There’s nothing wrong with criticism or calling out bad behavior. However, shouting “ACAB” in a thread about police violence, making jokes about beheading rich people, or throwing “muskrat” comments in discussions about Elon Musk, just to name a few examples, makes you an asshole and part of the reason why social media is so incredibly toxic.
If you’re doing that while also explaining why you feel that way, then it’s still not the best approach, but at least you’re contributing to the conversation instead of just making noise. Throwing out insults without adding substance doesn’t challenge anyone or encourage meaningful discussion; it just perpetuates the toxic environment that so many of us complain about.
Really muskrat is what you are worried about? That’s the least you could say about him. That’s tame. Maybe the real reason social media so toxic is because said muskrat keeps promoting and endorsing pedophiles, literal Nazis, racism, and general hatred.
That’s not particularly fair interpretation of what I said. I named 2 other examples too, which you conveniently ignored.
I’m sorry so you said it but I’m not supposed to address it because why exactly? You’re the one that said it. Only one conveniently ignoring things here seems to be you conveniently ignoring the ramifications of what you yourself said.
It’s not calling Elon a muskrat that I take issue with. It’s being the kind of person who feels the urge to do that. Decent people understand when to stay silent if they have nothing meaningful to add. Assholes don’t.
part of the reason why social media is so incredibly toxic
Hard disagree. Commercial social media is incredibly toxic because of individuals like Musk, Zuckerberg, etc. They increase their profits to the determent of society. They create the echo chambers that cause that behavior.
You don’t think the users contribute at all to the toxicity and it’s all because of Zuckerberg, Musk, Dorsey etc.?
Then why is Lemmy filled with the exact same toxicity? Exhibit A: Comment by MedicPig below.
Feels like victim blaming the people who are currently being manipulated by algorithms which specfically draw people deeper and deeper into content designed to make them angry.
“It’s your fault for being manipulated!” You scream at the top of your lungs. It’s like when my state asks me to preserve water, but it barely regulates industrial water supply. Which is somewhere between 90 and 95% of total usage.
Maybe you are trying to treat a symptom, and maybe ignoring the direct cause is a bit of a problem.
Lemmy doesn’t run any recommendation algorithms yet the problem still persists. I’d say it’s an inherent feature of human nature which the algorithms just take advantage of.
👏
ACAB is not an insult, it’s shorthand for an ideological shift in how we perceive civil servants. It’s a reminder, or a clue for those who haven’t seen it before, that we have a very real problem.
Similarly, references to the guillotine should serve as a reminder that the social contract applies to everyone. When the rich devalue the lives of the poor, enriching themselves at the expense of human suffering, they need a reminder that they are outnumbered. The downtrodden need a reminder that basic human decency is a reciprocal requirement.
I’m with you on personal insults, even against shitbags like Leon, but I also enjoy clever or novel insults, so it’s more about how repetitive they are for me.
Thought-terminating clichés like “ACAB” never changed anyone’s view on civil servants. It’s virtue signaling to the in-group and baiting the out-group. The intention is to fish for upvotes and provoke outrage, fitting the very definition of slacktivism.
If the goal is to inspire real change in the world, spreading awareness and writing thoughtful, engaging comments is a far better approach.
“thought terminating cliche” is a propaganda term made up during the cold war by a US academic who was trying to claim that we have reasoned, rational ideology whereas communists only have slogans that prevent them from realizing how wrong they are.
It’s a catchy collection of words, but calling another’s argument a thought terminating cliche is just using a cliche to avoid thinking about their point.
It’s a name for a concept, so called “bumper sticker logic.”
Criticizing the author of a statement isn’t addressing the argument itself.
I don’t think you’re wrong, but I think you expect too much from people. Some people don’t have more to offer than virtue signaling and proviking outrage. Not everyone has the capacity to write a thoughtful and compelling argument. We’re hanging out on Lemmy writing comments to each other. It’s an open forum. There’s no entrance exams or rules against slacktivism.
And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a slogan or a chant or a meme or a bumper sticker or a tshirt or a hat or a button or a plaquard or a tweet or an emoji being the summary of your message. It’s easier to share and easier to remember. Calling it “slacktivism” is itself a clever portmanteau to convey a much broader concept, instead of a thoughtful and compelling argument. But I’m not mad, because I understood what you were saying and do not need additional convincing.
If you’re reading yet another article about police protecting a criminal because the criminal wears a badge, then “ACAB” is sufficient to share your point of view. It would be really cool if we didn’t live in a society where the term had any relevance, and nobody knew exactly what it meant. Sadly, the things we have shorthand for tell us the things we see a lot.
