
What’s the point in sitting on your ass complaining about the behaviours of other individuals and organisations when the only thing you have direct control over is your life.
I’m not challenging you on the “sitting on your ass” part because that is true. But I promise you the Earth getting hotter and more polluted is going to exert “direct control …over your life.” And the only real way we can change this is through some kind of political process.
Where did I say it shouldn't be a political process? It isn't an either-or. How many people online who are saying "oh why should I consume less when corporations emit the most CO2, there's no point I'm not going to bother" is politically active outside of voting? As in, physically - attend climate rallies or petition their local representative. I'd wager it's a slim minority. Signing an online petition or tweeting does not count.
If people honestly cared so much that they're doing these things anyway, then changing themselves and their consumption habits should be dead easy. So why don't more people do it?
My point is this isn't an excuse to not take any actions locally within your life, which is something you can do RIGHT NOW.
BP created the concept of a carbon footprint to make customers feel responsible for climate change. The reality is that consumer choices make no difference in the face of China building a dozen new giant coal power plants each year. This needs to be tackled diplomatically, and nations need to be willing to negotiate with much more force. China emits more than double the CO2 of the U.S. That’s just CO2. There’s PFAS, methane, plastics, and hundreds of others pollutants. They’re destroying whole oceans with their huge bottom-trawling fishing fleets. It’s time we get serious about tackling the major polluters first.
Apart from how it's very hard to avoid, given that at least half the fediverse seems to be either Reddit-related, political, or politically Reddit-related.
(Seriously, any pointers on blocking that shit apart from playing whack-a-mole with all the different "subs" would be great, there are simply too many. Each instance can have many mags/communities for the same topic, and there's obviously quite a few instances too. I don't suppose we can filter subs with regex?)
I support this point of view, but at the same time I want the status quo to be disrupted and the internet to change, I’m not a fan of allowing corporations to fall into complacency when they hold so much power.
This is what I wish more lemmings would grasp. I’ve commented before how there’s this disillusionment that reddit actually died when a bunch of people left. It didn’t. The sooner everyone can stop being in denial about that, the better.
The situation is really more akin to an abusive ex and the people that left realizing that they’re better off without them. You’re in a better place. Stop talking about, focusing on the drama that your ex brought and just embrace your newer better environment.
Millions of people are in that situation and don’t leave because they’ve been manipulated, they’re scared, and in this case addicted. My brother in law switched from Apollo to the official app and hates it, complains every day, and says reddit sucks now…but won’t leave.
Yeah, but like… I have a gf to have someone to converse with. This new gf of mine basically doesn’t speak so I’m just sitting here watching the wallpapers in silence, whereas my ex, while crazy, was very talkative and entertaining.
Yeah but if my current gf is just being silent I’m like… girl why are we even dating? I’ll keep dating her but damn. It’s not a great relationship and I miss the crazy hoe.
If you miss her so bad, you can just go back. It’s okay, really, I guess most people still go to both website. It’s a website after all, don’t see too much into it.
On my side I’m just reminded everytime I have to use RedReader to access Reddit on my phone that they really don’t want me there.
The thing is I can’t. Because if I do I’ll most likely inadvertently break up with my new gf, and I really do want her to succeed in life and for us to get married at some point. I’ll give her some more time.
I basically never used Reddit on my phone and on the computer it’s always old.reddit + RES. Also a reason why Lemmy feels a bit gnnnnh. Navigating without keyboard shortcuts is a paaaain.
Yeah I found that script thing a couple of days ago but I don’t have Greasemonkey or anything like that and I don’t think I want to. But I might have to. We’ll see. The other one I saw a while back but didn’t see a major usecase for me personally. But thanks for reminding me since I am way more miffed about the shortcuts now than I was then and I forgot all about that script thing.
To use your analogy of the abusive ex… would you want someone to just never talk about the abusive ex? Never process the trauma? That’s what a lot of people are doing. Noticing that the abusive ex is imploding into a death spiral is kind of validating of your decision to leave. It’s part of the process. There’s no need to shame people for it.
The post is a week old, but regardless, people have had their time to grieve and process. Your friends and family were there for you, they let you vent, they helped you make the transition away from your partner…but they’re gone. It’s time to move on. Let it go. You’re stuck in denial while most people have made it all the way to acceptance. Everyone is ready for you to stfu about your ex.
You’re also reading too much into the analogy. This isn’t really an ex, it’s a link aggregating website and online forum. Just like nobody cared if you deleted your myspace, your Facebook, digg, Tumblr, TikTok, YouTube, etc…nobody really cares that you deleted your reddit account.
They’ve had their time according to you but maybe people can make their own decisions? Also maybe just chill about it? You don’t have to listen, you don’t have to be here for any of the conversations.
Also you’ve created an entire community of family and friends with backstories so you can then tell me all these imaginary people want me to “stfu”, but apparently I’m the one “reading too much into the analogy”. I think you’re the one that just wants me to “stfu” but you don’t want to say it directly.
If you want me to stfu you can just block me, or just stop saying things directy to me that are blatantly wrong. Up to you ¯_(ツ)_/¯
And I don’t see what the age of the thread or the fact the poster agreed with you - although they don’t exactly, that’s another thing you’re wrong about - has to do with anything. I’m not here complaining about you talking, I’m pointing out how what you’re saying is wrong. You’re the one literally saying you want people to “stfu”. I’m glad you’ve at least owned it now.
Important? Sort of, or at least it would be... kinda nice. Blatantly giving your user base the middle finger isn't really desired behavior, so I'd love to see any sign of things like that having consequences at all. It's not just about pettiness (although the schadenfreude would be huge in my case, not going to lie), it's wanting to see shitty behavior not pay off.
It’s petty, but I do hope Reddit suffers. Spez and co has profited off user generated content, free moderation of their communities for a decade plus. Forcing users into the Reddit app that is garbage compared to other 3rd party apps, not to mention the privacy concerns with the app which rivals Facebook.
Quote from Spez in 2016. In May, Steve Huffman said in an interview at the TNW Conference that, unlike Facebook, which “only knows what [its users are] willing to declare publicly”, Reddit knows its users’ “dark secrets”
If Reddit collapses or at the very least their IPO collapses and we can prevent another sociopath from being a billionaire I’ll be very happy with the situation.
"Is there a reason why Lemmy is so fixated on Israel/Palestine?"
I figure that people who take the time to swap to federated social media are generally going to be people that are a little more political...
and Israel is currently actively committing genocide. So political people are posting anti-israel posts. It's really not more complicated than that.
This may be an unpopular option since I’ve already seen it across lemmy, but the ____porn communities. I’d like to browse pictures of nice landscapes or exotic cars without worry about someone around me noticing “PORN” on my screen.
At this point it seems very old internet, something that made sense when those communities were established, but now is unnecessary gratuitous and not socially acceptable.
Couldn't agree more. It sucks to try to bring someone to a new platform and go "you love decorating right? Then check /r/roomporn! No no, it's not porn I swear... Sigh"
Damn, I had forgotten how obnoxious that was on Reddit. Blocked all of those years ago because it was just unnecessary and a gross way to qualify otherwise unremarkable photos.
I agree, but I also think that porn should still be welcome here. The issue is there needs to be better control over it entering the feeds, not that the communities themselves should be abolished.
I don't think porn should be welcome here. In far too many cases, porn equals abuse and/or human trafficking. I haven't got anything against looking at nekkid people, but there's way too much shittiness going on in the porn industry.
Oh duh I always hated the names of those subs. The only thing worse are subs like InterestingAsFuck and NextFuckingLevel which always gave the same vibes as a Watchmojo video.
Nothing like someone peaking over your shoulder and seeing you’re browsing r/AnimalPorn…
I totally agree with you. Hopefully lemmy can be a little more mature with community names. (Yeah, yeah… I know the hypocrisy of my username… It’s my gamertag)
Indeed. I like ‘Earthporn’ too, but I think it should be all nature pictures that look like genitalia and suchlike. Rocks or trees that look like penises for example.
What a wild site that was, some real loons were on it, but I did appreciate the fact it wasn’t so overly moderated. At the end though it just felt like a sanctuary of hate that had driven out most of the sane people.
An “incel” is inherently and unavoidably misogynistic. The concept of being “involuntarily” celibate is implying that it is the other woman (or man) at “fault” for not allowing the incel man (or woman) to have sex when the incel very much wants to. Being an “incel” absolves the user of the term of any and all responsibility for their condition and is basically an admission that they will never work to improve themselves or make themselves into an attractive option for their desired mate. It turns their target into a complete sexual object without any other considerations for their own desires.
You can be single and celibate without being an incel. That is just called being single, but open to a relationship or casual sex. It’s also called being a normal ass human being who can hold a conversation and develop normal human connections without viewing anyone or everyone as just a slab of meat to be obtained.
There's a world of difference between someone who's single, not satisfied with it, and actively desiring/seeking a relationship (single and looking) and someone who actively self-identifies as inherently doomed to be single due to the actions/perceptions of others (incel).
People in the former category NEVER call themselves incels.
Exactly. The issue with incels is that they actively do nothing to improve their chances in the dating world, and then instead of looking inward, blame women for their own shortcomings. "I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and big butt and my butt smells and... women should still want to fuck me because I'm owed sex."
I feel that your second sentence is too narrow. It goes beyond blaming a woman (or man). It includes society in general and/or any external construct or group. They may blame genetics, the patriarchy, feminism, or whatever other Boogeyman they want.
The underlying issue is that they are absolving themselves of any blame and refusing to accept themselves as the cause. It’s unsurprising that this very concept is often a self perpetuating issue. Their incel mentality and refusal of accepting any responsibility pushes any potential women (or men) from a desire to be in a relationship with them. It also builds an “us vs them” mentality that is reinforced by the echo chamber communities they build for themselves.
Yes, I suppose they can target basically any group, which makes my initial description too narrow. But I was focusing on addressing OP’s concerns of misogyny, which is gender focused.
The echo chamber is a very big part of it, you’re right. The more validation they receive for thinking that the “other people” are the problem, the more they think it’s okay to do.
Breathing does not create Carbon, it is only transformed.
There are basically 2 pools of carbon. The carbon already in circulation in the athmosphere, plants, animals and so on, roaming at the surface. That Carbon can be CO2, or other mollecules, but there is always a fixed amount. You breathing is simply borrowing the carbon for a bit and putting it out again in the air when exhaling.
The second pool is carbon locked away in the ground, as coal, oil and whatnot. That carbon is OLD and is not supposed to be in the first pool. When you burn oil, the carbon from the 2nd pool ends up in the 1st one. You cannot really offset it because even planting trees just transforms it as wood for a bit, but if the tree burns or rots, the carbon goes back in the air. The only option long term is to send the carbon back in a locked state in the second pool.
But for you, just reduce the amount of carbon you move from pool 2 to pool 1 to help the earth. Cut on oil, gas, coal as much as you can. The rest is basically irrelevant.
You can compare it to the water cycle. You are at a lake with a pump, and pump the water from the lake back into the lake. You can keep going forever and will not cause the lakes to rise since the water is pumped from there anyway. BUT, if a mega corporation starts pumping from underground sources and dumping it in that lake, it would overflow for sure. And they would blame you for all the water you are pumping.
Yes, carbon sequestration is the term for it, but none of them are currently practical to do on a scale that would mitigate the effects of the fossil fuels we burn. Growing trees is an example of this, as they do lock up carbon in the process of growing, but they're kind of a risky prospect since if the tree dies and rots or is caught in a wildfire then it releases the carbon again. Another option is literally just sticking it back underground in mines or oil wells, but of course that takes a lot of energy to do and then whole point of burning fossil fuels is to get energy so this one is currently a bit self-defeating. They're things that might be helpful to do if we succeed in transitioning to clean energy and have an excess of it available
If we can get nuclear fusion to work, that would be the kind of things that would then make sense to do. I can only hope that we figure it out as soon as possible.
Absolutely. Or even just excess capacity of wind and solar, to be honest. Whatever works, so long as we don't need it to replace fossil fuels and it isn't itself making more CO2 to lock away the CO2
Breathing does not create Carbon, it is only transformed.
Yet somehow when cows do it this is not the case.
Your premise is that the only carbon that’s new is from fossil fuels, which I can agree with (to a point; it came from biomass originally so is not truly new, just reintegrated after a billion years) but the problem is your view, the view we had for a few decades until very recently, is not the most common view. People talk about carbon in biomass going through the carbon cycle as if it’s a bad thing now, and you get called a fucking denier of all things if you point out that that is ridiculous.
Cows fart which creates methane. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Like 25x worse. Add on to that we artificially increase the bovine population by orders of magnitude than they’d naturally attain so we can consume them. They contribute a lot to climate change.
Cows do not create carbon. They turn it into methane which is a worse form of carbon.
The same way you can turn carbon in biomass to “lock” it from the atmosphere, you can turn it in worse forms of gas that cause even more heating like methane. The methane will turn back in CO2 form once it burns or degrade naturally (a dozen years or so) but while it is under methane form, it will make it worse, accelerating the heating effects. But even stopping all methane emissions is only a temporary solution as carbon from pool 2 keeps moving in pool 1. It may give us more time before reaching the same level of greenhouse effect but we will reach it anyway.
No one is complaining about the carbon a cow is breathing in and out. It's the methane they produce, which is a very potent greenhouse gas, about 80 times the warming power.
Methane has a half life of 8 years, and is produced from carbon dioxide and water, specifically it is produced into carbohydrates by plants which are then broken down into methane by certain bacteria in animal digestive systems. It degrades back into carbon dioxide and water through oxidization very quickly in the atmosphere. It’s effect on global warming is miniscule compared to carbon dioxide, by measure of the volume of each produced and their persistence in the atmosphere. Methane is a non issue, and is easily made up for by the fact that cows, and the humans that eat them, are carbon sinks also. Imagine if you stopped cattle production and destroyed all those cattle to stop them from creating methane, how much carbon dioxide do you think they’d create as they biodegrade? This would have a significant impact on warming, way way more than the methane does. The existence of cattle (and any and all biomass in general since they’re all carbon sinks) is a net positive for warming, by far.
The article you link shows carbon dioxide having a stronger impact on warming than methane in aggregate, which is what I’m talking about and what matters.
Methane in the Earth’s atmosphere is a powerful greenhouse gas with a global warming potential (GWP) 84 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame.
You were crying about people bemoaning the impact of cows breathing. You were wrong.
potential. Do you even understand what you’re citing? There are graphs in the article if words are hard. Do you know what radiative forcing is? You should read about it.
The fact that you are isolating the word "potential" suggests that you don't realise what "global warming potential" actually is. It's a measurement for comparing the effect of greenhouse gases to carbon dioxide, not the top of an error bar
For fun, a rough estimate is 20% of an animal’s mass in carbon. A cow is around 600kg (1000 pounds). That means 120kg of carbon. Carbon being 12g per mols, that is 10’000 mols of carbon. Turn that all in CO2, that makes 10’000 mols of CO2 which is 44g per mols, so 440 kg of CO2.
As methane (CH4), it is instead (16g per mols) : 160kg.
A cow produces 100kg of methane a year so a cow’s biomass is not sufficient to compensate for it’s methane production over its life.
Plus, when you eat the cow, you are the one farting that carbon back in the athmosphere anyway.
Still, cattle is 10% of the global greenhouse gas emissions.
This is a really important insight. To add to it: back when the carbon from Pool 2 was in the atmosphere, dinosaurs were roaming the earth and it was a lot hotter than it is now.
This is obviously a simplification, it but it drives home the point that once the carbon is out of Pool 2 it will cause global warming. The only way to stop that is to stop moving carbon from Pool 2 into Pool 1, ie stop fossil fuel mining.
Of course we could try to move carbon from Pool 2 to Pool 1, but it took the Earth millions of years to do that, and many of the plant species that did it are now extinct. Perhaps once we’re exinct, they might evolve again.
Re trees: It follows that growing some trees doesn’t help much, but growing a forest on otherwise bare land will act as a carbon sink as long as it’s not cut down - dead trees will be replaced without human intervention
Yes, but from a slightly different viewpoint. Namely, people are so disenfranchised from their society on average that the idea of a social “contract” makes no sense. People are not at all represented by “their” governments, and in their righteous anger they conflate the oppression by governments with that of their people.
If you put on a crown and shout that you’re better than me, I’m not going to respect your authority by default. You need to give a reason to do so, such as protections, rights, privileges, opportunities, camaraderie, etc.—or the implied or explicit threat of violence against those who disobey the law, as is the current setup. Right now, the only thing that my government does for me is wage wars in foreign lands, building ill will and corpse piles on my behalf. For many people, their government harasses them or just wants them straight-up dead.
I think that many people confuse the ill-will of governments with the avarice of their ordinary citizens [1]. It is, at best, tied to the apathy of their citizens, whom have themselves been relentlessly beaten into understandable submission.
The point I’m making is this: if people are already out to destroy you, what good is the social contract to you? Fuck them. This is the attitude that drives people not to care for others.
Now this lack of care for others isnotmy viewpoint! I do separate the actions of the state from the people they “represent” as much as is possible [2]. However, I’m in a position of relative comfort and privilege. I have the energy to take a fraction of a second and cool off when I start to see myself blaming humanity for things. Most people don’t.
Lastly, in regards to situational awareness and common courtesy specifically…I really had to learn that, and I’m not the only one. “Do unto others as you would want done unto you” doesn’t really work for me because I generally want different things than others. I have difficulties reading social cues. Even as an adult, I have to go far beyond “Do unto others…” to suss out what the right course of action is, because I typically would want something else or nothing to happen. Situational awareness and common courtesy are not inherently obvious or intuitive, and I think we do a disservice to ourselves by pretending that we don’t generally learn courtesy from others.
[1] In areas where street justice is a thing, it is not at all uncommon for the public to side with non-state bullies in conducting oppression, although usually still with tacit state support.
[2] Patriots and ultranationalists do exist unfortunately. Non-state ultranationalists need to be taken to task along with their state-sponsored brethren.
racism/sexism/any sort of hatred really, including hate based on culture (assuming no one is being harmed—but criticism should be rooted in compassion and justice for victims not hatred of perpetrators) or nationality. Many redditors just want an “approved” target for their hatred and aren’t trying to actually advocate for any victims. Oftentimes, they don’t even have any personal stake in the matter which raises the question of why they’re so invested in hating their target, like bringing it up on unrelated threads.
“Happy cake day”
Treating social media apps/sites as if they’re religions
Slavery already exists in the US in various forms, and in greater numbers than prior to the Civil War, but no I would not be surprised if the right wingers legalize slavery again, or if Gilead/Texas tries first.
Either way fuck the Confederate wannabes, we should smash them now so we don’t have to do it yet again later, which is what Grant failed to do during the Reconstruction era.
As well as the domestic slavery that DigitalTraveler42 mentions, we've off-shored a lot of slavery.
Companies serving US markets set up their pricing in a way that encourages producers to use slaves or they buy from the lowest price and either don't ask questions or ask questions after the order is filled. Coffee, chocolate, tea, textiles and garment production all involve slave labour at the tacit request of large companies that are often based in the US.
The cost benefits of slavery are factored into a lot of our food and clothes. That's an important part of our economy that we can't separate out just because we've set up supply chains with deniability in mind.
Well there’s absolutely a lot of real and actual slavery across the country, from domestic servants who are being held against their will, to sex slaves, and of course the numbers scale up with our population. So our population during the civil war was 31+ million, with close to 4 million of that being slaves, now we have 331+ million people, if you combine the instances of domestic and indentured servitude with sexual slavery, then add in those wrongfully in the prison system it scales to being much more than the sub 4 million in slavery during the civil war.
I know a lot of people would want to say “but the prison system is prisoners who committed crimes” but a lot of people are in prison because of failed justice, or on poverty based offenses, some of which compile with other petty offenses. Now also another caveat is that prison work isn’t usually compulsory, it’s normally voluntary, but one can argue that it’s the prison that has the leverage over these people volunteering or not.
Overall these statistics aren’t easy to calculate because modern day slavers want to hide and obfuscate their crimes, but it’s there, it exists, and it exists in places you may not expect, like the next time you’re sitting in a park in Manhattan consider the fact that one of the many domestic workers present may in fact be enslaved against their will, and this could be said in LA, Miami, Atlanta, anywhere in the US.
If you aren’t accounting for the change in population and you’re just comparing the estimated number of slaves, then you are definitely correct. However, I think its probably better to measure what percentage of the population is made up of slaves.
Obviously there are going to be more total enslaved people now, it scales with the population. The problem with looking at it that way is that it doesn’t actually tell you if the situation is improving. All it tells you is that there are way more people now. That’s why you look at a percentage. That will tell you how bad the problem was, how much better its gotten, and how much better it needs to get.
I’m not trying to argue that everything is ok because a smaller percentage of people are enslaved now. A percentage is simply the more useful method of measuring how common slavery is and comparing it to different times.
I agree, but that’s also what I’m trying to say is that the natural scale of the population increase will still scale out to be a higher slavery total than back then, but that’s total numbers, the percentages would be vastly different, like during the civil war era slaves were about 9.6% of the population of the US, but because of slavery not being tracked so closely now we couldn’t get an accurate total for slavery in the modern era, and there would be nitpicking about what counts as slavery and what does not.
And even if someone is in the prison system for entirely correct reasons, forcing them to work is still slavery. I don't care if they're the most guilty awful person ever, if they need to be put in prison then put them in prison. That's the purpose of prison.
Trying to get economic benefit out of holding people in prison is not a slippery slope, it's a slippery cliff. The moment you try to justify it for anyone you're opening the door to a moral disaster.
But let’s be objective with this, most of prison work is voluntary, and the desire to do something, anything, sometimes gets the best of us and due to that we’ll do the volunteering, it’s important to make that distinction, especially when I’ve been there and done that.
Now the obvious differences are prisons like Angola in Louisiana, which still has the same chaingang that they were depicted to have in movies decades behind us, there’s no voluntary work there, those are prison work camps/concentration camps, and are tantamount to slavery, if not outright slavery, and are violent as hell, and these types of prisons can be found all across the American South, but especially along the Gulf Coast.
"You can work and spend your entire pittance on ramen noodles, or you can go stir-crazy in your cell and eat stewed cardboard" is a voluntary choice only in the most strictly pedantic sense.
That’s being a bit Hyperbolic, and these aren’t the types of prisons or jails where you’re stuck in a cell all day, that’s your misconception, the only people who are locked up like that are the ones that have proven themselves too dangerous to be around others, or at least that’s how it’s supposed to be when our prison system is working correctly, and the only prisons where that’s consistently their prison existence is the SuperMax prisons, because again, those people are too dangerous to let roam without supervision.
Mostly it’s just a chance to get out from behind the walls and the fences, sure they’d rather be free, but I’m sure we’d all rather they not do shut that gets them put in prison, and regardless of your feelings towards prisons people who commit crimes, real crimes, belong there, or some form of prison that emphasizes rehabilitation.
or at least that’s how it’s supposed to be when our prison system is working correctly
Opinions on whether it's "working correctly" is likely going to vary depending on whether you're running a factory that depends on prison labor. Right now I think those factory owners would agree that it's working correctly.
Most guards could not give a shit less, they’re there to do their jobs and go home, so if you’re not going to volunteer some other person will, or they’ll just take whomever did volunteer. Sure you might run into some dickhead guard that demands it but that guard is just a symptom of our broken system and is most likely operating in a manner that would get them in trouble if the right people are notified.
But as I said to another person who replied to me that then you have prisons like Angola, which are basically just concentration camps, they staff the place with brutal guards purposely to keep the place viciously violent, and every single one of the prisons like Angola should be shut down with the staff prosected.
So it really depends on the prison, but the majority are of the more mellow variety, although overpopulation makes the more mellow prisons drastically less mellow.
Slavery is currently legal a the federal level for incarcerated people as that exception was carved out in the 13th Amendment. That is pretty much maxed out in its current state through disproportionately incarcerating minorities, and is likely to be the primary reason that the US has such a ridiculously high incarceration rate.
Sherman was a psychopathic mass murderer. Look up his slaughter of American Indians. He was a terrible person who was pointed at even worse people for once and set loose. Don’t idealize him.
asklemmy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.