What gets you downvoted?

What sort of post or comment gets you downvoted the most? Especially if you don’t think it’s bad behavior in the first place, or don’t care. Does not have to be on Lemmy, but we are here… One of the good things about Lemmy IMO is that it’s small enough to see the posts that are unpopular. If you do “Top Day” on most channels, you cash reach the bottom, see what people here don’t like.
As far as comments, attempting to rebut the person who is telling me my post sucks, is what gets me into negative numbers most often. The OP is going to voite it down, of course, and nobody else cares, usually.

otp,

If someone is downvoted, someone else comments and gets upvoted, and you reply to the upvoted comment to defend the downvoted comment, you will get downvoted. Probably 95% of the time. It doesn’t matter how right they are, or how mistaken the upvoted one is.

Especially getting into an argument with the upvoted one and hanging onto the downvoted one’s side.

Also, being downvoted is likely to get you downvoted more. That contributes to the above effect.

Without pre-existing up/downvotes, the best way to get downvoted is to be needlessly aggressive without being funny.

To get a downvote from me, just try to use “of” as a verb. (E.g., “would of”)!

Feathercrown, (edited )

You shoulda included “woulda” in your phrase list

otp,

Honestly, “woulda” is fine. It’s like gotta’, it’s a typed out version of how something we actually say would sound. It doesn’t look like it’s trying to be a real word.

“Would of” is not something that anyone says. It’s like mixing up “your” and “you’re”, except worse imo because it’s like “of” is being used as an adverb/verb/auxiliary verb or something.

Usernameblankface,
@Usernameblankface@lemmy.world avatar

Disagreeing with the consensus of the post and the comments. When the post has an agenda or a viewpoint that every comment so far heartily agrees with, I just move on and let the little echo chamber echo.

hal_5700X, (edited )

Based on what I seen on Lemmy. Being an Conservative. Don’t believe me. Go to a Conservative community and look at all the downvoted bombed posts.

EDIT “Based on what I seen on Lemmy”. I’m talking about World and .ml.

PhlubbaDubba,

.ml is literally a Marxist Leninist instance saying that right wing PoV gets down voted there is akin to observing that bears indeed shit in the woods

Fantomas,

I listen to, and enjoy, the Joe Rogan podcast.

Feathercrown,

What about it do you enjoy? 🤨

Schlemmy,

Opinions. People seem to hate opinions, whether they’re provided with an explanation or not. Facts are also downvoted on a regular base.

Akasazh,
@Akasazh@feddit.nl avatar

Well, see that’s just your opinion, man

Interstellar_1,
@Interstellar_1@pawb.social avatar

Yeah.

surewhynotlem,

No idea. I don’t keep track

sgibson5150,

Lemmy is more usable than kbin so when I moved, I found myself posting and commenting more. I think I’ve received at least one downvote every time I’ve done anything. 😆

I don’t mind. If it can improve some poor sad shlub’s day slightly, smack my downvote.

PrimeMinisterKeyes,

I’ve been lurking for months before joining and honestly, the voting appears quite random. If you post a comment early in any thread, it’ll probably get upvoted even when it’s totally silly and inane, as long if it can be construed as being in good faith. Write that same shit a few hours later, it’ll go into the abyss.
I’d say it’s still better than on That Other Site where you can get a good idea from the headline alone what the hackneyed ‘top’ comments will be like.

Feathercrown,

NTA - Your house, your rulez!1!!!1!1!

willya, (edited )
@willya@lemmyf.uk avatar

When I talk about driving my Tesla, while playing on my iPhone, and chugging Starbucks out of my custom Stanley. With my Windows laptop on the passenger side.

JackGreenEarth,

At least it’s not an Apple laptop, or I’d be annoyed.

helpImTrappedOnline, (edited )

I’d take an Apple over a chromebook any day.

(Yes I know you can load Linux on the Chromebook, but if I had to daily one or the other OS, apple > chrome)

JackGreenEarth,

I guess the Apple is more capable? Very much a lesser of two evils situation you’ve posited, though.

helpImTrappedOnline,

Pretty much, I can use more than a web browser and run all kinds programs.

PatMustard,

If someone was giving me it for free? Yeah I’d have the Macbook too, the hardware is lovely (the software not so much).

To buy myself? Chromebooks can be a great deal, and they’re ideal for a non-tech-savvy relative who needs a basic computer but that you don’t want to be on-call for tech support!

Thorny_Insight,

Don’t you mean playing with your iPhone while your Tesla drives itself?

willya,
@willya@lemmyf.uk avatar

Shit even more reason to downvote me.

PhlubbaDubba,

Windows laptop

YOU SON OF A BITCH! WE USE THINKPAD IN THIS INSTANCE!

ReallyKinda,

Controversial stuff of course, but people here seem less likely to take the context of the post or comment into consideration than they did on reddit. The instance or community something is posted in doesn’t seem to make a difference. On lemmy you get a ton of public gut reactions like you would on twitter. This is opposed to a forum-style where posts only face ‘real’ public scrutiny if they become popular in their respective communities to the point where they hit the front page. Perhaps with more users this effect will diminish, although if mastadon grows substantially our posts will be viewed by a large number of people twitter-style which would substantially impact interaction quality imo.

A_Very_Big_Fan, (edited )

AI isn’t stealing your art. Text to image stable diffusion literally can’t output a copy of your work.

And if you post your art online for free, you have no expectation of anyone not using your work to the extent that fair use allows. AI looking at your work for training is the same as a human looking at your work for inspiration.

JackGreenEarth,

I agree, for some reason majority opinion on this website hates AI.

Here is an essay I did on AI, by the way:

People have long said that new technology only creates more jobs. To those people, I would like to direct your attention to the cart-horse. Around a hundred years ago, before electric cars, people used to go around on horses, or in carts and wagons pulled by horses. Horses were an integral part of the transport system, and most horses were employed as such, even being bred specifically to cope with higher demand on people needing to go places. With the advent of the car, large swathes of the horse population became unnecessary, and the population dwindled to a new equilibrium as fewer horses were needed in transport, but fewer horses were also bred. Compared to the busy, hard life horses had to put up with only a few decades ago, most horses nowadays, although there a fewer of them, live a life of comparative luxury, living in fields most of the day where they are free to graze, are given good food by their owners that care about them, and are only occasionally ridden by humans, and even when they are, it is far more relaxed and more of an enjoyable activity than horse-riding was when it was the only way to get somewhere, and done on a daily basis.

Humans often have this idea that they are special. That they are the only ones that can weave cloth – until it is automated. That they are the only ones who can make pottery – until it is automated. That human labour is the only way to get power – until power production is automated with the advent of electricity. That they are the only ones can be ‘creative’, who can write stories, make art, play music – until that is automated too. True, in all those cases, humans were still involved in the process to some extent, mostly for quality control and maintenance, but far fewer humans are needed to create the same amount of stuff – whether physical goods or more ‘idea-like’ stuff such as art – than before. In fact, recent progress has shown video games that were even tested and quality controlled by AI, as well as being programmed by AI and using AI generated assets, doing away with the need for humans entirely. This is analogous to the true scenario that I outlined in the first paragraph, and is not necessarily a bad thing.

It is quite likely that, in an impossible to predict timespan (it may be 20 years, it may be much more), humans will have developed technology with the capacity to completely create all the things we need, and more – good food, comfortable shelter, entertainment, and so on. Some will argue that this cessation of the need for humans to work will results in economic collapse and mass hardships, but this is a small minded perspective, often viewed through a capitalistic lens. The horses didn’t have a population explosion and lack of resources due to their work being gone, on the contrary, their numbers dwindled – which is not a bad thing, as long as it is through natural means, which it was, it just means that every individual has more attention and resources – and their lives improved, since they no longer had to endure hard labour every day just to survive. It is certainly attainable for the same thing to happen to us. Population growth is already falling in developed countries, and only people who are unable to image a world without human labour see this as a bad thing. If less humans work every year, and more AIs do their jobs, it balances out, and is a way to ease into a world where there is very little to no human labour, and all our needs and most of our wants are produced by AI.

As much as many people dislike the sentiment, this would not work in a capitalistic world where what someone gets is dependent on what they contribute to society, for self-evident reasons (those being that no one would need to contribute anything to society if it is all being done by robots), and therefore in a world where all necessary labour is done by AI, we would have to move to a system where everyone gets resources simply by dint of existing, rather than needing to contribute anything themselves. You can call this socialism if you want, it doesn’t really matter what you call it. This system would have the benefit of reducing stress caused by the feeling that you are obligated to do something, while not removing the ability to contribute something if you want – after all, it is necessary labour that has been abolished, not all labour, and just as horses are still used as a novelty and entertainment today, and many people value hand-made pottery, food, etc., over manufactured counterparts, there is likely to still be a desire for art, objects, and stories made by humans even in such a world where all necessary labour has been abolished.

This also deals with the counterpoint made by many that people will struggle for a sense of meaning and purpose in a world where there is no necessary labour – first of all, people struggle for meaning and purpose even when they do work necessarily, and second of all, as mentioned above, they can still do unnecessary, but still valued labour, and get the same meaning and purpose from that.

Some people, myself included, think that although the above scenario may work in theory, in practise it would be difficult to get the billionaires and billionaires’ puppets in government to agree to such a sensible system when the huge benefit to everyone may come at a small cost to themselves – even if the cost is just ego, even if they could still keep all their material resources. I admit, I don’t see a good solution to this problem myself, but, in conclusion, I hope we can think of one together, as this is a world many, including myself, would like to live in.

nymwit,

The meta bit is that specifically here, it’s sort of a derail of the main topic. Some downvotes I’m sure are for that. As for why this essay might generally attract downvotes? I’ll follow your locomotive off the track.

I mean, 1. It’s a frickin’ essay. 2. Comes off as a little cold and sorta “I know better than you do”, and 3. seems to completely miss the point of what I interpret as most folks dislike of AI in the current incarnations we are seeing (which isn’t a real sci-fi type general AI that gets society to the end point of your essay). I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone worrying about “what will I do to find purpose in a fully-automated-gay-space-luxury-communism?” (overemphasis mine of course). It’s now and the next so many years, not some far off future that (I interpret) folks seem to be worrying about. It’s income stability now, careers to go into now, disinformation now, degradation of the internet and media now. I think the zeitgeist here is that it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets any better. I don’t think anyone on Lemmy really has high hopes for major players in current economic systems to use AI-as-it-exists-now to make anything better of the world in aggregate. It ain’t the tools, it’s those who wield them.

Feathercrown,

I thought we saw instances recently of AI outputting verbatim snippets of its text input? It’s not impossible, I mean the well-known problem of overfitting is a simple example of how it can happen.

A_Very_Big_Fan,

That’s true, but I was only talking about art and stable diffusion. I know it’s more of a problem with LLMs but AFAIK every time someone finds a way to get it to quote something copyrighted verbatim, it’ll just cease to function. The most I’ve ever been able to get it to do are things they’ve already been pretty much agreed to be fair use, like summaries and criticisms.

And yeah over fitting is a problem in some models, but the ones taking your money like Dall-E have systems in place to mitigate it. I think it’s only considered theft as much as when a comedian hears a joke way in the past and forgets that it was already used in someone else’s routine. It’s not really a problem until the entire routine is just someone else’s routine.

IchNichtenLichten,
@IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world avatar

There are a lot of people who still think nuclear power is the answer to all our problems. It really doesn’t matter if I produce facts and evidence to show renewables are way cheaper and quicker to build, these people continue to reflexively downvote.

alilbee,

Not arguing either way, but I’d love to see the stats! Are you a proponent of nuclear energy as a piece of the solution, or would you rather see renewables used entirely instead?

IchNichtenLichten,
@IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t see a use case for new nuclear but existing plants should be kept running as long as it makes financial sense to do so.

Solar PV + Storage, Utility Scale = $46 - $102

Wind + Storage, Onshore = $42 - $114

Nuclear = $141 - $221

www.lazard.com/…/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf

alilbee,

Thanks for posting! Should be enough to follow the thread and look into it at least.

dgmib, (edited )

You’re correct about renewables being cheaper… but faster is a more nuanced discussion.

In the Canadian province I live in we generate 70% of our electricity with natural gas fired power plants. Roughly 20 TWh annually.

To replace that 20 TWh/yr with solar power, we’d need to build ~150 more solar farms the same size as the largest solar farm in Canada. Plus enough storage to cover the grid at night or when the weather is cloudy.

To replace that with nuclear power, we’d need 2 plants the same size as the smallest nuclear power plant in Ontario.

The nuclear plants are significantly more expensive than the solar, that much is certain.

But there are logistical limitations on how many new sources we can interconnect on the power grid in a given year. We simply can’t connect that much new renewables quickly.

It doesn’t need to be a choice, we can do both renewables and nuclear. But if we want to get off of fossil fuels in the next decade, nuclear will get us there sooner.

IchNichtenLichten,
@IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world avatar

It doesn’t need to be a choice, we can do both renewables and nuclear. But if we want to get off of fossil fuels in the next decade, nuclear will get us there sooner.

This is what I’m talking about.

Some comparables for new nuclear in the West:

“But throughout its decade of construction, the project has also been plagued by cascading delays and climbing costs. The first reactor was scheduled to come online in 2016; it’s hitting that milestone seven years later. The total price tag has more than doubled — to more than $30 billion.”

grist.org/…/first-us-nuclear-reactor-40-years-onl…

It took more than 10 years and was massively over budget.

“The plant in Somerset, which has been under construction since 2016, is now expected to be finished by 2031 and cost up to £35bn, France’s EDF said. However, the cost will be far higher once inflation is taken into account, because EDF is using 2015 prices.”

theguardian.com/…/hinkley-point-c-could-be-delaye….

So current estimates are at least 15 years and also massively over budget.

Please tell me again how new nuclear will get us there sooner if we want to get off fossil fuels in the next decade.

dgmib,

I think you may have misunderstood friend. You’re not wrong and I’m not arguing against any of your points.

A wind or solar farm is indeed much faster and cheaper to build than a nuclear power plant. Wind and solar farms take 8-18 months on average. Recent nuclear power plants have been taking 7-10 years.

The nuance isn’t the time required for a single project, it’s the sheer number of renewable projects required that is the issue.

I live in Canada, a single digit number of nuclear power plants here could replace all of the fossil fuel based electricity generation in our grid. That’s something that could be built within 10 years.

We’d need ~1000 new wind and solar farms (not to mention storage) to do the same. We can’t make that happen within 10 years due to supply chain and grid interconnection bottlenecks limiting the number of concurrent projects we can do.

I would ecstatically overjoyed to be proven wrong about this. But we need to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and we can’t do that quickly with renewables alone.

Frankly we’re fucked either way, but we’re less fucked if we build nuclear power in addition to as much renewable power as we possibly can make happen.

IchNichtenLichten,
@IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world avatar

Fair point, I get a little snippy on this subject due to the overwhelming amount of bullshit I encounter.

What do you think about this?

"Connecting solar and wind capacity levels needed to reach net-zero grids by 2035 could require as much as $25-50 billion in transmission investments. This includes spending on new interconnection facilities, network upgrades to existing transmission infrastructure, new high voltage lines to connect renewable rich areas and upgrades to inter-regional transmission capacity.’

economics.td.com/ca-interconnection-challenges

It sounds like it’s mostly down to a lack of investment in the grid which is completely solvable pretty quickly. Given this, I’m still not seeing a case for new nuclear. Do you have any sources to support your argument that it’s still needed?

FaceDeer,
@FaceDeer@fedia.io avatar

Saying something that is insufficiently negative about Elon Musk. Or Mark Zuckerberg, he's another one on the "villain" list.

Feathercrown,

Anyone with money doing public good is a recipe for a fun thread

FaceDeer, (edited )
@FaceDeer@fedia.io avatar

Most fun I can recall recently was pointing out how Meta is actually one of the main driving forces behind the availability and development of open-source large language models. Meta's pytorch framework is one of the foundation pieces of many LLMs industry-wide. Meta has released a bunch of major open-source libraries and frameworks. Their open LLaMA model weights are the starting point for many fine-tuned models floating around out there.

But no, Mark Zuckerberg is an evil lizard man, so can't mention anything nice he might be responsible for.

Doesn't help that AI is a hot-button topic in its own right.

andyburke,
@andyburke@fedia.io avatar

Being logical and telling people nuclear power isn't a good option when we have such cheap renewables and storage.

PatMustard,

You deserve those downvotes, it’s much better than coal

andyburke,
@andyburke@fedia.io avatar

I don't want any new coal plants ever. Not sure why you would think I did.

PatMustard,

Because most people who don’t like nuclear energy think we can all change everything to renewables right away. This is obviously not possible (otherwise countries not bound by the financial interests of oil companies etc. would have already done it); the real options to cover the gaps in renewables (until their tech develops) are nuclear or fossil fuels. Nuclear is significantly safer and less polluting than coal.

andyburke, (edited )
@andyburke@fedia.io avatar

Renewable installations are growing at an incredible rate, a rate much much higher than older forms of generation.

Nuclear takes forever to build. I get the argument: it's all the regulations. Ok, but when your plant can potentially cause centuries of problems if stuff goes wrong, it needs regulation. We know we can't trust capitalism to make it safe.

It just makes sense based on their prices that renewables and storage are winning.

JackGreenEarth,

It wouldn’t be my first choice, but it is surprisingly safe compared to other non renewable fuels, and quite efficient.

andyburke,
@andyburke@fedia.io avatar

I am NOT advocating for building non-renewables.

Thorny_Insight,

I’m not sure you fully understand the amount of energy storage a country would need in order to run for days on just that while then also being able to recharge the storage while also powering itself when the wind does start blowing again.

andyburke,
@andyburke@fedia.io avatar

One of us definitely doesn't understand utility scale storage very much, that seems true.

Thorny_Insight,

Well no wonder you get downvoted if this is how you deal with the subject.

andyburke,
@andyburke@fedia.io avatar

One of us presented their argument couched in an ad-hominem then claimed the other person was behaving badly after the response.

I personally feel like I am understanding this situation, but I could be wrong.

Thorny_Insight,

Ad hominem? I simply expressed my doubt about your claim and even specified what I think the flaw in your argument to be. If I believe you to be wrong then by definition it means that you don’t fully understand what you’re talking about. I apologize if that came thru as an insult but that wasn’t my intention.

andyburke,
@andyburke@fedia.io avatar

You presented a highly unlikely scenario where there is no renewables generation "for days" with no explanation or caveats and intimated I didn't understand something about it. I believe I understand your scenario and I don't believe it's likely or should be heavily weighted when trying to plan and deploy utility scale storage.

Did I outline things clearly or do you want to clarify anything?

Feathercrown,

Hi different guy here. If it’s at all likely to happen more than ~once a year it should be taken into account as a vulnerability of the system

Thorny_Insight, (edited )

I live in Finland. At winter time there’s effectively zero solar energy production and more often than not the coldest days are also the calmest. On days like this the price of electricity skyrockets because closer to half of the energy production is down and we’re entirely dependent on nuclear and hydro power. It’s also when the need for heating is the highest. Conversely on a warm windy days the price of electricity sometimes falls to negative because of the massive amount of wind farms generating at full power.

It’s not in any way unlikely scenario. It happens every single time the wind stops blowing at winter. For example literally at the moment of me writing this. Wind energy production is 57MW and Solar 2MW (granted that it’s dark outside). Hydro 2000MW and nuclear 3000MW

andyburke,
@andyburke@fedia.io avatar

Ok, now how much of each do you have and how long have they been making that type of power generation?

My guess is that your renewable (solar, wind, wave, geothermal, etc.) is both much newer and much less prevalent.

Every place on earth is going to have a different mix of requirements and available renewable energy. It will take different ways to fully transition to them.

If it is cheaper to build nuclear in your area than it is to build renewables and storage then I guess you should maybe consider that, even though I personally wouldn't given its risks, you might make a different decision. My guess, however, is that you will find that renewables and storage are actually cheaper even in your area of the world. Maybe not, though.

Thorny_Insight, (edited )

If I remember correctly the total wind power capacity is around 5000MW but solar is much lower even though it is a viable option here as well excluding the darkest winter months. Even if we had the capacity to store infinite amount of energy there still would need to be an extremely high and diverse amount of production if we were to go 100% to renewables. Even with a million windmills you still couldn’t match demand on calm days and alternatively when it’s windy there would be an insane amount of excess production.

I’m not against energy storage in any way. The technology is fascinating. It’s just that I don’t see what you’re suggesting as an viable near term solution to the energy needs in my country. We need more nuclear. I don’t agree with the claim that it’s somehow particularly risky. Even less so the more modern plant we’re talking about.

andyburke,
@andyburke@fedia.io avatar

One of the hallmarks of renewables has been that they are more easily distributed, so you don't necessarily need big power plants. I think you may also be discounting the fact that renewables are far more distributed than previous forms of power generation. It doesn't all have to be solved with giant installations and giant energy storage.

But again, if nuclear is honestly the cheapest option there, it would really surprise me. I just don't get why so many people argue for this tech they couldn't possibly use themselves that costs so much money when there are modern options that offer so many compelling benefits that you can distribute throughout the grid (or in big installations, either way!).

In any case, I catch a lot of downvotes.

FaceDeer,
@FaceDeer@fedia.io avatar

More likely you're getting downvotes for the fallacious "I'm obviously being the logical one, everyone disagreeing with me must be illogical" form your comment takes.

And deservedly so.

andyburke,
@andyburke@fedia.io avatar

We are in a thread about down votes, friend.

metaStatic,

"If gender is a social construct then gender dysphoria is a purely mental illness and treating it with surgery is abhorrent to the exact same level as lobotomising hysterical women in the past."

I assume downvotes still aren't being federated on kbin because a lot of my more nuanced opinions don't seem to get bombed into oblivion here like on the rest of the interwebs.

ani, (edited )

That’s totally a mental health condition wanting to surgically remove your perfectionally functioning organs.

Katrisia,

Those ideas get you banned, not downvoted.

metaStatic,

Anywhere that bans ideas isn't a place I want to be anyway. The woke crowd are fond of saying sunlight is the best disinfectant and just as fond of unironically sweeping dissent under the rug.

Not being silenced by actual fascists and being able to interrogate my beliefs was key in becoming better informed on a lot of subjects that don't have any place in my actual life.

savvywolf,
@savvywolf@pawb.social avatar

I know this is probably bait, but I’d figured I’d try to explain the flaw in that logic.

Ignoring the fact that gender dysphoria is a real thing whereas hysteria isn’t, there’s a more fundamental issue:

  • Surgery for trans people is championed and supported by the people undergoing their surgery. They explicitly consent and push for it.
  • Surgery for female hysteria was championed and supported by doctors who didn’t undergo the surgery. They ignored consent of women (or manipulated them into giving “consent”) and performed the operation anyway.
metaStatic,

absolutely, consent is the key.

I still think gender is purely performative and surgery can't fundamentally change that (currently).

I hope one day we get rid of all trans people ... because they can finish transitioning. /bait

Pat12, (edited )

Ignoring the fact that gender dysphoria is a real thing whereas hysteria isn’t,

I’m not sure how you can make this your premise; back then hysteria was very much “a real thing”. Also one could say that doctors have manipulated people undergoing surgery now into giving consent

savvywolf,
@savvywolf@pawb.social avatar

I could go into academic research and stuff that shows that it is real, but honestly I wouldn’t find that convincing myself anyway. Research into mental health has historically been very slow and problematic.

Instead, nowadays I like to look at this through the angle of consent and agency.

If you look into trans communities like on Reddit and the fediverse, you find that a lot of them have positive personal experiences with going through surgeries. This is something as a community they talk about and recommend to each other as something that will help. I guess you might find people that don’t like it, or insist that there should be more nuance or whatever. I don’t know, I’m not trans and don’t want to speak for them. As outsiders, we have no right to say what they can and can’t do with their bodies if it doesn’t cause anyone else harm.

Female hysteria, however, has always been a possessive thing. It’s always been my wife must have hysteria because she wants to vote. My wife must have something wrong with her because she refuses to do the dishes. The women themselves don’t really have a say, and if they do they only get listened to if they are good little wives.

I’d be highly skeptical if doctors were able to manipulate trans people into having surgeries. For starters, in many nationstates trans awareness and support is non-existent at best and genocidal at worst. Doctors absolutely would not want to force an unnecessary treatment that is also frowned upon by the state. Trans people have to fight so hard to get all the diagnosis and paperwork that they need to feel happy, and they sure as hell wouldn’t do that if they didn’t know it was helpful.

And, of course, with the rise of the internet and easy communication, if any medical practice is considered unethical or unhelpful, the community would turn on it super fast. Look at how badly conversion therapy for LGBT and autistic folks is seen nowadays.

Feathercrown,

You’re being downvoted because you’re operating with a theoretical framework which doesn’t match what we actually see in reality.

metaStatic,

it's not something I ever see in reality so bouncing it off the internet is incredibly helpful way to challenge my views.

Unfortunately the people on the internet who claim to be inclusive will accuse you of sea lioning after a single comment because being wrong on the internet is a moral failing somehow. I've said it somewhere else in this thread but I just block those people now because they have nothing important to add; they're just looking to be right at someone else's expense.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • asklemmy@lemmy.world
  • DreamBathrooms
  • mdbf
  • ngwrru68w68
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • khanakhh
  • osvaldo12
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • Durango
  • kavyap
  • InstantRegret
  • tacticalgear
  • anitta
  • ethstaker
  • provamag3
  • cisconetworking
  • tester
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cubers
  • everett
  • modclub
  • megavids
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •