oldie meme but needed to bring this back due to recent incidents 😭

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    On the other hand, a failure to make assumptions about what someone is saying leads to people being able either to willfully misrepresent their positions (“Oh, I don’t hate waffles, I just bring up how the world would be better without waffles in every conversation, no matter how tangential!”) or unintentionally fail to see the necessary implications of their statements (“I’m not saying waffles are better, I’m just saying pancakes are worse!”)

    All language has some ambiguity, which necessitates assumption in communication.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      i can’t speak to the frequency but the tone is definitely different when it happens here compared to on reddit, probably influenced by the demographic and field of interest differences. the ml roots of the place really have echoed throughout the tone of the space, so most of the arguments have a really cynical, high alert, almost superstitious affect to them that i never really encountered on reddit. (some random account i thought i was cool with is trying to like psychoanalyze my recent posts to find my true intentions? i gave up on that convo)

      your mileage may vary, of course!

  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    A large portion of the world is experiencing political polarization. I see the same things happening on Lemmy happen on other social media websites.

    The “if you don’t agree with me you must have the exact opposite opinion” approach to debate seems to be more a problem of the participants than the platform.

  • hmonkey@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I like to insult and block these people. My fear of course, with Lemmy being so small, is I will block everyone. Then again, that’s still better than dealing with illiterate, contrarian assholes

    • TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I feel the same way, then I look at my blocklist and it’s just lemmy.ml, anime subs, 3 people, some political terms, and a bot. I also have a .world account I use when I want to view the whole Lemmy experience anyways. Tbh I still feel kinda bad about blocking .ml, there was some cool peeps on there but I just can’t deal with all the tankie drama

  • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yep that’s one of my pet peeves about the Internet. People love to try to put words in your mouth. It gets a bit tiring having to tell every one of those jabronis that I never said any of those words, and they should re-read what I did actually write instead.

    • PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      If I see someone’s reply start with “So, you…” - I’m already rolling my eyes so fast that I’m time traveling back to nineteen-blackandwhite. In general, it’s an overly reductive view on the statement that misrepresents the initial comment in order to try and spark a pointless argument.

      It’s exhausting.

      (in b4 “so you hate reading comments then?” 😂)

      e: it’s not just Lemmy to be fair - the other popular aggregator, most tabloid news sites with comments, and a lot of gaming news sites with social interaction are largely the same.

  • Jomega@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    One time I said AI porn was unethical (because it is) and people here thought I was calling for a ban on all porn. At no point did I say that porn was unethical as a rule, and if I did believe that I wouldn’t have mentioned AI at all.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      this shit pisses me off, my instinct is to say irrationally, but i feel it’s probably totally rational to have your own carefully chosen words used in such a hamfisted perversion

      yesterday i made a post saying “hey look there’s a pattern to how ableist terms begin as descriptive or medical terms and its only later they are coopted as insults, the most recent of which is ‘neurodivergent’”

      top comment? “dude stop telling us to stop using the word ‘neurodivergent.’” 30+ upvotes. and when i respond saying that actually making people abandon the word wasn’t my goal? downvotes.

      like what even is the point of writing words if crusty ass debate lords insist on interpretation to mean the exact opposite 80% of the time?

      • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        The short answer is that the trend you are describing does not apply to the word neurodivergent because neurodivergent is not a medical term.

        Neurodivergent is a nonmedical term that describes people whose brains develop or work differently for some reason. This means the person has different strengths and struggles from people whose brains develop or work more typically. While some people who are neurodivergent have medical conditions, it also happens to people where a medical condition or diagnosis hasn’t been identified.

        https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23154-neurodivergent

        Your argument was a false equivalency that the r-slur and neurodivergent share the same origin and thus will share the same fate. The implication of such a line reasoning is that since all of these ableist words became known as insults we shouldn’t be concerned about the usage of any of them. In other words, legitimizing the r-slur and other ableist language because eventually neurodivergent will be as bad.

        People in that thread explained how neurodivergent is fundamentally different. Neurodivergent is a nonmedical word people are choosing to describe themselves as that validates them as a opposed to a medical word that was chosen for them that pathologizes them. Your argument then attempted to dismiss this by saying all of these words have different origins. When in fact they have two, medical and nonmedical.

        The euphemism treadmill argument presented by your meme attempts to ignore that distinction to make all the words seem equivalent. When in fact the words used before neurodivergent were always ableist because they were always hurtful even if that wasn’t initially recognized as such by neurotypical people using them.

        Like trans and cis, neurodivergent and neurotypical acknowledge a difference without being opinionated about which side of that difference is normal or abnormal. These terms are opinionated about which side has privilege and which side does not. These kind of terms receive backlash from the people who find themselves in the privileged cis and neurotypical categories because they realize these labels exposes the power that comes from the privilege of being the default.

        Rather than engaging in a good faith discussion about this privilege, those fearful that they will lose this privilege engage in bad faith discussions intended to undermine the mechanism that exposed that privilege. These discussions tend to involve fallacies and usage of words like nuance and objective to obscure what is really happening.

        The problem for the people acting in bad faith now is, we’ve all done this song and dance multiple times now. We know what to look for. We will call it out. We get to keep telling the truth and using words that expose the truth.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          two separate discussions.

          i fully agree with everyone who is saying what you are saying here (including yourself). thank you! group A, call them. if you read those comments deeply, you will see i have responded with cheerful enthusiasm and accepted their contribution. i thank you for it here too.

          other people, we’ll say group B (perhaps a smaller number but i never claimed it was 50/50) falsely just said “you are telling us not to use the word neurodivergent. stop it.”

          please, im begging. i don’t want to be an ass and block you but if you come into a separate thread of mine to give your reading on dozens and dozens of comments, read all of them? :(

          • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Your argument disregarded the arguments that refuted your central point, group A, in a very cheerful manner and instead hyperfocused on arguments that were easier to disparage, group B.

            My arguments focused on group A because that it is what should have been the end to a good faith discussion. Your insistence on going after group B, a more defensible position, is an attempt to continue this discussion under a veneer of good faith.

            Multiple arguments have established your argument’s position to be false. If you want to continue to have these discussions in good faith I highly recommend you engage with the implications of your argument and its position being incorrect.

            please, im begging. i don’t want to be an ass and block you but if you come into a separate thread of mine to give your reading on dozens and dozens of comments, read all of them? :(

            I read the other post and did not engage because I saw it had reached the limits of a good faith discussion. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Now I see a new post that attempts to continue that discussion without addressing the lessons learned or misconceptions exposed.

            You’re not begging you’re threatening. I will not comply in advance. I will tell the truth and expose the truth. And, thankfully I am not the only person who will do so.

            • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Multiple arguments have established your argument’s position to be false.

              Ah! There’s your misconception. I was not making an argument. I was comparing a series of similar events and noting how forces exist that may try to continue that pattern. Now, I think it’s fair to misconceive that once, upon first reading the post. But you read all the comments right? So you will see all the times where I say “this is descriptive, not perscriptive” or: “I am showing the forces at play so people are aware of them.” Call it “expressing a concern,” perhaps. Not telling people what to do or “making an argument.”

              Hope this makes sense ❤️

              Again, it’s super fair to misconceive it once, but fortunately I exist and have the capacity to clarify! So after this, you won’t have to worry about misunderstanding. Right? Because if not you are literally the “so you hate waffles” guy in the post and that’s super embarrassing for you. XD

              My arguments focused on group A because that it is what should have been the end to a good faith discussion.

              It’s not even the end, fortunately! :D I am actively having these conversations still, and they are all in good faith. I’m actually having a lot of fun with the Group A whom you falsely claim I am disregarding. You conveniently ignore this in order to get some seratonin from writing me paragraphs about “exposing truth”??!!, and that’s super sad. 😔 You could be having fun interesting discussions along the same lines if you hadn’t made it weird. Sorry, man.

              • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Your argument in the previous post was establishing a false equivalence. An attempt to show a pattern between two dissimilar things. That was the bailey.

                With this post you have retreated to the motte, hyperfocusing on another group of arguments to distract from the arguments that refuted your central point.

                Because if not you are literally the “so you hate waffles” guy in the post

                By obfuscating your position, by pretending you were misunderstood, you were hoping to be unchallenged in a hypothetically more defensible position so you could claim victory.

                You conveniently ignore this in order to get some seratonin from writing me paragraphs about “exposing truth”??!!, and that’s super sad. 😔 You could be having fun interesting discussions along the same lines if you hadn’t made it weird. Sorry, man.

                As my argument has exposed this deception your argument is now relying on ad hominen attacks. Your playbook lacks the means to interact meaningfully with an argument that engages and refutes both your argument’s desired bailey, attacking the word neurotypical because it exposes privilege, and what turned out to be a not so defensible motte, misleading accusations of assumptions and new usages of the word nuance.

                Group B identified your argument’s desire to undermine the validation people feel from using the word neurodivergent. Your argument’s goal was to get people to stop using the word neurodivergent. Your argument’s motivation for this is to undermine a mechanism that exposes the privilege that neurotypical people enjoy,

                and that’s super embarrassing for you. XD

                Your declaration of victory has defeated you.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’d be nice if we could regulate porn in good faith. Every attempt to regulate it in the US has been an obvious attempt to shut it down, but it should be regulated like anything else. Sex toys, too. Lots of questionable substances are used in sex toys that probably shouldn’t be inserted into the human body.

      • weker01@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Sex toys are not regulated in the us?! There are a ton of regulations in the EU unfortunately not the same in all countries but some even classify them as medical devices. There is also the standard ISO 3533 “Sex toys — Design and safety requirements for products in direct contact with genitalia, the anus, or both” which is not required at the moment? is still used as a guideline.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          None beyond that ISO standard, which yes, is advisory. If it can be shown to be dangerously unsafe, it’s subject to a recall, but that’s only going to happen if the batteries tend to explode or something like that. There’s lots of unsafe types of plastic that get through.

          https://www.compliancegate.com/sex-toys-regulations-united-states/

          The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is an independent agency of the US government, overseeing the safety of consumer products. It develops and enforces safety standards in the United States. It also conducts research related to hazards and risks to the public caused by consumer products.

          The CPSC has not yet developed a specific safety standard for sex toys. However, importers and manufacturers are required to report to the CPSC if their product could create a substantial risk of injury to the public, for example, because of a manufacturing defect or a design issue.

          In practice, an unsafe sex toy is subject to a recall, regardless of whether it is covered by mandatory safety standards. Hence, importers or manufacturers of sex toys should ensure that their products are safe, for instance by complying with relevant voluntary safety standards.

  • FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Bruh, it’s so real. I made a comment that whenever I get messed up food at a restaurant, id rather just ask for a refund than ask for a replacement. Obviously there’s a lot of nuance in this comment, but I had people taking all kinds of meanings from it. One guy told me I was a complete asshole and some other stuff, just because I’d rather have a refund at the McDonald’s instead of asking the overworked, underpaid employees to remake my order as I sat in the drive-through, and so I wouldn’t have to pull over and wait even longer.

    People just want to be pissed off and angry.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      just because I’d rather have a refund at the McDonald’s instead of asking the overworked, underpaid employees to remake my order

      Except what you actually said was if you ask for a replacement they’re going to spit in it, so you just threaten them with a charge back if they don’t refund you.

      https://lemmy.ca/comment/13396935

      The fact that you are lying about what you said seems to indicate you understand why you may have come off as an asshole.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        aw :( sure enough they lied

        i wish people would just be nice, it’s already so hard to have a conversation on here without the lying. thanks for doing the investigative work.

      • FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Well of course I’d do a chargeback to McDonald’s, lmao. Are you supporting McDonald’s getting free money for messed up food? You’re ridiculous. I absolutely will charge back a McDonald’s or any other business that messes something up and won’t make it right.

        Your comment is the opposite of a “gotcha” you creepy freak

        2nd edit: i think other people should do chargebacks too instead of letting shitty corporate policies rob them of their hard-earned money.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Well of course I’d do a chargeback to McDonald’s, lmao. Are you supporting McDonald’s getting free money for messed up food? You’re ridiculous. I absolutely will charge back a McDonald’s or any other business that messes something up and won’t make it right.

          Are you being the meme on purpose or…?

  • Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    -“Russia should not invade a sovereign country, murder its citizens and deport their children.”

    -“Umm, actually, the US were doing crimes in Syria and you should not support them.”

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      But by contrast

      “We need to negotiate an end to the war on Ukraine.”

      “Oh so you want to let Russia kill all Ukrainians?”

      • Mac@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        And then some people comment:

        “Yes, we should allow Russia to cleanse the Ukraine. I’m being nuanced, I swear!”

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          We’re allowing endless war right now, which means fighting to the last Ukrainian. All the aid we give them is meant to keep the war going as long as possible, not to help Ukraine actually win.

  • WrenFeathers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Prior to the US election, there were many people that did this exact thing- only it was “oh yeah? Well… you support genocide!

    They’re rarely here anymore. Which is what was predicted that typically warranted their response to begin with.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Literally I see all the same names and sometimes still even saying the same things though mostly not cause there is other things to talk about.

      You aren’t seeing it cause you aren’t engaging in hourly political threads because of an upcoming election. It’s disingenuous to say the conversation has disappeared just because you aren’t participating in it anymore.

      • WrenFeathers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I’m a mod in a relatively popular politically themed community. Trust me when I say that many of the people that were accusing everyone of genocide support are no longer actively posting.

        …and make note that I said “many” and not “all-” as I am well aware of how nuance isn’t a very popular concept around here.

        Lastly, for your edification: Not engaging in a discussion is not the equivalent to not reading it or not paying attention to it.

  • Bender_on_Fire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    While I don’t want to deny that people try to put words into others mouths, I think context is still important. It is possible and even quite typical to send messages beyond the meaning of the actual words used in a statement and simply playing dumb when someone calls you out for doing that is also not a great look.

    Think of going to a waffles-convention and just walking around claiming that you, in fact, like pancakes. Of course people are going to assume you’re a troll.

    It’s important to think of different perspectives and at least consider if something you meant in a very innocent way might still not sit right with someone else. Certainly not easy to do, mistakes will always happen, but honestly trying makes a huge difference imo.