Supposedly, I am a human, who does very human things.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
What counts as popular is extremely relativistic, subjective and context dependant, but I think being pretty common knowledge amongst a majority of a major minority in this country for decades should count here. Before this racism popped off it was indeed a semi common word in everyday vernacular. "Stay woke" dap, could be a greeting, goodbye, etc. Subtle meaning and feeling of comradery and shared understanding of cultural history in a simple and sleek package. This would be a semi common occurrence in many metropolitan areas in the US. Like not 50% or even 5% of all greetings, but certainly understood by most who to whom it applies.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
It’s easy to forget that no one is the villain in their own book.
They absolutely can and often are. They revel in it even.
(from a previous comment) Most of them know it takes energy to engage, and it takes a lot less out of them to engage in bad faith than it does for you to engage in good faith.
This is valuable effort that could be used to get people who are not active to be active, and instead its wasted on hateful people who aren’t simply “misunderstood” as naive viewpoints would have one believe.
When you talk to people and “figure out” that at a base level they want many of the same things you want, and then are confused at how to bridge the gap, its because the gap is, they only want the good things, if the people they hate can’t also have them. There is no bridge that can be gapped there. They, if trying to be polite/feign ignorance, will talk circles around those underlying views, but you can see in the loud ones and in the messaging of those they support what they are actually for clear as day. They want hierarchy, and they want people they hate below them. This is their single voter issue and its above the shirts on their backs.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
It just takes too much energy to engage.
And this is part of the reason the other commenter is dead wrong.
Most of them know it takes energy to engage, and it takes a lot less out of them to engage in bad faith than it does for you to engage in good faith.
This is valuable effort that could be used to get people who are not active to be active, and instead its wasted on hateful people who aren't simply "misunderstood" as naive viewpoints would have one believe.
When you talk to people and "figure out" that at a base level they want many of the same things you want, and then are confused at how to bridge the gap, its because the gap is, they only want the good things, if the people they hate can't also have them. There is no bridge that can be gapped there. They, if trying to be polite/feign ignorance, will talk circles around those underlying views, but you can see in the loud ones and in the messaging of those they support what they are actually for clear as day. They want hierarchy, and they want people they hate below them. This is their single voter issue and its above the shirts on their backs.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
I disagree with this opinion completely.
They know they are awful and don't want to change. You are wasting your time by going after them instead of people who are much more pliable and simply don't pay enough attention and go with the flow. Those are the people for whom such a time investment could pay off. Those are the people for whom you would not be wasting your time talking to brick walls who know they speak in bad faith but love wasting your time because they have a locked in goal, and don't give a shit about how much you want to understand them. Hell, they love it when progressives like you try to stop other progressives from realizing that this is indeed a very straight forward battle of completely different goals and senses of morality.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Nothing about this post implies that they don't understand how they see the world. The second panel does not imply any misunderstanding.
That is to say that I fully believe that they simply think cruelty and unfairness is the right way due to dehumanization of people they dislike/consider the out group.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Its been a term used in civil rights activists circles for more than 50 years.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
It hasn't been tarnished at all. They simply dislike exactly what it has stood for since its proliferation from the 60s civil rights era.
Oh, companies know. Social media have definitive data that show most users engage on anger. That’s why it’s in their core interest to promote rage baits and disinformation. More engagements means more traffic. More traffic means more advertisers. More advertisers means more revenues.
I think you might be misunderstanding my point here. Rage bait, and hate are separate to the idea of toxic positivity, which is a separate concept companies also use and abuse, and which is the subject of my comment.
Hell, even before social media, news tends to report more on negative news than positive ones. Because bad news is tantamount to hearing gossips, and we all love gossips. I know many of us will say bad news makes us sad, and yet we still tune in to any news.
I actually disagree with this one fundamentally.
Good news just isn't as important as bad news on average.
Good news is typically long term, progressive and rarely has singular big moments. "X number of people moved out of poverty through the effects of economic policies started XX years ago" isn't something that it makes sense to give time over "flash flooding hits current location".
More than that, the news cycle is ill equipped to go into detail for more nuanced stories, and it would be rife with organizations like the world economic forum cooking stats to present much more peachy societal outcomes under policies they favour vs more objective or neutral viewpoints.
Kind of on a tangent, I notice this as well that some people seem more predisposed to negative thinking. I think it’s just hardwired into them. Although, I have to say, in my field of work, negative thinkers tend to have good attention to detail.
Quite frankly, I hate absolutely everything about the sentiment of this snippet. The idea that negativity is bad inherently is, I well, looking at my previous comment, I think I've already expressed that point.
Negative points are goals to hit. Positive ones are literally just less important. They're check offs on your todo list. Important perhaps for internal motivation, but not so when communicating news, events, research (mostly) etc.
It is a good trait to a limited degree, but it could impair relationships both at work and outside, if one is too suspicious and distrustful of everyone.
I would say this doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
It absolutely does. Your post gets hidden, and you have a higher likelyhood of moderator interaction. It is less punishing though.
Moderators universally suuuuuuuuck.
contribute to the discourse
Is entirely too vague and subjective.
Upvote-downvote is a great reaction to all the trolls. combined withan algorithm they can surface the good stuff and alert moderators to garbage.
They create a similarly big problem though. Every group has a natural tendency towards members increasingly feeling like they are walking on eggshells with ever more precise purity tests, and any dissent gets hidden.
Lemmys culture of downvoting well written things you disagree with is a problem though. So long as nothing is done about that you can’t make a good algorithm.
Well written is subjective. Something can be long and filled with evidence and still be gibberish or in bad faith.
You also have to have a limit of how much effort you are willing to spend in any given conflict.
Furthermore, trying to change human behaviour in that way rather than finding a system that better accomplishes the goal seems like an impossible goal.
I think the big problem/reason why people feel the need for anonymity is because of what I mention here. Basically, people always feel on pins and needles with regards to shitty moderation.
I actually think further than this, people in power are almost always too blood lusty and immediately jump to permanent bans all the time.
It results in chilling effects that create echo chambers.
Of course what you talk about doesn't help as it serves to make people even more trigger happy as real bad faith threats exist and you can't easily tell intent.
I feel like to have real conversations online, maybe a more ideal hypothetical platform would have any sort of legal binding to follow certain terms, they'd require being connected to a real id without storing said personal information in plain text, and would connect that to specific IDs to completely shut down (meaningfully) the botting, to have people actually talk.
People could then chat as themselves, or anonymously under a username, but there would never be confusion as to whether or not someone was real.
This is very half baked though and I already can think of tons of problems.
People suck. People especially suck when they get even a modicum of power.
I feel like forums sucked too because of the lack of sorting.
They just don't scale well to many users. Once you hit a certain number of users, without some method to sort, its just information overload.
Hell, forum threads that are too long inevitably go completely off the rails and become off topic troves.
I think there has to be a better intermediate format, like perhaps a mix of systems, but I think the main thing that makes reddit-likes suck, is their systems of governance.
Something I realized very quickly with lemmy for instance, is that its the not at all benevolent dictator positions that are the big problem. The main incentives for people choosing to spend their time in mod positions still remains to impose their will, whether that be their opinion or power over others speech.
There is something at its core which is wrong with this system at scale. It allows for mods to collect up critical masses of people before then knowing that due to that critical mass they have captive audiences where there is high friction to leave or start something else.
Lemmy has a very bandaid "solution" for this in that there can be multiple of any given community/subreddit, but they all suffer from the fact that whatever a moderator wants is what happens, and even in the worst case scenarios, that is just moved up one layer to admins, who are incentived to appear as hands off as possible on moderators, lest they get turned on by the people who "help" them.
Reddit sucks because of a lot of other profit driven reasons, but I think this is the main structural problem and lemmy shares in this.
Forums have this problem too by the way, but its just that forums are so separate and so bad at handling massive amounts of casual users, that they run into this far less.
The thing is, people themselves outside of business motives hate negativity.
People regularly get angry at others for bringing up criticisms of everything from foods to their favourite media products.
Even decades ago they'd give them names like negative Nancy, and within social settings the worst people often can win by weaponizing civility to quell legitimate backlash against immoral actions.
I mean, fuck, think about how many stories you've heard of people who have been the victims of sexual assault, who get told by normal people to shut up and whose experiences were diminished because it harshed other peoples mellow?
People suck, and one of the biggest reasons people suck, is they would prefer a harmful peaceful positivity than a tumultuous improvement causing negativity.
I think these companies are hooking into these human flaws in ways that hurt us, and benefit them with information asymmetry.
I don't think we can properly fix these flaws without somehow getting normal people to acknowledge that negativity is not just good, but vitally important.
- JumpDeleted
I see the difference...
For instance only about 35% of the population even voted for Trump, so he doesn’t really have the support of the people.
The Nazi party got 43% of the votes the election before secondary parties were banned. They had 88% turnout. This means they had 37.8% of the population vote for them.
Its extremely common for people to really, out of an excess of optimism and fear hope that clearly the nazis were so obviously different, but that wasn't the case.
The Nazi party in that last relatively free 1933 election had to form a coalition government. None of that meant that they weren't fascists.
The idea that they don't really have the immediate majority support of the people is not relevant to the damage that followed. Support can be manufactured by guns and threat of financial and social ruin.
Our democratically elected officials are still voting on bills, and they are still (mostly) being signed off by the president.
The same things were applying at this point in time in Nazi Germany. They just started to do increasingly wild illegal things and had their fire hose of falsehood machines up and running. There were continuous events of large scale that if they occurred on their own would take over news cycles for months, just like are occurring now. Rights were being dismantled just like they are now.
Many things pretty strongly align with the idea that this very well might have been the last fair election.
The FCC did TRY to silence someone, but the will of the people made it not happen.
Did it? or was this, as their strategies have been, to repeatedly do heinous things until they are normalized.
What actually happened here? Rights were flagrantly violated, then they soft backtracked, and then they issued the same threats again (on going) where they will likely backtrack less this time, and so on.
No one was punished. No one is in jail. The people in power then, are still in power now.
I think it’s also just the reasons someone is doing something matters, even if it practically doesn’t.
If it practically doesn't, it practically doesn't.
Why did hitler act the way he acted? We aren't sure, but the results of this unhinged hateful man leading their country became obvious.
- JumpDeleted
I see the difference...
he hasn’t been able to enact “if you are trans you will be killed” like I would expect under fascism
Im sorry but what????
Do you think the Nazis were killing jews on day one? Fascism doesn't only become fascism once they've done the big bad thing and the credits are rolling. It w was still fascism way before the gas chambers were spooled up.
By all accounts, the progress of their team this term has been faster than hitlers rise to power. There isn't really any reason to just assume it will stop itself when hes been able to bounce off any sort of semblance of consequences for his actions thus far.
and he said trump plays to the crowd rather than saying what he believes
Thats most politicians to some degree and something hitler also did, like where he co-opted various labels to dismantle them.
I think narcissistic con man fits everything he does more accurately than fascist
I'm not sure I see the reasoning to think it can't be both.
- JumpDeleted
I see the difference...
Do I think it’s actual fascism? No. But all of those actions are the dictionary definition of fascism
Do you not notice any dissonance here?
- JumpDeleted
I see the difference...
You can be banned, but there isn't really a shadow banning mechanism here.
I suppose you could say regular banning is, as in you get no alert, but its not quite the reddit version where you don't know.
Also, if your argument was about mods, you certainly didn't say it initially.
Its not a juggling of definitions, its an honest look at a word that's been around for decades and used throughout all of it.
It feels very clear that your sentiment here is in essence "it didn't count until white people said it", and I take umbrage with that. You act like the term was niche and insignificant when it has a tremendous history behind it. You use the term popular but what you mean general popular consciousness, as in pervasive amongst groups outside of any niche. This conflation comes across as weaselly much in the same way that you accuse me of juggling the definition.
Even the resurgence in popularity within a broader audience than 13% of the population (which I don't know why you feel is insignificant) started in ~2014, before trump, without which, they would have had a harder time latching on to.
This is where the core of your opinion is a problem. Its because it is how you miss that it wasn't just a catch all term but was specifically a dog
whistlefog horn, aimed directly and minimizing the struggles of marginalized people; a declaration of being against exactly what the word had always meant in the first place. It wasn't a changing of the term, it was them directly saying what they opposed. That's why this is a point of contention.People who are anti-woke, know exactly what they're saying, and there's no reason there should be anyone playing defence for them. They bumble around when defining it not because they can't, but because the goal is to have the flimsiest shield of plausible deniability, which you grant them wholesale.