Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Your filter may have hidden the fact that he posts a LOT on politics, political memes, and world news, and often gets extremely downvoted for what he says.
I have nothing against down votes.
You're doing it here too sort of. Your attacking me for asking this question.
I have discussions on politics on other platforms and there is a substantial difference. That's the crux of my question. Why?
This is a weird response. I read the one above you that this was a reply to and no where were they “attacking” you. Maybe this is part of the problem is language? That word “attacking” is a pretty strong word considering what was actually said above which came across to me as an observation based on how they’ve seen you in threads.
This isn’t me “attacking” you either. It’s an observation from someone randomly coming across this.
It was intended for the other user, sorry.
If you want to know why this platform reacts differently, it's because it's smaller, so you get noticed more easily. When you act calm and composed and "just ask questions" about why a mass murderer is called a mass murderer, people are more likely to notice.
If a summary of your actions sounds like an attack, that's a problem.
So. If I understand correctly, talking about charged topics is an automatic invitation for extreme vitriolic language? I don't experience this elsewhere (if, fb) . It should be more vitriolic on fb than here... Not the other way around no?
It kind of is. When someone has an extreme emotional reaction, you should look at what they're reacting to before calling it unreasonable. Any defence of a mass murderer, no matter how civil it pretends to be, warrants an extreme backlash.
Like I said, Lemmy is smaller. People don't notice you on fb, but they notice you here.
Just how many times are you going to ignore your own role in your conversations? You are the common thread among everyone who dislikes you.
But my point isn't that people don't disagree with me. I want to find disagreement because I don't want to live in an echo chamber. I want to discuss ideas. Mi point is that the vitriol here seems stronger than other places. That's all.
Were you even responding to me? Because you disagreed with a point I didn't make and raised a point in response to my answer of that point.
Don't disagree for the sake of disagreement. The devil doesn't need an advocate.
Sorry. I reread your previous comment. You make some good 'points.
I never intended to defend Kyle. And I can see why people would assume that. My messaging was very poor and I think people went straight to labeling we a Rittenhouse supporter. Given that the labeling persisted even after I clarified I'm not interested in defending Kyle. I understand it's a charged topic and the rage blinders just come on right away. That kinda makes sense.
But then how do we talk about sensitive topics at all? Do we bury our heads in the sand?
Someone made a point that, in pointing out how Kyle is a murderer, someone would come to defend him. Then you came to defend him, or at least said the exact thing someone trying to defend him would say. When people tried to brush you off, you cried about people not wanting conversations. When they corrected you, you cried about them sticking to a narrative. When they called you out for defending him, you claimed to hate him, then kept defending him. You were identical to a Rittenhouse supporter.
Why does talking about sensitive topics need a disagreement? A death in the family is a sensitive topic, but you don't need to say "I'm glad they died" to talk about it.
That's the issue. People conflate fact checking with defending Kyle. That's weird. It shouldn't be one on the other. Dont you agree with that at least? Is that a controversial take?