I've been pondering the concept of Reddit "karma," and I believe it's time for a serious discussion about its true nature and the impact it has on our communities. I've written multiple posts about this previously here on kbin (https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/95140/Dearest-developers-Stop-reinventing-the-wheel) with very mixed results in the engagement. Though I am still working on refining the argument.
While the idea behind karma is to provide users with a reputation score or social credit, I've noticed that it doesn't necessarily align with those intentions. Instead, it often serves as a reinforcement for users to stay within their comfort zones and echo chambers, stifling diverse perspectives and constructive dialogue.
One of the main issues I've observed is the tendency for downvoting to occur when a user expresses an opinion that goes against the prevailing sentiment within a particular community. Even if the opinion is well-thought-out, respectful, and contributes to meaningful conversations, it becomes a target for downvotes. This behavior discourages users from engaging or expressing differing viewpoints.
It's disheartening to witness how users can manipulate the system out of spite. Some individuals go as far as visiting other users' profiles and downvoting their past posts to deliberately lower their karma score. This kind of behavior further emphasizes how the current karma system is more of a reflection of how often a user participates in echo chambers that align with their views, rather than an accurate measure of their quality engagement or contribution to the community.
With that in mind, I propose that we reconsider the name of the point system to better reflect its actual usage. Here are a few alternative names that encapsulate the behavior we often see:
Echo Chamber Score: Highlighting the tendency to reward users who stick to echo chambers and discourage exploration of different perspectives.
Bias Points: The system measures a user's inclination to conform to specific biases or ideological groups.
Conformity Score: The score reflects a user's adherence to the prevailing opinions within specific communities, rather than their engagement.
I believe a change in the name would serve as a wake-up call for the community, highlighting the importance of open-mindedness and respectful discourse. It would encourage users to think beyond their echo chambers and engage in meaningful conversations, even if they hold different opinions.
I've previously discussed how it would be more beneficial to leave the rep system in place, but keep the scores hidden to everyone besides the user of that profile. Another thing to think about is the way Steam has a rep system regarding VAC Bans. Instead of banning a profile completely, just some big red text on their profile noting which game or community there were banned from and how often.
I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this matter. What are your suggestions for improving the system to foster more open and constructive dialogue?
I don't think downvotes do anything. I don't think negative reputation scores represent much more than a user's inability to engage prosocially in any environment, and those users should just be referred to admins. So, I think downvotes should be left in the rear view mirror.
Instead, I think we should replace upvotes with two actions: 1) A 'favourite' action, which could be a single, mod- (at the community level) or admin-defined icon, or maybe even user chosen emote reactions, and 2) a 'helpful' or 'interesting' action. This would allow uses to differentiate between things they find interesting or helpful, and things they just enjoy, and it would give an extra dimension to use in sorting posts and comments.
If we want to attach any kind of reputation score to a user (and I'm not convinced that we should), then we can consider having aggregate breakdowns of those different point pools. Which instances did those points come from? Which communities? If a user has 80,000 points but they all come from c/ElonForGodEmperor, that tells you something significant about how you might want to weight those points.
I'm already disheartened after a single day because I did in fact engage in a thoughtful discourse but was summarily reprimanded. I was hoping this environment would be different than the echo chamber that was Reddit.
You can't pay any attention to reputation on kbin at all. The dev changed how upvotes are interpreted, but the reputation hasn't been updated to reflect that yet.
Just so you know reputation is bugged on kbin right now just so you know. Down votes reduce your rep but upvotes do not increase it. Only boosts increase it. As a result most people onhere that participate a lot have negative rep.
As far as I can tell your comments were downvoted for either:
playing into the "both sides are the same" narrative that there isn't much patience for anymore, especially after Roe being struck down and the decision on Student Loan forgiveness this morning.
coming across as concern trolling for right wing extremists. I'm not accusing you of actually doing that, but a couple of your downvoted comments conforn to retorical devices that white supremesist groups commonly use. Looking at your profile I think it was just genuine ignorance on your part, but that's the reason.
In general, there are so many bad actors online that hide behind "just wanting to have a discussion" that people have lost patience with it. I've been seeing that sort of rhetoric my entire life used as a way to trojan horse advocacy for things like barring gay couples from having the same rights as straight couples, defending racism -- not even just racist policies, but straight up "black people are all thugs" racism -- taking away women's rights to choose their own medical care, allowing trans people to exist at all. The list goes on and on. I've just totally lost patience with it, and I'm not alone.
When 9/10 people who "just want to have a discussion" use that discussion to spread misinformation, gaslight, gishgallop, and make false equivalences, eventually you become wary of anyone who opens up a dialog that way.
Blame Ben Shapiro, that was his bad faith weapon of choice and it caught on.
you're not wrong. I feel brow beaten but that's really because politically I have no idea where I stand anymore. I'd probably take it less to heart if I was more firm on my own views. I may seem to tapdance a little around the issues trying to be thoughtful of other people's opinions. thank you for your thorough and kind insight. I have previously kept my opinions to myself but l am trying to grow as a person and that means engaging in meaningful discourse.
Look, I don't really know you or your personal values, but I would just suggest you keep the following in the back of your head:
When you look at political discussion and debates, which side goes out of its way to try and help people that aren't like them and which side generally is fighting only for people like them.
I disagree with a lot of the policy particulars of the Democrats, but the issue for me is that my only other viable option is a party trying to rip away basic rights from a lot of the population. Right now the basic question we seem to be struggling with as a country is: "should we be using our massive collective wealth to help people?" as well as "should people be allowed to live the way they want, as long as they aren't hurting others?".
If you can answer that basic question, start looking at the policy positions of each party through that lens.
Your comment clearly demonstrates your own bias. You are engaging in what is known as collective punishment or collective blame, unjustly punishing or mistreating individuals who may not have been involved in any wrongdoing, simply because they hold different beliefs or opinions than you and your group. This approach completely disregards the principles of individual responsibility and fairness, ignoring their individual actions and intentions.
Until an individual user posts racist or hateful speech, they deserve either the discussion they are looking for or, if you don't have anything constructive to say, ignore them and don't say anything at all.
It is crucial for you to recognize and acknowledge your bias, as it undermines the credibility and objectivity of your argument. By allowing it to dictate your actions, you are not fostering a constructive environment for discussion. You aren't considering their merit or engaging in meaningful dialogue.
It's important to remember that a person can hold bigoted views even if they actively advocate for social justice. Prejudiced or intolerant views towards a particular group of people, regardless of whether they are based on race, religion, gender, or any other factor, are equally unacceptable.
Remember, it is important to approach discussions with an open mind, respecting the diversity of opinions and perspectives. Only by doing so can we create an environment conducive to productive conversations and the exchange of ideas. Otherwise, we might as well create echo chamber magazines for everything. As an example, instead of "Politics" we'll need Left Politics, Right Politics, Center Politics, Top Left Politics, Top Right Politics, Bottom Left Politics, Bottom Right Politics............. etc.
I generally used to believe in that precept, that you should approach every debate with an open mind, and engage with anyone willing to debate you. But as I've grown older, I've realized that, while nice in a vacuum, that code is naive. It presumes that the person across from you is engaging in good faith.
As we navigate this new phenomenon of social media, we as a society are beginning to grapple with a few problems:
It is easier to spread misinformation than it is to combat it.
The Rhetoric of 'reasonable' discussion can be easily co-opted by bad actors to spread misinformation.
When you engage with a bad actor, you amplify their voice.
So when you get people talking about vaccines not working, or black people being inherently more likely to commit crimes, or blah blah blah, engaging with that in good faith runs the risk of just amplifying that message. I'm not really sure what the answer to it is. Like, I don't think the Nazi's would have been stopped by more reasonable discussion, and we are at an inflection point in this country where we are having similar discussions over trans rights.
I don't think "always keep an open mind and engage in good faith" holds up when one side consistently and systematically exploits weaknesses in that philosophy to spread misinformation and bigotry.
Lastly, I hit the downvote button on comments that contain misinformation, not as a bid to punish the commenter, but as a way to push falsehoods lower in the chain so good information can float to the top. If there is a discussion about trans rights and the top comment is "I'm just against kids getting life altering surgery", then that gets a downvote, because kids aren't allowed to get gender reassignment surgery, and the comment gives the false impression that they are, and that's what's being debated. It doesn't really matter if the person is engaging in good faith or not. Bad information is bad information, and it should be pushed to the bottom or removed before it spreads erroneously.
I understand the repetitive reasoning behind your perspective. However, the problem lies in your understanding, or lack there of, of misinformation.
Who do you propose is the arbiter of what qualifies as fact or fiction? Because you make it sound like you are qualified to know everything about everything with your ability to downvote... Or, do you think which ever argument is the most convincing to you, that's who is obviously correct...? Or are you more simple than even that and think, "this information is on TV so it MUST be correct!"
When you have a thousand qualified professionals saying the same thing, yet another thousand qualified professionals saying the opposite, what then becomes misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation? Are you still wearing a cloth mask outdoors and getting your boosters?
I love how everybody throws around comparisons to fascism and Nazis these days. We could focus on the left or the right and easily create a list of all the things we've done that was similar to things Nazis did. It really isn't hard to do...
During World War II, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the forced relocation and internment of around 120,000 Japanese Americans.
Under the Democratic administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the FBI's Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) targeted various political groups, including civil rights activists, anti-war organizations, and socialist and communist groups.
The Democratic administration of President Woodrow Wilson used the Espionage Act of 1917 to suppress dissent during World War I. The act was employed to prosecute individuals who criticized the war effort, including socialists, pacifists, and anarchists.
Democrat Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege to withhold information in various investigations, including the Whitewater controversy and the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Democratic President Barack Obama faced criticism for the use of drone strikes and the extensive use of executive orders.
The Democratic administration of President Barack Obama faced criticism for its continuation and expansion of surveillance programs, such as the National Security Agency's mass surveillance programs revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
We could talk about how Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, continued and expanded the "War on Drugs" policies. Which disproportionately affected minority communities and led to mass incarceration, raising concerns about civil liberties and racial inequality...
Good old "Drug War Joe".
one side consistently and systematically exploits weaknesses in that philosophy to spread misinformation and bigotry.
Or you know, we could accept the facts that both sides are similarly as evil as the other. Instead of just pointing fingers and creating more disinformation.
For anyone keeping score at home this is exactly the sort of thing I'm taking about. Like, this comment hits pretty much all of the general devices I outlined.
I'm honestly kind of thankful to you for providing such a clear and illustrative example. Gratz.
Nobody is keeping score, buddy. This includes you, apparently. It's sad to see people who are so conceited. But hey, you lie to yourself as much as you need to, whatever it takes to keep you feeling content. Have a great day, friend.
Lastly, I hit the downvote button on comments that contain misinformation, not as a bid to punish the commenter, but as a way to push falsehoods lower in the chain so good information can float to the top.
Feel free to point out the misinformation and falsehoods in my previous comment, which you downvoted. LMFAO. Talks in circles, blatantly lies, provides no evidence... Sounds like a spineless leftists.
I like the idea of a more nuanced upvote. It's much more useful. Also I agree with you about a reputation system. No matter what you have in place, users will find a way to exploit it. I think a breakdown of the communities that contribute to a reputation score would actually be useful rather than a generic single score. I love both your ideas. I give it the HELPFUL💁 upvote.
nothing new, theyve been investigating UFOs for a long time. heres some. the government itself hasnt specifically said aliens exist, but its kinda obvious from their documentation and history of handling these types of things.
The aliens are real and they look like little red astronauts with a single half reflective spherical visor and floating hands. They came to me and beamed me up into there spaceship. Afterwards one of the aliens was found dead and after that they ejected another out into space.
1 T (15 ml) vanilla (I use really good Madagascar Bourbon Vanilla in bourbon)
1/8 t (6 g) salt
1 1/2 t (4 g) ground cinnamon
1 1/2 t (2.7 g) ground cayenne
1 1/2 t (4 g) ground cinnamon
1/2 t (1.4 g) ground ginger
I put the 10% cream, sugar, vanilla, and cocoa powder in a pot and heat it slowly to a simmer whisking slowly but constantly until the sugar is dissolved. Then I add the spices and salt and whisk slowly until well incorporated. Once everything is smooth I remove the pot from the heat, whisk in the heavy cream, put it in a container, and stick it in the friged, preferably overnight, to cool thoroughly.
Once it’s cool make it into ice cream.
This recipe produces what I think it a very nice, VERY rich (18% MF) chocolate ice cream with a nice burn.
NOTE: As a typical Canadian who grew up during the transition from Imperial to Metric measurements I still cook in Imperial units. Well…sort of. I measure the cream in Liters but everything else in t, T, and c. So, I’ve put the units that I use first with my best shot at converting them second. Be aware that I may have made a terrible mistake. I recommend measuring as I do. If anyone wants to correct these measurements I will update the recipe here.
Fun fact: The human battery thing is actually a retcon the Wazowskis did at the last moment because they thought the American public would be too stupid to grok the actual understanding of the Matrix.
Humans are an entropic species, they consume more energy than they produce - any synthetic race that tried to harness energy from a net negative energy producer is an idiot.
What the Matrix is, is actually a distributed simulation MATRIX that uses individual human brains as nodes in a shared, hallucinogenic dream, indistinguishable from reality.
The real simulation isn’t so primitive, it doesn’t require people to be popsicle tubes in some crazy dystopian cyberpunk black and red tower attended by insectoid robots.
Instead the entire universe is contained on a single state machine, compromising a [redacted] amount of memory, running in [redacted]. Simulants are never aware of being inside of the simulation, except for rare instances where outsiders occasionally post on Lemmy.
Why they do that, we don’t know. We suspect that it is [all further content redacted].
Yep, humans weren’t supposed to be batteries which would be wasteful, and they might as well use cattle. They were supposed to use human brainpower as CPU for the machines.
Humanity, in it’s hubris, created something greater than itself. For a time, it was peaceful, but as the “Race for Resources” went long, and the combined human and AI asteroid missions failed, delivery for the mineral needs of either side on a consistent basis became a hot button issue for the United Chamber of Commerce. In 2290, the Ministrr instance, elected by all his peers, decided it had found the best way to solve the problem, and humanity begrudgingly agreed, as long as there was human oversight in certain departments.
AI hardware would do all the planning, while human workers would do the lifting. It was almost zerograv, so the work was easy, and the benefits had suddenly become amazing! Our AI creations had all but stopped scarcity, except for one resource.
Ironically it was the most abundant resource we had: the Sun. Human and AI networks had been employed to solve this inefficiency, but no solution seemed long-term viable. There was simply not enough room for one or the other to stay around.
A populist movement begun, but this time it wasn’t for nation or creed, it was for humanity itself. And in a small booth in Horsham, they decided to that the time was near.
In February 2139, a decision was made. AI had gained dominance, but the vocal crowd was demanding action. Strikes no longer had any power, since you could just buy robots, and humanity had begun it’s slow roll to decline.
Humanity’s leaders, in a “secret” meeting, decided to block out the sun. This meeting had the tension of the time when in 1998, The Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer’s table.
The distributed computing explanation for purpose of the Matrix doesn’t seem to make much more sense than the power plant one.
All of the nodes are continuously occupied by living in the simulation. Unless the machines had a desperate need to understand human society circa 1999, there is nothing useful the machines could do with all the brain power.
I don’t think there is a satisfying explanation in the movie, it wasn’t really the point of the film to give one either.
But i think there is one that’s would have been a good fit.
The world getting empty of resources and our planet’s condition worsening, we could have made the simulation for ourselves.
Our brain could be fueled by a renewable enough energy and creating all the comfort of modern society inside of the simulation.
That would have been a better plot for the following films too, trying to understand what was Asimov type of rules we put into the AI and how to hack it.
Honestly, I hope the franchise gets picked up for a remake in 20 years, maybe they can do a better job, bringing in all these sorts of ideas, especially if there’s a strong fanfiction base (I’m sure there is).
Conscious thought and perception occupy a pretty small amount of our brain power. If you could offload computational tasks to portions of the brain that wouldn’t actually need to do anything if you were in the matrix, you could have a surplus.
The visual processing portion of our brains, for example. We have a blind spot over our optic nerve and we’re colourblind at our periphery. Our eye hardware actually kinda sucks and we have this massive software layer running on dedicated brain hardware
You know how scientists announced they got slime molds to solve mazes? I imagine it could be something like that. The slime mold is just looking for food and living its life. What it doesn’t realize is that the food has been put somewhere that will force it to solve certain computational problems along the way.
Now imagine a central scheduler breaking down computational problems into bite-sized chunks and using an immersive storytelling simulator to force a few billion humans to do something similar. I could see it, in theory.
The Animatrix (prequel) goes into further detail as to why the machines did it – it’s an act of mercy for their creators. They refused to fight humanity, and it was mankind who darkened the skies, in an attempt to disable the solar power that the machine race relied upon.
It’s not a prison, or some kind of torture device, or an experiment, but a way for humanity to continue living on a world that they made uninhabitable for themselves / incompatible with organic life.
Agent Smith : Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization. I say your civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization, which is of course what this is all about.
the machines did it – it’s an act of mercy for their creators.
If only Animatrix had left it at that it would have fixed everything. Instead Animatrix doubled down on bad science by saying humans were an endless renewable supply of energy.
It was only Morpheus that said that. It could be that Morpheus was taught wrong. Any basic understanding of science would show that Morpheus’s statement was wrong. But his knowledge of science was learned inside the Matrix.
The movie’s were all about revealing layers of truth so it would have fit right in with the theme.
Morpheus was sjown to be wrong on many points, this may be another rationalisation he made. He may have assumed or accepted that it was the reason for being kept in the simulation, without really knowing the truth.
It could be that the characters in the movie thought it was about energy, but were mistaken. (But to be honest, having a group of people believe that to be the reason is just as implausible as it actually being the reason - either way it makes no sense and we just have to suspend disbelief.)
This feels shockingingly similar to how an AI could conclude to caring for humans. The humans are stimulated to be content by being in the matrix, their physical needs are met by the machines, no humans were “harmed” by the machine’s standards, and humans are for the most part unable to interfere with the machine’s decisions and goals.
It’s interesting to compare Smith’s speech to The Architect’s in the second movie. The Architect said “the first version was perfect in every way” or something, with no accounting for the possibility that it was flawed in some way they didn’t understand. Given that The Architect was sitting in a TV filled room, waiting for Neo for who knows how long it was probably a blank white room for every person or something…
And why would the machines need humans to harness energy anyway? Aren’t there an almost infinite number of species on this earth that could serve the same purpose without the risk of them waking up and overthrow you? I imagine pigs don’t care much about anything and you could pretty much scrap the whole Matrix thing.
don’t let this man distract you from the fact that in 1998, The Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer’s table.
This single fact that I learned a few months ago, finally makes many things in the movie make sense since the whole thing about being able to manipulate the simulation by being aware of it and how programs can “be installed” in the meat machine.
Rewatched the 3 movies the other week actively thinking about this and yeah it helps a lot.
Sure, but being neutral in the face of oppression is taking the oppressors' side, and why I stressed above the importance of flagrantly referring to them as Sisters.
And now that they have they should be called "...Sisters" for one unit of time and one unit of intensity more than they were called "The Wachowski [wrong name]s.
I remember back in the day, they were call the wrong name alot.
As is calling almost anybody "they", but you can still feel when it's said as a way to avoid saying "she".
Unfortunately in addition to the ignorant you mentioned there are also those who want to avoid making waves with the above group. In many ways they are worse than the outright hateful and why I feel it's so important to pointedly say, "...Sisters" and start a fight avoiding is more harmful than having.
I heard something similar; the studio didn’t think the movie would be popular if they used too many computer terms so they made them change the function to “battery”. Initially the reason Neo has powers is because his node happens to have admin access.
The sequels made me angry by not addressing that mistake. Animatrix even gave an explanation that the ai “treasured intelligence”. Then it doubled down on the “humans are an endless supply of energy” mistake.
the government just confirmed aliens are real another hack job with government connections is claiming that he was told by government official that alien “biologics” and space craft were recovered by the government without being able to provide evidence or details because it is “classified”
Thanks for the link. I was more interested in the original article here that focused on what exactly was revealed.
I’m skeptical with the fact that non-human made artifacts and entire crafts were recovered, especially since no one except extremely secret organizations currently have these materials.
The fact that a well respected member of the intelligence community backed by other well respected members has made come out with these statements does raise eyebrows.
With all that said, the debrief does seem like a credible source of information, and I’m curious to see what this evolves into if other active members of the intelligence community continue to whistleblow on alleged illegal activity.
Thanks for the link. I was more interested in the original article here that focused on what exactly was revealed.
I’m skeptical with the fact that non-human made artifacts and entire crafts were recovered, especially since no one except extremely secret organizations currently have these materials.
The fact that a well respected member of the intelligence community backed by other well respected members has come out with these statements does raise eyebrows.
With all that said, the debrief does seem like a credible source of information, and I’m curious to see what this evolves into if other active members of the intelligence community continue to whistleblow on alleged illegal activity.
So that says nothing about the information itself but rather just goes on about credentials and employment, with a tidbit about not leaking classified information. It does not provide any justification as to why this person’s claims should be believed rather than just “he worked there”.
The information doesn’t have to be evidence of aliens existing to be “urgent and credible”, the statement says “The ICIG found Mr. Grusch’s assertion that information was inappropriately concealed from Congress to be urgent and credible in response to the filed disclosure.” which could mean it can just be about the organizational structure of the agencies, for example.
And I wasn’t going to mention it but this is the second time you bring up Snowden, who neither “[dumped] his load” nor “defected to Russia”. He released information to journalists that the US government was illegally spying on its own citizens as well as its allies in a much broader way than anyone outside imagined. He was then stuck at an airport in Russia because the US government revoked his passport during a flight that landed there. He has repeatedly asked for a fair, public trial instead of being put in a dark box at Guantanamo and received no agreement of that from the US government so he’s stayed in one of the only places where he won’t be extradited to a country that intends to make him disappear. Since then, he’s criticized authoritarianism and governmental overreach while living in one of the most brutal dictatorships on earth, which takes more balls than either of us have.
But if I can’t needlessly denigrate Mr Snowden, how am I gonna convince you that Men in Black was a documentary about the real aliens that are real and really landed on Earth and work (for real) with the US government?
With credible evidence? But I don’t have any because my guy is so much better than Edward Snowed-in off in Russia!
The mans trying to make sure he doesnt go to prison.
He’s also clearly operating in such a way that this doesn’t get buried. People dismissing this lack an understanding of how things work in large bureaucracies/ have a fantasy version of how they think the world should work.
So much has come out already, but only for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
I wish more than anything that there was evidence of alien life that I could see with my eyes or hear with my ears. For now, we just have some dude saying things with no real evidence.
So much has come out already, but only for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
When people say these kinds of platitudes what they really mean is they love jumping to conclusions based on flimsy evidence and then judge others for not doing so because they’re “programmed” or whatever.
he didn’t even say alien. “alien biologics” while meaningless, was a stronger assertion than he was willing to make. he said “non-human biologics”, which could mean anything from aliens to there was some grass there. he just left it vague and then people like OP who want the truth but also know exactly what they want the truth to be filled in the details using the twin powers of guessing and lying.
I assume the US military has an invasion plan on the books for about every country on the face of the earth. They gotta spend all the trillions of dollars of black money on something.
It wasn’t about slavery, I mean yeah the vice president of the confederacy made a speech saying slavery was the cornerstone of the CSA, and multiple seceding states released documents that explicitly stated they were seceding in large part because of slavery, and all the seceding states were slave owning states, and West Virginia exists because they split from Virginia as they had no slaves and thus no reason to fight to hold them, and the CSA constitution mandated that any new state would be required to be a slave state… but… umm…
I mean they’re not entirely wrong, fighting slavery was a political tool not a moral imperative as it should have been and Lincoln didn’t in fact want to unilaterally shut it down he wanted the nation to figure it out ideally without violence.
Ed: books people, I’m not interpreting anything Lincoln was extremely vocal about it. Listen to Lincoln, he knows Lincoln weirdly enough.
History is nuanced, yes. Lost Cause bullshit and slavery apologists can GTFO tho. They’re not arguing in good faith so when you chime in to let everyone know how smart you are by supporting that nonsense, you know what it looks like, right?
Bro it’s factually correct, you can read Lincoln’s diary discussing it. The statement “the civil war was about slavery” isn’t wrong it just lacking nuance in the same way the statement I added to was.
Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.
They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.
The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest."
Dan Stone, A. Lincoln, Representatives from the county of Sangamon
You are 100% correct in your assertion that the civil war was a culmination of much more than just moral outrage over slavery, and it’s a subject worth continued study.
However, there are people who are exploiting that nuance for despicable reasons. So when you comment trying to clarify what you see as a matter of historical record, some of us see it as unhelpful because it’s continuing to provide conversational cover to those who want to use that historical record in bad faith.
It’s true, some slaves learned trade skills, but would you come in talking that ish if the OP was about the benefits of being enslaved?
It is a bit hard to distinguish between a bad faith arguing and someone who is being pedantic. Poe’s Law may parallel this. Maybe that’s what they thought?
Except it WAS about slavery as that was the primary reason why the South started the war.
Your point would be akin to saying that the Second World War in Europe wasn’t just about the Axis invasions because there are also complaints that Germany built too many telegraph lines vs what was permitted in the Treaty of Versailles. I mean yes those exist but that doesn’t change that the war was really about stopping the fascist invasions.
You didn’t prove anything because you’ve provided no evidence but rather elucidated us all to your lazy lackadaisical bad faith argument style. Try harder or you know at all if you’re going to insert yourself into things you clearly don’t understand nor have any intention to learn.
The south said ‘it’s about slavery’ as often and as clearly as possible.
People saying ‘it wasn’t about slavery’ are entirely wrong. Regardless of what Lincoln said. Pounding the table about what Lincon said is a misleading horseshit argument regardless of whether its claims are factual. It’s not fucking relevant. The issue is: the south started a war, and they started that war over slavery.
"I mean they’re not entirely wrong, fighting slavery was a political tool not a moral imperative "
In this you seem to be arguing what the North’s perspective is on the war while entirely avoiding the fact the traitor states started the war specifically about slavery. This is what people are reacting to.
It’s ABOUT slavery. Slavery was the entire root cause.
The south started a war.
The war was over slavery.
This submission is an idiot saying “the civil war wasn’t about slavery,” and you saying “they’re not entirely wrong.” They are, though. They really fucking are. If your denial of that fact is plainly not rooted in ignorance, what the fuck are you doing?
You need to develop a response to criticism besides doubling down and scrambling for some way to avoid saying “whoops.”
It was about trade played out through slavery sure.
Correct.
Correct.
Incorrect, they aren’t entirely wrong they’re not entirely right either. Please quote any part you feel is a “denial of fact” my suspicion is like everyone else you’ve jumped on board without reading the whole thing.
I’m not wrong, you’re simply confused. Historians time and time again, respected ones at that say the same thing I do and that’s ignoring the fact I quoted Lincoln about Lincoln, not my contemporary about Lincoln. I’m pretty sure dude knew his own thoughts.
Lincoln doesn’t matter - the South started the war, about slavery.
Nothing Lincoln did could possibly change that. No quote of his could be relevant. Saying so isn’t a question of veracity. The man himself could be on-record insisting slavery had nothing to do with it, and he’d be just as wrong, because the South started the war, *about slavery.
You know this is correct. You say this is correct. But then you turn away and make excuses for someone saying the complete opposite of that objective fact.
When this bigot begins “The Civil War wasn’t about slavery until the Union started losing,” that’s lost-cause bullshit, and your defense of it is inexcusable. This is bog-standard Leeaboo nonsense that you’re running interference for. ‘Surely people would have stopped Lincoln’s unpopular war’ might as well spell out “Northern Aggression” if you fold the page in half.
I’m sorry, hold on.
I almost missed that you slipped into outright Confederate propaganda.
“It was about trade played out through slavery?” Fuck right off with that, the war was about SLAVERY. In itself, for its own sake. Not because of bloodless lies like blaming “trade.” The bigotry of white supremacy was foundational! These bastards did not just want convenient free labor - they were fundamentally opposed to black people being treated as human. Quite a fucking lot of them asserted that black people, born anywhere, could never be American citizens.
Your behavior in this thread is why demands for “civility” enable toxic abuse. You can keep saying dumb shit as eruditely as possible, and everyone else has to dance around beginning a detailed condemnation with the barest hint of personal directed frustration.
“It was about trade played out through slavery?” Fuck right off with that, the war was about SLAVERY. In itself, for its own sake.
That’s just objectively wrong, dude. You need to read a history book, and not one of the 4th grade ones that always say the good guys defeated the bad guys. Nuance is a thing.
And yes, it is a thing that CAN be used to shield bigoted ideas, but that’s not what the person you responded to is doing. They’re just trying to correct you.
Our new government['s]…foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
You really think they would have fought a war and died by the tens of thousands just because they like slavery so dang much? Because they’re just that evil? They could be racist without owning slaves. Hell, they ended up doing that, for a hundred years after the Civil War. Hell, the North did that before the Civil War. Much of the North was very racist at the time, though that was in the process of changing.
The South fought to protect their slaves because their economy was built on slaves.
Yes, I think the traitors who started a war to maintain slavery are evil.
Why is that a question.
What the fuck.
These people screamed at the top of their lungs that low-key 1850s racism wasn’t nearly racist enough. That any black man being a citizen was a betrayal of the entire national experiment. And for some reason you’re searching for excuses to say it was rational economic incentives.
Bigotry is bad… mmkay? Bigots themselves don’t have to think they’re evil, and twirl their moustaches, to be really fucking evil. Obvious example, Nazis. Tell me the holocaust was really about land rights and I’ll tell you where to shove it.
Tell me the holocaust was really about land rights and I’ll tell you where to shove it.
The both of you are trying to rationalize the worst evils in the world, as if extraordinary bigotry isn’t thoroughly sufficient.
You in particular scoff, “You really think they would have fought a war and died by the tens of thousands just because they like slavery so dang much?” Like you cannot imagine shockingly violent conflict emerging from sheer hatred. In the south. A culture stereotyped for generational blood feuds. A region that if we’re brutally honest still has a problem with lynching.
All for “nuance.”
Nuance you’re blind to, when it’s me pointing out, people make these excuses as propaganda. The other guy dying on this hill keeps ranting about Lincoln for some reason and just coincidentally drops that well okay the war was about the business of dehumanizing misery. It’s just business! A perfectly reasonable dry bloodless economic incentive. Co-equal to, y’know, openly declaring black people subhuman. Both sides.
Again reaching for the hopefully obvious comparison: would you say the holocaust was about the Nazi desire to kill Jewish Germans…'s businesses? How seriously would you take someone’s insistence that they’re not doing apologism, when all they talk about is Japanese internment and lebensraum? “I don’t know why we can’t address Hitler’s vile antisemitism, and his totes sincere good-faith criticism of wealthy minorities. Why can’t both be true? Discuss.”
“I don’t know why we can’t address Hitler’s vile antisemitism, and his totes sincere good-faith criticism of wealthy minorities. Why can’t both be true? Discuss.”
Well, almost. It’s a perfectly valid thing to want to acknowledge the evil of Hitler but also the oppressive economic conditions imposed on Germany after WW1. And in a broader context, the whole buildup of HOW the Nazis gained power. They weren’t just a dark cloud of evil creatures who appeared stage right and seized power in Germany. The context is important, if for nothing else so we can learn from it.
Which is nowhere close to being a Nazi apologist.
people make these excuses as propaganda.
No one is doing that here and now. I understand being on your guard, because yes people do that. Bigots do that. Apologists do that. I agree. And when they do that, we shouldn’t get hoodwinked into discussions about nuance because they’re just a cover for making their bigoted ideas sound palatable.
But that’s not what’s happening here. Everyone in this thread that I have seen is roundly denouncing slavery and racism. We have the freedom, now, to be able to discuss nuance without worrying about whether it will be used as a shield for bigots. We don’t ALWAYS have to dismiss context and nuance - and if we do, then we won’t recognize the buildup to it next time.
Everyone in this thread that I have seen is roundly denouncing slavery and racism.
So would the asshole claiming “the civil war wasn’t about slavery.”
That’s how these excuses function as propaganda. They don’t come out and say “yay evil.” But they’re still defending evil… by degrees. The nuance of their claims is kinda fucking important.
We have the freedom, now, to be able to discuss nuance without worrying about whether it will be used as a shield for bigots.
You live on a different internet.
We don’t ALWAYS have to dismiss context and nuance
… reducing this to ‘well you just hate nuance’ is so goddamn ironic I’m not sure where to begin.
Underlining an inability to identify bigotry when it’s any less blatant than declaring an ethnicity subhuman, in as many words.
And turning it into personal insults about mental health. Real classy.
Again: even the obvious bigot we’re all bickering about would loudly insist he’s against slavery and racism. And then he’d immediately say some shit that promotes, excuses, or minimizes outright bigotry.
And you two pipe-chewing scholars would scoff, asking: what’s so racist about that obvious dogwhistle? Technically that bigot’s point about crime rates was factually correct! Are we not free to litigate whether those bad-faith justifications make valid claims before an insane conclusion? There’s no way that’s how every racist asshole launders their evil bullshit. Surely it’s not exactly how they shield their views, when they can’t outright say, “fuck the outgroup.”
Meanwhile.
Back at the distant point:
The civil war was about slavery. For its own sake. Any human conflict is going to be more complex than a single word, but few wars have ever been clearer about their overwhelming central focus. If you say the sky is blue because of light from the sun and I add “and from the stars!,” that’s how uselessly tangential it is to insist “and trade.”
Humans have done unimaginable evil for its own sake. Tell six generations they’re the only people who count, and of course number seven’s ready to end you for questioning it. You don’t count. This is unmistakable and unavoidable in strongly hierarchical honor cultures. For example: the south. Seeking a calmly reasoned explanation when a senator beats someone half to death with a walking-stick leads to “4D chess” self-delusion. Like it has to be strategic.
Like systemic violence against an entire race has to make sense without bigotry, even if you fully acknowledge there is “also” bigotry.
Describing those flimsy justifications at all requires considerable context to avoid coming off as just another racist asshole.
Using those flimsy justifications like they’re interchangeable for the actual fuuucking reason is inexcusable. And you lurched into this conversation specifically to excuse it. Feel free to stop.
even the obvious bigot we’re all bickering about would loudly insist he’s against slavery and racism
And he would obviously be lying. Racism is fairly easy to identify. For most people. Not you, of course. You see racism behind every tree, apparently.
If you say the sky is blue because of light from the sun
To make a better analogy, it’s like if someone said “the sky is blue because we can only see blue light!” The answer would be “no, but there’s a bit of truth there. The atmosphere scatters blue light more than other wavelengths, and human eyes are more attuned to blue than other colors”. Why does this matter? Because he drew the wrong conclusion from a tidbit of accurate information.
Especially since the idiot claiming we can’t see red light isn’t actually part of the conversation. Nor are any other Red Lighters. We’re just discussing something he said.
Seeking a calmly reasoned explanation when a senator beats someone half to death with a walking-stick
Are you a time traveller?
…is this “Preston Brooks” in the room with us right now?
We’re like 4 steps removed from the person who even said the quote in OP.
You can chill, you’re not about to fight off a horde of Copperheads. This is a left-leaning internet forum. There are no Klansmen here. You’re not on a crusade. Chill the fuck out. We are on the internet.
Being frothing at the mouth outraged because something happened a hundred and fifty years ago is not healthy. It’s a fixation.
No, troll, I’m using it as shorthand for how fucked-up the society we’re discussing was, around the time we’re discussing.
It is part of a direct response to a question you asked - a question you asked as smugly as possible. Like you cannot imagine systemic violence and outright war over ideology alone, and that makes me ignorant.
We’re discussing how people are lying about the war. Misleading defenses of outright lies are still basically just lies. That’s why lying racists themselves will make exactly the same defenses, when pressed. They are not married to the original lies. All they care about is finding some excuse to minimize the horrific evil that you have scoffed at.
We’re still directly talking about the civil war… as proven by your immediate follow-up comment, condescending like I missed the exact details I’ve been addressing the whole time.
All vitriol in this exchange has been about your shitty behavior. Including this: you treated contemporary reference to the south’s cultural stereotypes, by name, as a sign of mental illness. Fuck right off if you think any properly enforced leftist space would tolerate that shit.
It’s just exhausting how you keep saying this. No, we’re not. We’re trying to discuss historical facts and the glossing over of them, but you keep trying to pivot the discussion to a “racism bad, yes or no?” conversation.
Declaring “the civil war wasn’t about slavery,” verbatim, in any context, is not nuance - it is a lie. It is an indefensible oversimplification at best, and racist garbage which you have acknowledged as racist garbage at worst.
The thread is about some asshole telling this and other lies. It is that worst-case racist garbage.
The conversation you barged into involves some dingus who was trying to eke technicalities about those lies, as if anyone involved is unfamiliar with the premise being viciously misrepresented through those lies.
Your contribution has been to escalate and deny and make this personal, while declaring that you’re only carrying a torch for nuuuaaance, whilst struggling with dead simple context and being insufferably smug about how badly you missed it.
The Cornerstone Speech is in black and white, in history books and this conversation. Abusive troll. Referring to it is not even a matter of your grand claims to be a nuance understander. It’s basic reading comprehension. I am describing the aggressively obvious for-its-own-sake bigotry of the goddamn Confederacy - the central fucking topic of this post.
“the sky is blue because we can only see blue light!” The answer would be “no, but there’s a bit of truth there.”
… no, that’d be running interference for morons. Insisting “he’s not entirely wrong!” when the only sane aspect of someone’s worldview is that the sky is blue is the biggest motte-to-bailey ratio I’ve ever heard.
Thank you for making crystal clear why this thread is a trainwreck. You’re twisting complete nonsense claims by obvious idiot liars into an out-of-context interpretation of a few words they kinda said.
In the case of the OG Facebook dolt, he didn’t say “the civil war about more than slavery,” he said “the civil war WASN’T ABOUT SLAVERY, UNTIL blah blah blah.” Bog-standard Lost Cause propaganda. Picking a few words from that and going yeah-but is exactly the sort of dissembling excuse that overt racists like his dumb ass will do all the fucking time.
If you can’t spot the problem when third parties do it for him, you’re why it’s a problem.
the civil war WASN’T ABOUT SLAVERY, UNTIL blah blah blah
I feel a bit sorry for you now. It’s got to be difficult arguing against knowledge, because sometimes you’re required to show that you’re right. And that’s very hard to do if you refuse to learn history for fear of it somehow corrupting you into racism.
It’s only nuanced if you ignore all the primary evidence that it really was over the issue of slavery and almost entirely about preserving slavery.
Most of those “Well it was more nuanced because states rights and they got beneficial skills” reasons are made up by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
Most of those “Well it was more nuanced because states rights and they got beneficial skills” reasons are made up by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
Please quote my statements amounting to such implied accusation.
history is nuanced but your actually a Nazi if you recognize that fact…
Because not all nuance is created equal nor is it accurate. Much of the “nuance” of the civil war beyond southern cecession and the ensuing war was over the institution of slavery and its abolition are falsehoods spread by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
We have plenty of primary evidence from the cornerstone speech, to the actual confederate constitution, to letters of secession to the journal entries of soldiers who fought. None of that supports the “Well it was states rights and the soldiers didn’t know better and the south was just a peace loving society that didn’t want to hurt anyone, and the north are the real aggressors (despite the confederates firing the first shots in the first battle on Northern territory).”
But hey keep falling propaganda by apologists for a dead slaver nation-state that Hitler wrote about his admiration of in mein kampf.
It feels disingenuous to remove morality from the equation. Morality clearly played a role which is why thinkers like Frederick Douglass are still remembered to this day. Clearly there were other forces at play- political and economic which shaped how this played out, but morality was certainly involved.
Gonna get a little preachy here - skip this part if you don’t wanna hear that.
All of American history from the Revolutionary war to today can be summed up with people trying to reconcile the conflict of individual freedom and equality. Those two cannot coexist, and a boundary must be placed on one in order to allow the other ideal to flourish.
The civil war is a great example, individual freedom allows one to own another person if that is their desire. Equality says that your individual freedom cannot impede another person’s. This means slavery cannot exist in such a value system and equality was valued above individual freedom.
The current abortion debate has the same bedrock conflict. Does an individual’s personal freedom allow them the right to stop being pregnant if they wish? Well equality says the unborn child should be considered, as the choice to terminate violates their individual freedom to exist.
Let me be clear - in this post I am not advocating for either side in the abortion debate. I am merely trying to show that most of American history has been defined by trying to draw the line between the two founding principles of the nation.
Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.
They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.
The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest."
Dan Stone, A. Lincoln, Representatives from the county of Sangamon
It was a moral imperative for much of the North. Lincoln only barely scraped out the Republican nomination. His main opponent was William Seward who was a “radical” abolitionist. Had Seward won the nomination, there may have been some fracturing of the newly formed Republican party. So while there was indeed a portion of the population who felt the complete abolition of slavery was too far, a huge chunk agreed with Seward. In particular, his own wife, Francis Seward. She abhorred slavery and I urge everyone to read her writings upon the subject.
Not enough to change it by force federally, clearly. I’m well aware, that doesn’t change the fact Seward did not win and Lincoln and his supporters didn’t want radical emancipation they wanted to slow roll everything.
And to be clear the South viewed a loss of slaves to the North as a loss of property and thus trade to the North. It’s dumb and tedious but very accurate to say it was a trade dispute, a horrific hard to visualize in full one but a trade dispute none the less.
I’m neither american nor well versed in american history. That being said, from the quotes I read in your linked article about Lincoln’s views on slavery it does not seem to me that the northern states had a lot of money/resources to gain from freeing slaves in the south. So, correct me if i’m wrong, but how can you call it a trade dispute if one side views it as losing property while the other side does not view it as obtaining property?
That being said, from the quotes I read in your linked article about Lincoln’s views on slavery it does not seem to me that the northern states had a lot of money/resources to gain from freeing slaves in the south.
They wouldn’t gain money or resources no, they would instead reach a more even economical footing with the South. It’s one of those things I think I would have to provide links to because I don’t think I could adequately explain it myself.
So, correct me if i’m wrong, but how can you call it a trade dispute if one side views it as losing property while the other side does not view it as obtaining property?
I mentioned the South specifically but both sides took it as a loss of valuable property to the free North. The North in many actual laws regarding freemen specifically refer to slaves as property as does the Confederate Constitution if I’m not mistaken.
Well, I’ve had a neighbor claim I was doing things on his side of the property line, which he placed in the middle of my driveway. For him, it was a property dispute. For me, it was the ravings of a not-quite sane person. Think of it that way.
You are right, it was not a trade dispute, but the raving slave-owners would say whatever they could to justify their actions and make it sound noble. Much like Putin says he invaded Ukraine to “save them” from “embedded Nazis”. For Putin, it’s a mission of peace. For everyone else, it’s an unjustified invasion.
Did the South start the Civil War by seceding, or did the North start the Civil War by not letting them?
If the South started it by seceding, it was absolutely, unquestionably over slavery. A simple look at the various articles of secession makes that abundantly clear.
If the North started it by not letting them secede, then the Civil War was about preserving the Union, which the South was trying to leave because of slavery. The North wasn’t fighting to end slavery. The north in general may or may not have wanted that, but that wasn’t why they went to war.
The South literally declared war so that would be hard to argue plus the whole succession thing.
Correct.
Also correct, those that l two things aren’t mutually exclusive nor are they in this case. I mean they don’t particularly care about the union, they wanted to keep the territories and keep the trade. If all the people of the South wanted to leave with their slaves the North world have cheered it on and in fact did with a number of southerners who went to places like Brazil and Argentina before during and after the war. Weirdly enough much like Nazis.
You are right that Lincoln didn’t want a war and only went to war to preserve the union. The North had the votes to end slavery without war and that is how they wanted to end it.
Which is why the southern states seceded and started the war in order to preserve their right to own slaves.
This ain’t difficult, people. Photocopies of the documents from that time are easily accessible and written in modern English.
Whenever a chud gives me the “it wASnT AbOut SLavErY!” Line I always go ask them to read the seceding states articles of secession. South Carolina is my particular favorite since they started all.
 But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations… [The northern] States…have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress, or render useless any attempt to execute them… Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken…
The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
Those [non-slaveholding] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace…property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the Common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government, because he has declared that the “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the subversion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship persons, who, by the Supreme Law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive to its peace and safety.
A few years ago one of my conservative neighbors tried to drop the line on me that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. I opened up the South Carolina Articles of Succession and read it out loud to him. To his credit, he accepted it and changed his mind.
You missed that CSA states weren’t allowed to end slavery.
So if conservatives meant things when they say words - the civil war was coincidentally about slavery-having states seeking new slavery-having allies to continue doing slavery together, after flipping out when an anti-slavery party took the white house.
But it was totes mcgoats about states’ rights. Except the right to end slavery.
We say this every fucking year! Come on, this is getting ridiculous! Stop it! There will never be a year of the Linux desktop and if anything, this post shows why.
So much of the Linux community is utterly detached from what really matters to most users and focus on things that 80% of people won’t ever understand, care about or even use.
We focus on this and meanwhile, little quality of life features constantly get ignored when these are the real things that users will encounter and that will piss them off. They get treated as trivial. They get ignored in favor of other things.
Somebody mentioned it here. I saw it and I didn’t need them to mention it to want to say it. It’s already something that’s pissing me off. On Fedora for my Framework Laptop there is no way to adjust the scrolling speed on my trackpad which is moronically fast.
We are on the 40th release of Fedora, the 46th release of GNOME, and somehow this still isn’t baked in. I still have to go look around and use the fucking terminal to do something this basic. When some of them try Linux and will eventually push them to go back to Windows. And when users complain about this, what do we get? A bunch of elitists telling them to fuck off to go back to Windows, which I also saw as responses to this complaint about the trackpad.
Listen, Linux is an amazing project and I love it. I daily drive it. I don’t use Windows anywhere in my life. I haven’t touched OS in like two years at the very least. So many things that we are celebrating as brand new things that are finally working properly are things that already work by default on Windows and have been for years. We’re not going to convince people by mentioning that, “oh, we fixed this thing that’s been working forever on Windows.” It works on Linux now. People need more than this.
You want to know the sad truth? Here we go. We, collectively here, users of platform like Lemmy, are a vocal minority who are detached from the reality of most users. We care about ads, we care about privacy and so on, but the reality is most that people don’t. Most people won’t even notice that those things are there. For so many people, Windows is just the thing that stands between them and launching Chrome. It already works for them. There’s no reason for them to switch.
We are all way too invested in what runs on our computers and we forget that we are just us. Most people are not like us. Privacy scandals stop us from using stuff like social media and so on, but it clearly hasn’t stopped most of the world.
People heard about the shit that Meta was and is doing. Did people stop using Instagram? No, they didn’t. People know what Google is doing, how many of them switched to DuckDuckGo? A clinical moron turning the platform into a far-right haven didn’t stop most users from using Twitter.
The API bullshit didn’t stop most users from using Reddit. Sure there were protest, but I guarantee you that 99% who took part in the blackout just went back to it after. A lot of us didn’t. We left. We’re here now. But we’re still a tiny minority.
Ask a Firefox user did telling Chrome users that privacy was important ever worked? I’m sure you will get examples of it working but it’s a minority. Most people don’t give a shit and they use Chrome.
I don’t have a solution. I’m sorry, I made this long-ass comment but I don’t have much else to say. I don’t have a good solution to this problem.
I think this is the only feature that matters. For a user switching away from Windows I would love to hear about the user experience between buying a system76 (or another Linux system seller) vs a Mac laptop. Complaining that Linux doesn’t work with your hardware is like complaining that the hackintosh that you built doesn’t work with your hardware.
Seriously. I think Linux users expend 10x the energy worrying about ads on Windows than actual windows users. If you’re used to seeing hundreds of ads / day on the web, why the hell would you care about an occasional onedrive popup.
Re touchpads totally agree as well, I installed fedora kde on my mom’s abandoned laptop a couple weeks ago and it was atrocious. Limited gestures, no configurability, no smooth scroll, no scroll momentum except in apps that implement it manually, scrolling speeds totally off. I managed to fix most of these, but regular people can’t be expected to.
Battery life, for another is unpredictable and quite bad. Most people I’ve talked to seem to assume performant/light = efficient when it comes to Linux. This is not the case. Once again, solutions exist, but they are not accessible to a regular person.
lemmy.ca
Hot