We aren’t allowed to critique strategy or work together to better ourselves or our plans with outside views that allow us to see and adjust to match an ever changing world…
That would be so bad for my social media feed. The algorithm would have to completely relearn what I like and that would be a hassle.
If nazzis and I agree 1+1 makes 2 that doesn’t mean we’re all Nazzis.
Now, we’re going to count many examples you used to illustrate your point:
I counted one, and this was it right here:
If nazzis and I agree 1+1 makes 2 that doesn’t mean we’re all Nazzis.
Using a single example to make a point of comparison is dumb. Because one could just as easily say that I breathe air, and similarly, so do hamsters, therefore- I must be a hamster.
Demonstrably, this is untrue. And it’s a dumb argument to make. And it’s not the argument I made. I simply said that calling upon a similarity
shared with Nazis isn’t going to make the point one would probably wish to make.
(And the plural of Nazi is “Nazis.” Don’t be afraid to spell their name correctly. It’s not for the purpose of showing respect to them, it’s showing respect to the person that has to read what you’re saying)
You’re really hung up on the debate bro argumentation
NO IM NOT!
and seem to be intentionally missing the point everyone is trying to convey to you.
Which is?
Get over yourself man.
Done!
No one is giving you a hand job for your superior intellectual acumen.
Well now that’s fucking disappointing. I thought for sure there’d be some kind of reward for having to deal with some random’s little White Knight complex. I mean, you barged in here to the defense when you weren’t even called upon! Should I have just conceded right there and fed your horse for you?
No man there is no white knight complex. Again, with the weird labels.
However, there is a weird fixation with users on this platform unable to engage with a topic without having to categorize and label whoever they are engaging with.
For instance: Someone pointed out an extremely neutral fact and it went straight to “well you’re a nazi”. It’s kinda sad and ultimately I just question what even is the point of discussing anything on this platform when it will always escalate within 1-2 comments to boxing someone into some kind of ad hominem or label the way you did?
Do you just delete the comments you make that get downvoted? It’s bad for lemmy to disrupt discussion by fragmenting conversations because you don’t “win.”
Yea i deleted the comments because they weren’t constructive and it seemed you wanted to talk about anything except the main thing I (and others) have highlighted for you so what’s the point.
It’s an unusual scenario that I’ve found is very typical of this particular platform and I’m very intrigued by this phenomenon. A really high percentage of conversations here seems very invested in labeling the other rather than addressing the argument presented. It’s particularly felt on Lemmy. It’s probably trivial to you, but it’s so frequent in my experience here that I’m beginning to wonder what about this place drives every conversation into an instant indictment of the other?
For instance, I’m really curious why in this particular case when someone pointed out why downvoting has little to no effect in changing behavioral outcomes your first instinct was to classify that person into the same category as the initial example?
Like, what led you to seek out that indictment in situ right out of the bat? Was it the way they phrased it? Did it remind you of a past story or example?
What aspect of the statement:
“down votes are not compelling”
made you go straight to : "aha! You have commonality with Nazis! "?
That’s… not what they are saying. They are critiquing the strategy. If nazzis and I agree 1+1 makes 2 that doesn’t mean we’re all Nazzis.
I don’t understand why so many struggle with addressing the message and are so eager to shoot the messenger. It’s weird but really common on Lemmy.
We aren’t allowed to critique strategy or work together to better ourselves or our plans with outside views that allow us to see and adjust to match an ever changing world…
That would be so bad for my social media feed. The algorithm would have to completely relearn what I like and that would be a hassle.
Using one example to make the rule is bad logic.
deleted by creator
Okay, let me try and help. You said this:
Now, we’re going to count many examples you used to illustrate your point:
I counted one, and this was it right here:
Using a single example to make a point of comparison is dumb. Because one could just as easily say that I breathe air, and similarly, so do hamsters, therefore- I must be a hamster.
Demonstrably, this is untrue. And it’s a dumb argument to make. And it’s not the argument I made. I simply said that calling upon a similarity shared with Nazis isn’t going to make the point one would probably wish to make.
(And the plural of Nazi is “Nazis.” Don’t be afraid to spell their name correctly. It’s not for the purpose of showing respect to them, it’s showing respect to the person that has to read what you’re saying)
deleted by creator
NO IM NOT!
Which is?
Done!
Well now that’s fucking disappointing. I thought for sure there’d be some kind of reward for having to deal with some random’s little White Knight complex. I mean, you barged in here to the defense when you weren’t even called upon! Should I have just conceded right there and fed your horse for you?
Debate bro indeed.
No man there is no white knight complex. Again, with the weird labels.
However, there is a weird fixation with users on this platform unable to engage with a topic without having to categorize and label whoever they are engaging with.
For instance: Someone pointed out an extremely neutral fact and it went straight to “well you’re a nazi”. It’s kinda sad and ultimately I just question what even is the point of discussing anything on this platform when it will always escalate within 1-2 comments to boxing someone into some kind of ad hominem or label the way you did?
Do you just delete the comments you make that get downvoted? It’s bad for lemmy to disrupt discussion by fragmenting conversations because you don’t “win.”
Either own what you say, or don’t say it.
Yea i deleted the comments because they weren’t constructive and it seemed you wanted to talk about anything except the main thing I (and others) have highlighted for you so what’s the point.
It’s an unusual scenario that I’ve found is very typical of this particular platform and I’m very intrigued by this phenomenon. A really high percentage of conversations here seems very invested in labeling the other rather than addressing the argument presented. It’s particularly felt on Lemmy. It’s probably trivial to you, but it’s so frequent in my experience here that I’m beginning to wonder what about this place drives every conversation into an instant indictment of the other?
For instance, I’m really curious why in this particular case when someone pointed out why downvoting has little to no effect in changing behavioral outcomes your first instinct was to classify that person into the same category as the initial example?
Like, what led you to seek out that indictment in situ right out of the bat? Was it the way they phrased it? Did it remind you of a past story or example?
What aspect of the statement:
“down votes are not compelling”
made you go straight to : "aha! You have commonality with Nazis! "?
deleted by creator
Bye!