Pros: it will be exciting and engaging to see someone with a federated name and the notice their opinion being dogshit
Cons: mathematically proven to not have cons
Pros: it will be exciting and engaging to see someone with a federated name and the notice their opinion being dogshit
Cons: mathematically proven to not have cons
Every freak on here's just gunna' desperately scramble to "dunk" on them and embarrass us all.
As one of the rare non-hexbear who still sees hexbear content and occasionally comments, yeah this is the issue. Hi everyone!
My team and I are analyzing all 132 of your comments. R&Ding the perfect dunk. Be prepared.
Every further comment you make only increases the metricized dunk-matrix quotient.
Go for it. It's mostly that it makes others not want to interact with you guys. I obviously don't really care that much. You don't convince them of anything except maybe making them dislike you, so the opposite of what you should want. I know it enforces group think and makes others in the group feel more attached so they don't leave really, but it's not going to turn anyone new into a leftist.
Sadly true. Even if we don't have aspirations of being on the lib to left pipeline, we definitely scare people off by being overzealous with dogpiling.
I think people should be more patient with those who have lib-smelling inquiries, but I'm all in favor of bullying the bad-faith posters incapable of questioning their assumptions. I see more of the latter than the former, which is why I think so many here are quick to start roasting.
I find it amusing when there are threads with half the responses are giant walls of text trying to explain things and the other half pictures of a pig shitting on its testicles.
Makes me wish Lemmy supported having both federated & unfederated comms or per-comm federation lists, so we could have federated 101-type spaces where dunks are explicitly removed, and unfederated shitposting free from intrusion.
I totally agree bad faith arguments deserve all the shit they get. I just think the comment "shitting on" good faith arguments do more harm than good. There are a ton of bad faith arguments. I, personally, just tend to ignore or rebut their claims so it doesn't hurt anything. The hexbear version of dunking on them doesn't promote anything good and at best turns the single person posting on it away. The ideal is to convince other viewers of alternatives.
If someone's posting bad faith arguments I would rather not waste anyones time interacting with them, they're certainly not there to be educated.
Chasing them off with mockery seems like the least bad option, if the other options are giving it credibility by trying to respond or ignoring it.
The problem is discerning the difference between the two can be inconsistent, leading to some users effort posting while others mock.
Totally agree. Bad faith arguments don't deserve the time or effort. If you do spend the time, at least spend it aware other people than the OP may see it.
I also agree there is no reliable way to tell bad faith from good faith, at least before they contradict themselves, but that takes time.
I can count the number of good faith arguments I've heard from lost libs on one hand
What many people take offense to, is the fact that a lot of "good faith" arguments are still repugnant, and frankly not always distinguishable (hope thats a word) from bad faith arguments.
To give you an example that I've seen quite a lot: Like the current situtation with the Middle East, where you see liberals of all kinds either straight up supporting Israel's genocide, or clamoring for a millitary intervention against the Ansarallah movement governing Yemen. If you (general you, not you specifically) don't know what that movement is about, or just how popular it is, or what they have been going through for the past decade, I don't give a flying fuck what kind of argument you make, you are not going to understand why their actions are in fact rational (and also legal, but that's a separate issue). Same with the Ukraine war, same with the October 7th attacks, same with a potential war against Iran. If you (again, every you is general, not as a reply to you) genuinely believe that people outside of the United States can afford to act against the United States based solely on the reason that they're evil, or hate the west or some other moron-grade explanation, you are going to be dunked on, because your opinion is at best worthless and can at best become a learning opportunity, but more likely will just result in the lib in question taking their ball home and blocking us.
This is one of those things that does a good job of demonstrating for normal social cohesion mechanisms are villified when observed in fringe groups. You have no problem insulting and condescending and yet criticize us for the same, even as people have been nice to you. I don't care to flatter the sensibilities of whoever the next NATOist shitlib is telling me about asiatic hordes, they are clearly not interested in learning. What matters are the people who don't have the same moronic confidence that the NATOists do.
My problem is that a lot of the people here think that insulting people who mostly agree with you is the norm. Sure, inform people of what's going on and what's wrong with their justification, but "dunking on them" isn't going to change their opinion. It doesn't matter how many times they see the image of the pig shitting on its balls. It's not going to change their mind. The ideal should be to change people's opinion. We should be trying to create more leftists, not trying to create more anti-tankies.
Ok provide one or two examples of this happening. Cause I'm always there for the dunking and even I'm amazed at how consistently, almost universally shit lemmy users are
Do you think I just save examples like this to share? It happens, and we all know that. There's really no need to prove it. I've got an example of a fairly well cited critique that I did here a while ago that only got shitty responses of people trying to dunk on me, or just unwilling to acknowledge what I said. I'm not searching through my entire history to find it though, but if you want to feel free.
I know you feel like you’re being attacked and brigaded, so it’s not to contribute to that experience that I say this:
What you just said is a great example of how one sided these things are. A communist is expected to be an expert with receipts on every aspect of social science, politics, history, foreign policy, philosophy and economics and expected to articulate a cohesive alternative to the neocolonial global capitalist system in detail while just asking a liberal “hey, when did that thing you said happened happen?” Is a bridge too far.
When people reply to you and say “why should we bend over backwards to make liberals comfortable?” That’s why.
Rather than expect people to accept your assertion that “we all know it happens” or jump to the conclusion that they’re just trying to get you (which you didn’t do, but people often do), why not recognize that examining prior assumptions and their underpinnings is what causes someone to arrive at leftism and treat those inquiries as genuine opportunities to learn with someone rather than teach or be taught by them?
This comment is not directed at you. It's directed at the community at large.
This is what I'm advocating for. So often here I see hostility towards any outsider. This is not conducive to learning. It only causes them to shut down and not accept different information, and the people here to conform to group-think and not question their assumptions.
Hostility never convinces anyone of anything. If the goal is actually to convince them, then being hostile doesn't get anywhere. If you don't think it's worth your time then fine, but how is insulting them then worth your time? Again, it doesn't do anything except enforce group-think and push them away, neither of which I think have any value.
And here you are again, imploring the community to be more lenient with you when you refused to back up what you said even though you know where the information to do so is.
Your last assertion is wrong, but it would be a social good if you were driven away or forced to think differently.
That's what I thought
I think you're over assuming how much common ground we share with NATO-libs
Your argument is useless because you're bundling a bunch of behaviors together without substantiation while taking a very narrow view of what interactions do and what their purpose can be (ignoring my counterexample at the end).
As an aside, NATOist shitlibs and "I disavow Biden while taking Pompeo's line on foreign adversaries" types are a) materially identical and b) completely antithetical to my ideology, not my cute little neighbors who prefer mousse over fudge or whatever minor affectation we are worried about protecting here.
I'm gonna be honest with you zip, being disliked by lemmy users is not the knockdown you think it is
I've always maintained lemmy users who joined the last six months are the dregs of reddit who make normal redditers look well-adjusted and poltically coherent, and my assertion has yet to be proven wrong
It's not just that you're disliked. It's that you are only scaring people away. If you wanted to be effective then you'd at least try to be convincing. I'm fully aware most Lemmy users at large are terminally online people who only want internet points, but supposedly Hexbear is leftist, and part of that should be trying to make other people leftist to create actual change. That doesn't happen by posting a picture of a pig shitting on its balls.
lmao we are under no obligation to "convince" some online dipshits who already made up their minds, the onus is on them to come to us in good faith, not for us to bend over backwards to rid them of some dumbass neo-nazi brainworms they picked up from browsing 4chan for ten years
Who said anything about an obligation? I said that it should be desired.
Tbh I don't think anyone is ever going to be convinced online. Hexbear is mostly a safe space for communists and other sympathetic parties to hang out. If someone sees the content and wants to participate then they've been activated elsewhere. If they don't, then I doubt any amount of performative civility would undo the propaganda filling their skull and would only create a less safe space for our minority comrades.
Changing minds is the purview of real life interactions
Idk about this. My mind was changed online and it happened through people who were nice and explained things to me. Then again, i approached if with an open mind, and most lemmy libs dont.
Yeah that's fair, I slowly came around as a lurker and from my partner gently opposing my shitty takes like 'there can be good billionaires'
I think most open minded people fall into some amount of "activated" in my previous post as I think once you begin actually questioning it's only a matter of time. That's probably a bit too optimistic though
I've unionized in real life and I've come to the conclusion that only two things can change a person's mind to adopt more leftist politics, at least in a group setting. (Individually people are all over the place and random stuff can happen in their lives)
The only two things I've been able to use are: offering them something or embarrassing them. You offer them a good union deal, or you have enough comrades together to shout down any dissenters. The internet probably doesn't work quite that way but who knows. We're not here to convince people of anything, we're here to relax or have a laugh.
You're probably right that more people here should try to answer good faith questions. But most of us are here in the first place out of frustration. We all feel alone and alienated in our daily lives, so it's nice to come around and chill with like-minded people. Our first instinct when we see someone dissenting is with the same frustration we typically feel. We're too stressed.
Someone being nice and explaining things to me worked on me, doe the record.
I think you're an unusually sweet and curious person though, from what I've seen you post. I'm kind of pessimistic about most people and how pigheaded they can get.
Aww thanks for saying that!
Getting my ass dunked on actually helped me grow politically. Everyone repeats that whole line about how civility and kindness are the best way to convince people, but I'm skeptical, seems like one of those things everyone says cuz everyone says it. It works in certain circumstances, but a lot of ignorant or arrogant people will just abuse your kindness and use it to validate themselves. Jerking them off just makes it worse. Embarrassing them and making them feel humbled is often much more effective.
It depends on context, but I'm not saying you should jerk them off. I'm saying insulting generally (and this is a well studied well understood thing) causes people to shut down. They won't read beyond the first sentence if they're being insulted. I'm not saying you have to give their opinion any weight, because it likely doesn't deserve any. I'm saying, if you're spending the time to engage, you should do so in a way to ensure (particularly for other readers) you're making allies and not enemies. Point out how stupid and/or ignorant their argument is. Don't just insult the person, which doesn't make anyone think you know what you're talking about any more than the other person does.
Like you said, humble them. Don't insult them.
Proving someone wrong feels like an insult no matter how politely you do it. If anything all this just further proves the general futility of debate, people just get more entrenched in their positions.
Such as?
Sure, people can feel harmed when their closely held beliefs are questioned. However, insulting the person only makes it so they don't need to consider if their beliefs were attacked because they'll dismiss it outright.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03634523.2018.1465192
Do I really need to prove every single statement? It's not like I'm making bold claims. You can figure some basic things out for yourself I believe.
Weren't you just talking about not insulting people?
Sorry, I thought it was in this chain of comments where I was asked to prove something else, but people asking to prove very basic things is rediculous. It's either sea-lioning or lazy, and it's impossible to tell the difference. I don't know if its also this chain, but identifying bad faith arguing is hard or impossible. I'm not going to spend all day proving basic things.
And do you not think it's this same experience that leads users on here to insult others?
There's a difference between pointing out that not every claim needs to be pointlessly supported by evidence and posting an image of a pig shitting on its balls. You might think it insulting for me to say I don't need to back every single small thing up and that you can find it yourself, but it isn't an insult. I'm not calling you names or anything.
Sure, getting annoyed is expected. I don't expect anyone to be on perfect behavior all the time. I do think it's good to not engage if you're only adding an insult rather than a contribution.
One, now you know how it feels to be a socialist on the internet.
Two, I'll have to do a deeper dive later, but taking a cursory look I don't think your source really backs up you point as much as you think it does. Also you act like this is a "basic thing" but I earlier rejected that framing, I think everyone acts like it's a basic thing cuz everyone just assumes it's true but I have my skepticisms based on my own experiences.
Three, if you're unable to remain civil in the face of minor jeer and sassiness, isn't it a bit hypocritical for you to tell us to remain civil in the face of people who are out right hostile and willfully ignorant?
It was a joke
hey look everyone, an outsider
Issue? Or feature?
Hello and welcome! 👋
You know you love seeing a good hexbear dunk.
None of you grind libs and it shows.