I honestly think just having it there on the sidebar would be enough. Then I (or anyone else) could tell someone to maybe cool it a bit without coming across as a :LIB:

That's cool, I just didn't appreciate the relatively small implication that I was weird for reading it that way (that you may not have intended of course, I'm sorry).

also I will

Maybe the moderators just have a lot more lenient of a definition of hostility than I do.

Either way, it should be stricter in the mental health comm.

wait there are RULES against hostility? i have never seen someone follow them, or de-escalate to follow them, then.

If you tell a lactose intolerant person that they're "missing out" on ice cream, people will think you're an asshole (Ethics of ice cream aside). Not that you are one, it seems pretty obvious you didn't intend it that way, but I was just explaining why I read it the way I did.

It is not. The rules do not specify any kind of way posters on the comm should be treated, other than that we shouldn't downplay experiences. It's a good start, but either not taken seriously enough or not perceived as covering mistreatment of posters.

It is though. When you "miss out" on something that implies you've made a mistake on not choosing to participate in that thing. We describe a person who brought one movie to a desert island and watched The Room instead of some sort of masterpiece to be "missing out". We never say that about someone who takes another masterpiece instead, though, because they wouldn't be "missing out" because they could only choose one of those things in the first place, so it's unnecessary thing to point out, even though it's technically true. It's one of those annoying things where the phrase itself doesn't have any real implication like that, but in this context it does.

well, yes, but that isn't really what i think of with the term "missing out". "missing out" kind of implies they're committing some sort of grave error that will make their life worse than the alternative, not that it will give a different experienced as is expected with quite literally every small decision humans make ever

i love the term cracker dearly, but maybe introducing new users with a "stfu" might not be the most reliable way to create new socialists

You: Foolishly believing they are immune, still being subsumed while your ego insists otherwise

Me: based, cool, protected from memetic spores by living under a rock for the rest of my life

they're not missing anything, really. it is possible to develop deep connections with other people while only talking about what's strictly necessary. shared activities exist for a reason and have existed for millenia.

oh wow this is very revealing.

i agree with eight, you have boring friends. not in the sense that they don't know about high political conversations or whatever, but that they just seem un-engaged. are you sure they just aren't taking the effort to try and engage with you that you're putting out? If they're not doing that, have you tried just saying that to them directly? If you make it clear that you're open to deeper and weirder conversations, they might be more open to having them.

that's... simply not true. like, c'mon. it takes work to reach out to other people but you're allowed to just be bored

and either way, the comment is terrible advice. it sounds good to people who are both neurotypical and only reading it on a surface level, but this is still the social equivalent of "dodge better". it's not actual advice, it's a judgement.

it could AT LEAST be framed less judgementally. the last thing someone who is obviously going through a rough spot needs is to be called arrogant.

what do you like talking about? try talking about it, even if people hate it.

do the things you enjoy, as long as it isn't murder or whatever. talk about the things you enjoy. do the things you enjoy with other people. conversations will emerge naturally

sure, you should give other people space to talk about their stuff, but you shouldn't feel obligated to enjoy it. it's just a nicety for if they're in the same situation as you. most of all, the fact that conversations are boring doesn't mean you're broken. you should be allowed to be bored (and allowed to be kind of angry about it!)

not everyone should be expected to be perfect neurotypical conversationalists. Oh, god forbid, not everyone even needs to talk all the time!

wth is this comment and how did it get upvotes, they just insult the op and tell them to take acid

This assumes that everyone who is exposed to propaganda is aware it is propaganda, which seems very optimistic of the political awareness of your average American.

I don't even have to read the essay, suggesting that everyone who does bad things in service of false claims is doing so for their own benefit and also does not believe those false claims is simply absurd. People are just stupid sometimes. Doesn't justify murder, but the majority of people are not playing some sort of gigabrain 5d chess.

This comment doesn't actually disagree with the person at all, though. You're right, and they're right. We should be distrustful of veterans, but not because we're mystically superior beings who are just built different. We should be distrustful of them because they have a provably dangerous mindset, given all the murder.

So why does the distinction matter? Well, it wouldn't, if people wouldn't also keep bringing morality in the conversation. Once we start talking about some sort of abstract moral judge of character, the distinction becomes very important, because of ethical implications I'm too burnt out right now to explain.

If you had the same brain, uprising, memories, environment, friends, neighbors, parents, and exact same sequence of events in your life, you would make the same decision.

This is not apologia for the imperialism or murder. It just means any one of us could have been the murderer if we were born in the wrong place. This also doesn't mean that life is "deterministic", just that our decisions and behavior is formulated entirely by our memories and experiences.

It always reeks of someone who never had an interest in anything unusual in their entire life. Excuse me for the 4-chanism, but you have to be such a normie to think that the technology that allowed millions of people to connect to those with shared interests is also purely mentally harmful.

To be clear, it is also mentally harmful.

I apologize for changing the topic of conversation. I meant the second sentence primarily as another criticism of the general message of the original post, not a defense of my own original position.