this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
74 points (94.0% liked)
Fediverse
28733 readers
326 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Seems like lemmy.ml is really collapsing in on itself. Overall not good for the general health of the fediverse. We need large "sibling" instances rather than monoliths like .world, which is to say nothing of the politics of the instance. The fewer "medium" to "large' instances are, the more reliant the whole system becomes on "very large" monoliths like .world, which overall weakens the integrity of the network.
This also highlights the destructiveness of toxic moderation. There is plenty of it here too, but there needs to be some kind of accountability/ redress if open & free communities are going to be a long term project. Not really a big deal in the long run and something we'll just have to keep working on.
Nah .ml dying is great for the fediverse. Actually the denizens of .ml dying irl would be great for the world too
What
Wow, that's a pretty discussing comment. You do not agree with a few peoples views, do generalise and want them to die. You're worse than tankies.
Tbf, if he said that about nazis, who want to kill a bunch of people, he'd be applauded. He instead said it about tankies, who want to kill a bunch of people, but they like to wear red. That was his real mistake lol.
I'm on that instance and not a tankie. I'm politically left, but object completely to authoritarianism and justification of atrocities.
So yeah, I get annoyed when pricks generalise and wish my death upon me for thinking maybe we should help the poorest in society and don't think the super rich deserve every penny they get.
I find it ironic when people are hating on one political grouping and their conduct is no better than the ones they despise.
Well get used to it, generalization is what people do, they love it, I'm doing it right now, it's a function of the human brain seeking patterns. They'll decry it against their group and use it on another group in damn near the same breath, welcome to the world. We even have phrases for it, "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch" and all. I bet if I scrolled through your comment history (I'm not gonna, but if I did) I wouldn't have to go too far to see you generalize about a group commonly perceived as "all bad," I'd guess it's republicans, probably say they're all racists or all nazis or all X, it doesn't really matter, point is the odds that you do are higher than the odds that you don't.
What you are referring to is heuristics. It's simplistic. Effective for wild animals that require processing of complex information quickly to escape predators for example, but not so much for civilised humans that require a greater deal of accuracy.
You demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the approach by assuming I'm a Democrat or even American.
The skill is in understanding the process, the flaw and developing a capability for critical thought. You'll get there eventually, hopefully.
Actually I assumed you're a lemmy user, of which I've yet to meet one who doesn't generalize republicans whether the poster is american or not. Not without reason, mind you, many republicans are say, racist, though many are not. It serves as a damn fine example of exactly what I'm referring to and is also a generalization in and of itself, which doubles back to make my point again. I understand the process, and in fact at times see value in it rather than simply nature at work, the trick is knowing what to do with the generalization. Should you hate X because X usually Ys? No, but if Y is an undesirable behavior trait in X you should at least find out if they Y before becoming entwined with them somehow.
What?
Was that just an embarrassed verbal vomit?
You were wrong, and rather than admitting, or leaving it, you continue trying to spew words in the hope that you confuse and distract people from realising you were wrong. Are you that insecure?
The point is we all generalize, the problem is not knowing how to apply it, and whether or not the generalization is perceived as good or bad is highly contextual. Feel free to not get it all you want, doesn't hurt me any.