rwhitisissle
This actually reminds me of a book by Charles Stross called Accelerando. Human explorers during a time in which people upload their minds to computer systems travel to (and this part is fuzzy in my memory), a world orbiting a brown dwarf. The world is just a giant computer and it’s inhabited almost entirely by superintelligent banking scams and viruses. It turns out that almost all “life” in the universe is like this, just parasitic AI that serves no real purpose other than to fuck over other people for short-term gains. Anyway, I’ve been thinking about that book more and more in recent years.
11 years. End of an era. I have to force myself to not muscle memory go to reddit every morning when I open up my laptop in bed (I was almost purely a PC based, old.reddit.com user). It’s weird. I kinda figured my outlook or general mental space would feel…different, without using that addictive website that I’ve literally spent several hours on every single day for literally years, but I don’t. I just seem to be watching more youtube videos. I guess it’s true that your brain finds a way of filling the hole with stimulation. Not sure if that’s a good thing, though. Kinda wish my brain would be like “okay, time to read all those books you bought and then said you’d get to later. Later is now, asshole.” Nope, just twitch streamer highlight reels and videos of anime girls dancing. Maybe I’m just a fucking idiot, after all.
If people want an echo chamber, fine, but I’m calling it out.
Yes, that was always allowed. Beehaw is extremely up front about the kinds of voices and perspectives welcome on it. It never claimed to be a bastion of free speech. Complaining about that is like saying you don’t like a burger restaurant because they don’t serve sushi.
I think there’s value in it. The underlying idea is that if someone is wrong, even if blatantly so, you have to take the effort to explain why. On reddit, the downvote button was just as often used as a community cudgel against dissenting opinion, even when the opinion was 1) genuinely harmless but unpopular, 2) well reasoned and supported by evidence but something that went against the mob mentality, or 3) just something that people didn’t understand and their gut reaction to it was negative.
Your opinion encompasses a criticism of another Lemmy community on the basis that it doesn’t operate in a way that you like. Which is fine. But you framed it as a fault of the community itself and not a matter of personal preference. My “deal” is that I don’t think that’s very cash money of you, pimp.
the definition is based around grade-level reading (what can you identify and synthesize from standardized text in English in a given time frame) and inclusive of a broader population. We’re talking about people who can’t pick up a copy of USA today and tell you the main idea of a front-page article.
Purely anecdotal, but I know someone who is a tenured professor at a university that will flat out refuse to answer any question that has too much supporting detail around it. As in, if you say “for this part of the assignment, I’m doing…” and proceed to describe your attempt at problem solving over four or five sentences, asking if what you’ve done is correct or close to it, and he will simply respond with “there’s too much here to unpack, sorry,” and refuse to answer the question. But if you do it in person, like verbally read out the same paragraph you wrote, he can understand and answer it. There’s other things, too. He can type out simple sentences, but has a very poor grasp of spelling, frequently getting very simple words wrong (think different versions of there, their, and they’re). It’s genuinely baffling how he got to that point, but he also hasn’t ever really published material and it kinda makes sense why. Dude has a doctorate in a STEM field and I think the reason for that is that he can understand mathematics, but literally can’t understand complex writing. Any idea that takes more than a single sentence to explicate just evaporates out of his head.
I guess it depends on the context. If someone said that McDonald’s quality was fine for the amount of money you spent and is a fine choice if you’re traveling and need to grab something quick to eat and your immediate reply was just that it was shit, I would say that if your opinion is given as a response to someone else’s and is poorly worded or thought out, you’ve automatically opened yourself to having your opinion criticized.
That said, do you not recall that your original response in this thread was to someone who said about Beehaw
This is not authoritarianism, in this case they said it is due to their inability to moderate.
And you disagreed with THEIR opinion?
This entire thing is me thinking your opinion is bad, while your original comment was you saying you think someone else’s opinion is bad.
Pot, meet kettle.
Except, I did. Your claim is that Beehaw is authoritarian. Authoritarianism, however, is a political system. This is an explicit example of hyperbole to the point of misrepresentation because authoritarianism presumably ignores the sovereignty and political rights of the members of a nation state. Beehaw is just a website, one in which you can voluntarily participate, but one in which you’re also neither product nor customer. You have no valid claim to any tangible rights on that server. It’s much closer to just disliking a restaurant because it doesn’t serve the food you want and asks you to leave after you keep ordering stuff they just don’t serve. If you want to be able to say slurs or whatever without repercussion, there’s plenty of places on the internet you can get your kicks by doing that. You just can’t do it there.