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
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.
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.
I can count the number of good faith arguments I've heard from lost libs on one hand