Why are peole hating on .world?
Why are peole hating on .world?
I've seen around 3 occasions of that this week, altho I have never seen anything like it before.
if I remember correctly they were:
- smack talking a mod (FlyingSquid) for saying not to report the same comment twice, when they were different comments, and the report was spam
- someone comparing .world with .ml in politics (as in there was a comment saying "this post will be overrun with .ml people, and then a comment going "but you are from .world") (Maybe Im part of the problem? I have been called out for being a fascist because I questioned the "puching nazis" theme)
- one more which I can't remember.
Anyways, what is all that about? Are people really starting to hate on 50% of the lemmy population because of their instance?
You're viewing a single thread.
My biggest problem with .world is that people will just make up whatever they want about the out-group and everyone just believes it without question and with no interest in examining the
evidence.It's a toxic element of the site's culture that encourages circle-jerking and the automatic dismissal of opposing viewpoints while making intelligent and informed discussion impossible.The moderation is also pretty heavy-handed with censorship and things get removed for "misinformation" pretty frequently just because the mods disagree with it. You don't have to go very far back in the modlog right now to find removed posts from Cowbee and Alcoholicorn, despite both backing up their arguments with published books from respectable authors. It's best to avoid engaging with the mods at all, I got banned from World News because a mod couldn't defend their position so they just banned me. There's a pretty clear bias towards NATO and the US.
But like I said my main issue is the first point, and I'll stop judging .worlders when I start to see people actually ask for evidence when someone says, "I saw a bunch of tankies eating kittens" instead of just blindly accepting it as fact because it's about an out-group.
You literally just made up a strawman argument, which you then immediately cited as "evidence"?
Mods are busy. If this is what you tend to do, I don't blame them one bit for not wanting to volunteer their unpaid time to deal with it - for the same reason I now understand better why some women would prefer the bear.
Now, please downvote me, you know you want to... just this once, I want you to know what it's like to do something with the recipient's consent.
for the same reason I now understand better why some women would prefer the bear.
Now, please downvote me, you know you want to… just this once, I want you to know what it’s like to do something with the recipient’s consent.
Lmao wtf are you talking about? Am I violating someone's consent by holding beliefs they disagree with? Completely unhinged.
out-group
Can it be an out-group and also have totalitarian control of the platform structure?
These people made Lemmy. Sorry if their numbers are lower than average. I guess next time around they can make a no libruls allowid sign or something so the other 98% of humans know not to ruin their great fun.
totalitarian control
Lmao y'all are wild. Why are you on a platform where people you don't like have, "totalitarian control" over the structure? Is it, perhaps, because they used this "totalitarian control" to create a structure that was decentralized and allowed communities to form that operated on different rules and different views? Doesn't sound very totalitarian if you ask me.
Where's that Parenti quote? Oh, found it! Evergreen quote:
"During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum."
-Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds