The community getting the worse trolling and attacks would exacerbate their moderators which in turn could result in severe, expeditive moderation.
Do you feel this might be happening ?
There’s some jackass that makes a new account every day to post something racist in one of the Science Meme communities. Must be a full time job to moderate.
I got banned from /c/news for having the wrong opinion about trans athletes in sports. So yeah, this place isn’t any better than Reddit.
At first I just thought you hated women, but your problem is much worse.
I’m glad to hear you’re having issues fitting in.
The issue only centers around women’s sports, where – before the issue of trans topics ever came into play – It was illegal to modify your body and then compete.
So if you’re trans and you haven’t undergone any chemical transition - then you’re still a man, trying to compete in men’s sports.
And if you have undergone chemical transition, then you’ve modified your body and you’re disqualified from sports.
My opinion is they can still compete in men’s sports; since all men’s sports aren’t really “mens” sports, but an open category.
How does that amount to hating women again? Oh yeah, that’s right – IT DOESN’T. I don’t think they should be barred from bathrooms, I don’t think they should be discriminated against - but regardless - the rules are there, and EITHER way breaks those rules; rules which have been there since practically the beginning of competitive sport.
Yep. They deserve to be banned.
Avoid trans and vaccination topics on Lemmy if you don’t want downvotes. :)
I think it’s a good place for discussing surface level topics though. Memes, big tech behavior, etc. Things nobody gets upset about hearing.
I think a better framework might be, don’t be bigoted and don’t spread misinformation.
Bigot means:
“a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own”
This is exactly what we see on Lemmy when it comes to trans and vaccination topics. People are not tolerant of opinions different from their own.
If someone straight up insults you, that’s against the rules on most instances.
People trying to walk you down from a position that doesn’t make any sense by dismantling the logic behind it isn’t intolerance of you or your opinion.
You’re perfectly free to defend your position, but if your logic only works in your head, then it’s not logic, it’s delusion. I’ve seen you multiple times now, you say your words, then get them completely debunked in the replies. But you don’t actually engage in a back and forth. You have no actual arguments. Yet you still reappear in new threads, still spouting crazy, completely unfounded, “opinions”.
A refusal to accept an opinion as valid is not intolerance. “Tolerating” does not require acceptance or agreement, but merely abiding by your presence. No-one owes an instantly debunkable claim the time of day.
And when you cross the line into something that demeans a person or persons, then yes, there will be no tolerance, bans. The only valid intolerance is the intolerance of intolerance.
I guess you are referring to my comment about not trusting vaccines? That single comment got 300 downvotes or so. :) I think it shows very clearly that there is point discussing the topic.
Just the fact that you think it’s crazy to not vaccinate is an absolute position with no room for discussing it at all.
So as a consequence, we don’t discuss these things on Lemmy. Most people are happy about that. :) I’m just saying there are topics we don’t discuss here. That can’t be discussed. This is true. :)
Also the one about trans people which was almost reasonable, but failed to stick the landing.
You’re trying to twist the definition of the word “bigot” to apply to those who refuse to entertain obvious invalid logic.
There is always room for discussion, and no position is absolute. That you think this is news to me is one the hurdles you will have to overcome before you can attempt to discuss things like this with someone who builds up their world view through disciplined reason.
That view on vaccines is crazy, because to arrive at such a conclusion, you must intentionally ignore facts, confuse feelings with evidence, and incorrectly consider anecdotal experience superior to statistically significant data.
You should examine how solidly you stand by your own unveriable beliefs, before you try to use the percieved solidity of mine as a point of critizism. I’ve change my mind on many things, many times, but you cannot make me do so by simply telling me to. “You’re a bit too sure about that” is not a counterargument. You must explain, and you must explain thoroughly. More thoroughly than I think you can, considering a watertight chain of reason that leads to your position on vaccines, does not exist.
Your vaccine comment was straight up misinformation, in no way supported by available evidence. The matter is “open to discussion” in the same way you might discuss whether exercise is good for you.
There are edge cases where a workout or vaccination can be unadvisable for certain individuals due physical or immunological factors, but the idea that the utility of these things in itself has room for questioning is madness. And legitimately dangerous as a view when held by people deciding over the lives of others, or voting on it.
And it WAS discussed, people had plenty to say in response to you, including me. But none of what you said was a bona fide contribution. You simply stated something you appear to consider true, but with no supporting logic or evidence. That’s not a discussion or a proper exchange of thought. It’s just spitting out words as if doing so in itself makes them truthful or worthy of consideration
A lot of people believing something, doesn’t make it true. Your conviction alone will convince almost no-one. Without further elaboration of the kind that others can actually follow, you may as well be speaking an alien language no-one can understand.
If talking about your opinions isn’t possible in a way that makes sense, consider, that your opinions may not make sense.
Because that is what you’re really admitting when you claim that certain things you think “cannot be discussed” on Lemmy.
Is there a question to me anywhere in that long post about yourself? You think of yourself as a rational person, following advice from medical professionals and scientific research. But somehow you can’t see why someone may not trust the vaccines on a personal level?
There are side effects from vaccines. I decided to get covid instead of risking those side effects. I had a mild cold for a few days, then it was over and never came back.
I had coworkers who got very sick after taking the vaccine. And several of them developed very weird issues with their body. When going to a doctor, the doctor said it was covid, not the vaccine.
So in short, I rather get infected with covid and let my body develop its own anti bodies than take the vaccine. Works very well so far.
Don’t try to “paradox of tolerance” this situation. Lol.
The solution is to not tolerate bigots.
You don’t see yourself as a bigot I guess? Just other people. :)
I do not see myself as a bigot, correct. I also don’t tolerate bigots.
I do my best to create non bigoted spaces by not tolerating bigots.
I recommend you take a look into what the paradox of tolerance is. It’s not too complicated of a subject in the scope of moral philosophy as a whole.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
If you are interested in moral philosophy I could recommend a few books if you like.
We share that view then! I also don’t see myself as a bigot and I don’t tolerate them. So we shouldn’t waste each other’s time. :)
Avoiding a subject is not how you evolve your thinking around it.
That’s the easy way out, and a good way to make sure you never figure out how to improve as a human being.
You don’t even need to engage, but if you can’t do so without drawing fire, you should at least start reading the discussions others are having to figure out what needs to change.
I guess whether a place is better than another place is highly subjective. I’ve been on here for a little over a year, ever since reddit announced they were killing third party apps. I left reddit and never looked back. Personally, I like it here. People are a bit more friendlier, it’s a small community so oftentimes you’re having a conversation with someone you’ve had a conversation with before. It does have some small issues but not enough to abandon the platform.
Kudos to the mods and the programmers making the fediverse and Lemmy a better alternative to corporate social media. You guys rock!
Yeah, I probably agree with your opinion, but Lemmy is a bit cultish about trans people.
Politics.
As much as i can tell this !politics@lemmy.world community is the most solicited indeed.
Yerp
Getting some great numbers tho assuming they’re not all bots
lol… look at my modlog. One mod disliked my comment, decided to ban me from multiple communities, all of which I haven’t even commented on, or at least to my knowledge I haven’t. Those kinds of, “mods” are bad for Lemmy, imo.
Pooling results after 24 hours :
!politics@lemmy.world
!startrek@lemmy.world …or StarTrek@…
!unpopularopinion@lemmy.world ←i say !science_memes@mander.xyzi propose modlog comparison to elect the winner.
based on the time to produce the last 20 modlog entries (ok this is a weak criteria, i know) … :rank Δt(20modlog) community 1 24 hrs !politics@lemmy.world 2 6 days !unpopularopinion@lemmy.world 3 30 days !science_memes@mander.xyz 4 6 months !startrek@lemmy.world
