> Claims they want to start a conversation
> Acts offended when people actually start a conversation about their posts
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
-29 points (17.8% liked)
Ask Lemmy
32833 readers
1947 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Another is the non-monolithic nature of (real) science and the requirement for (real) scientific methods (e.g., replicated, non-sponsored studies).
You’re saying that people don’t want to discuss how science could be wrong or not universally true?
Yeah people just hear, “a study shows XYZ” and think, oh truth. When in fact there’s a lot of manipulation that goes into these studies similar to statistics and there are constantly debates among scientists who disagree with each other’s assertions.
I think controversial or even unpopular and a true nonstarter are two different things. "We should bring back racial segregation" is a nonstarter, as it should be. "AI will make life somewhat cheaper" will get you some support, even if it brings out angry luddites and denialists in response.
Fair, so what are some other unobvious non-starters
Being obvious is almost a requirement. It's hard to instantly reject something you haven't heard much about.
Like, "ancient Egypt never existed" would get curiosity at the very least, despite the fact it's around as factually incorrect as flat Earth theory. A socially harmful belief like "left handed people are of the devil" would get a stronger negative response yet, once people know you're serious, but not at the same level as "gay people are of the devil".
Alright…since you’re being devil’s advocate I’ll lay out some criteria:
- Topic would almost entirely be received negatively
- You feel that it’s not something that the community would or should immediately balk at
- It’s a serious discussion
You feel that it’s not something that the community would or should immediately balk at
This happened to you recently, right? This post itself is getting a negative reaction because we can tell, and it comes across as whiny.
People have opinions on and offline. You can contradict them, which is okay, but people are never going to like it, and that's okay. Lemmy has a strongly left-wing, open-source bent, and reacts accordingly.
I’m trying to gauge where the community has landed as of late, because like I said in the original post, there have been big shifts like opinions on Democrats and in regards to your questions, I’ve experience some strange intersection between misogyny and pro-transness.
I'm convinced people railing against wokeness are just AI bots at this point. OP, can you prove you are not a stochastic parrot without saying something silly?
Countering arguments with ad-hominem puts you right up there with AI bots when it comes to providing value to online discussions.
Not really... AI bots are bad at providing value because they have no values and don't understand context. You can deliver a scathing reproach that has value as long as it fits the context and reflects your values. But do you consider your response an ad-hominem?
Yes, really. You're effectively saying “everyone who disagrees with my worldview is a bot,” which is a textbook example of ad hominem - dismissing a position based on who is assumed to hold it rather than engaging with the argument itself. That kind of framing is both delusional and extremely bad faith.
To your question: no, what I said isn't ad hominem. Criticizing someone for making an ad hominem isn't the same thing. I'm not using a personal attack to avoid addressing your argument - I'm pointing out that you’re using personal attacks to avoid having one. There's a difference between attacking someone instead of responding to their point and calling out someone for refusing to make one.
everyone who disagrees with my worldview is a bot
I hardly consider my opinion on AI a "worldview". It is an observation that generative AI use in decision making and creativity reduces cognitive activity. Yes I asked OP to disprove me in an "ad-hominem" manner though. I guess we violently agree on that?
Nobody has claimed your views on AI count as a worldview, nor are they in any way relevant to this discussion. The discussion is about you blanket dismissing everyone who criticizes “wokeness” as a bot.
calling out men as predominant perpetrators of violence towards women
...and children, as well as other men. If there’s violence, statistically, the perpetrator is most likely male. Most people in jail are men too. I guess this only becomes controversial to those who believe group averages apply to every individual within that group.
Yeah I think the problem is that in order to address the problem you have to call out how widespread it is and that’s where people, men, get defensive and don’t allow the conversation
We have a funny thing going as a society where we say violence is always bad on one hand, and then have men solving things with violence as the plot of all our fiction. If you're poor, the state monopoly on violence is also not invisible, so the first message seems as hypocritical as it is.
I'd really, really love it if we had a more balanced discussion that could actually reach AMAB people. I do think socialisation is the main problem here.
Yup. It all starts with how we’re raising boys and what societal norms they’re expected to conform to. The main avenues that we give men to receive approval are limited to physical strength and violence, emotional toughness, sexual prowess/penis size, financial and social power and logical aptitude (which is waning as of late).
If you don’t meet these standards then you have to work hard to internally accept yourself and two of the skills men aren’t taught to practice are emotional intelligence and community building, hence the lonely male epidemic and resulting fits of violence.
We need to raise boys differently, and build a society where they have opportunities to build self-worth and have a community to lean on without feeling ashamed to need emotional support.
All that to say that today we have an epidemic of violent, emotionally inept, unsuccessful men.
All that to say that today we have an epidemic of violent, emotionally inept, unsuccessful men.
Do we, though? I'm not sure if you've come across the Male Sedation Hypothesis but it basically argues that we should be seeing more violence from disenfranchised young men - and yet we aren’t. The hypothesis suggests that this is largely due to porn, video games, and drugs. Rather than acting out, many men are withdrawing from society into their mom’s basements, supplementing real-life relationships and career success with virtual equivalents.
Seriously. Men are perceived as dangerous by default and that influences how we think about solving problems.
I think you should evaluate why people don’t want to entertain these topics.
Even if the answer is “bias”, it’s worth looking into the nature of that bias to find out why people think that way.
However, I’ll save you a bit of time: most of these “topics” are based on a false premise. They are strawman arguments which indicate a misunderstanding of a particular argument/viewpoint. This makes any conversation a non-starter, which is why I suggest forming a more complete understanding of other arguments.
However, I’ll save you a bit of time: most of these “topics” are based on a false premise. They are strawman arguments which indicate a misunderstanding of a particular argument/viewpoint.
A statement that shines a moon-sized spotlight on the bias of its author towards groupthink.
I’ve discovered starting a sentence with colorful insults doesn’t land well.
It doesn’t even have to include an insult. Even the most clinical approach is stifled.
Anything that runs counter or even questions accepted correct answers. Correct answers are extremely american centric and left-leaning.
No, most people here are mostly well-off and from rich countries, that refuse to even try to understand other people and their positions. While pretending to be open to ideas and other culturs and views. It has little to do with reality.