Pros: it will be exciting and engaging to see someone with a federated name and the notice their opinion being dogshit
Cons: mathematically proven to not have cons
Pros: it will be exciting and engaging to see someone with a federated name and the notice their opinion being dogshit
Cons: mathematically proven to not have cons
Go for it. It’s mostly that it makes others not want to interact with you guys. I obviously don’t really care that much. You don’t convince them of anything except maybe making them dislike you, so the opposite of what you should want. I know it enforces group think and makes others in the group feel more attached so they don’t leave really, but it’s not going to turn anyone new into a leftist.
This is one of those things that does a good job of demonstrating for normal social cohesion mechanisms are villified when observed in fringe groups. You have no problem insulting and condescending and yet criticize us for the same, even as people have been nice to you. I don’t care to flatter the sensibilities of whoever the next NATOist shitlib is telling me about asiatic hordes, they are clearly not interested in learning. What matters are the people who don’t have the same moronic confidence that the NATOists do.
My problem is that a lot of the people here think that insulting people who mostly agree with you is the norm. Sure, inform people of what’s going on and what’s wrong with their justification, but “dunking on them” isn’t going to change their opinion. It doesn’t matter how many times they see the image of the pig shitting on its balls. It’s not going to change their mind. The ideal should be to change people’s opinion. We should be trying to create more leftists, not trying to create more anti-tankies.
Ok provide one or two examples of this happening. Cause I’m always there for the dunking and even I’m amazed at how consistently, almost universally shit lemmy users are
Do you think I just save examples like this to share? It happens, and we all know that. There’s really no need to prove it. I’ve got an example of a fairly well cited critique that I did here a while ago that only got shitty responses of people trying to dunk on me, or just unwilling to acknowledge what I said. I’m not searching through my entire history to find it though, but if you want to feel free.
I know you feel like you’re being attacked and brigaded, so it’s not to contribute to that experience that I say this:
What you just said is a great example of how one sided these things are. A communist is expected to be an expert with receipts on every aspect of social science, politics, history, foreign policy, philosophy and economics and expected to articulate a cohesive alternative to the neocolonial global capitalist system in detail while just asking a liberal “hey, when did that thing you said happened happen?” Is a bridge too far.
When people reply to you and say “why should we bend over backwards to make liberals comfortable?” That’s why.
Rather than expect people to accept your assertion that “we all know it happens” or jump to the conclusion that they’re just trying to get you (which you didn’t do, but people often do), why not recognize that examining prior assumptions and their underpinnings is what causes someone to arrive at leftism and treat those inquiries as genuine opportunities to learn with someone rather than teach or be taught by them?
This comment is not directed at you. It’s directed at the community at large.
This is what I’m advocating for. So often here I see hostility towards any outsider. This is not conducive to learning. It only causes them to shut down and not accept different information, and the people here to conform to group-think and not question their assumptions.
Hostility never convinces anyone of anything. If the goal is actually to convince them, then being hostile doesn’t get anywhere. If you don’t think it’s worth your time then fine, but how is insulting them then worth your time? Again, it doesn’t do anything except enforce group-think and push them away, neither of which I think have any value.
And here you are again, imploring the community to be more lenient with you when you refused to back up what you said even though you know where the information to do so is.
Your last assertion is wrong, but it would be a social good if you were driven away or forced to think differently.
Sadly true. Even if we don’t have aspirations of being on the lib to left pipeline, we definitely scare people off by being overzealous with dogpiling.
I think people should be more patient with those who have lib-smelling inquiries, but I’m all in favor of bullying the bad-faith posters incapable of questioning their assumptions. I see more of the latter than the former, which is why I think so many here are quick to start roasting.
I find it amusing when there are threads with half the responses are giant walls of text trying to explain things and the other half pictures of a pig shitting on its testicles.
Makes me wish Lemmy supported having both federated & unfederated comms or per-comm federation lists, so we could have federated 101-type spaces where dunks are explicitly removed, and unfederated shitposting free from intrusion.
I totally agree bad faith arguments deserve all the shit they get. I just think the comment “shitting on” good faith arguments do more harm than good. There are a ton of bad faith arguments. I, personally, just tend to ignore or rebut their claims so it doesn’t hurt anything. The hexbear version of dunking on them doesn’t promote anything good and at best turns the single person posting on it away. The ideal is to convince other viewers of alternatives.
If someone’s posting bad faith arguments I would rather not waste anyones time interacting with them, they’re certainly not there to be educated.
Chasing them off with mockery seems like the least bad option, if the other options are giving it credibility by trying to respond or ignoring it.
The problem is discerning the difference between the two can be inconsistent, leading to some users effort posting while others mock.