• 48 Posts
  • 234 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: September 24th, 2023
  • Emotional_Series7814@kbin.melroy.orgtoAnti Meme@sopuli.xyz•Welcome to the Lemmy Anti Meme Community.
    2·
    2 months ago

    I came from !NiceMemes@lemmy.sopuli.xyz which bans it, and I think that’s fine instead of something that not everyone will care for—its point is memes that won’t “absolutely destroy your mental health.” I’m not so sure about everyone else, but I know for me politics everywhere in so many threads and comments = doomscrolling and destroyed mental health, regardless of if it is people who agree with me or disagree and I’m honestly unsure how so many others on the Threadiverse manage to embrace it. Politics is not the point of that community at all, and I’m inclined to find the rule appropriate instead of something that should not be present because it controls what topics may be discussed. It could also be viewed as a sub-rule of “stay on topic” for non-political communities.

    I also personally see it as a huge minefield of conflict that is likely to derail into a big tangent that starts a slapfight and kills the mood if you see it browsing comments. I do engage in the political process in real life, perhaps more than most others I know, but I super do not come into the Threadiverse to stress myself out and fall into the anger/outrage loop with people’s poor behavior towards each other on like 80% of the online political discussion I have had the misfortune to run across and views that anger me. I’m here to have fun. And just look at the long paragraph my current disagreement with you made me feel like typing out! I’d like to opt out of that kind of experience.

    Your community is your own though, not going to force you or shame you for not conforming to one person’s wishes! Just disagreeing on the idea that banning that as a topic is inappropriate in general, and further explaining my negative sentiment towards most online political discussion. I appreciate you making the community at all and running it.

  • Emotional_Series7814@kbin.melroy.orgtoAnti Meme@sopuli.xyz•Welcome to the Lemmy Anti Meme Community.
    2·
    2 months ago

    Friendly advice: if you are not in the mood for discourse and debates and political discussion, don’t check the comments if you know the regular version of the meme is often used to make political statements. I clicked on the comments for two antimemes whose normal version is often used for political commentary instead of just scrolling by and upvoting, not knowing what to expect. Found the expected sociopolitical commentary for if the regular version of the image was posted while extremely not in the mood for politics and just wanting a fun antimeme, and some of those comments made me angry, so I came here and typed this advice to use that anger productively (and also conveniently in a way that likely won’t invite conflict from anyone based on my views).

    Not sure if this is intended and allowed behavior for the community, and thus I just need to adjust my behavior to match my advice to get what I want out of it, or if this something the community maker did not want and it should be added to the rules and reported.

  • Emotional_Series7814@kbin.melroy.orgtoAutism@lemmy.world•Which do you tend to do?
    3·
    3 months ago

    Both. I want to exploit “underreact to things you are expected to have a big reaction to” and briefly considered becoming a 911 dispatch because being calm in a crisis is an asset as one. Nobody wants the 911 dispatch who starts crying in empathy and saying “I’m so sorry, that must be hard,” they want the one who sends them the darn emergency vehicles. But then I thought about how I might screw up and be responsible for a life in a more immediate, “your fault” way than in the ways I am responsible for lives and can’t opt-out of. And unfortunately, like most people who don’t have my “underreacts to crises” trait, I don’t think I’d be able to handle that weight too easily if I did cause an accident. Perhaps I would react more “typically” with guilt, even if I’d be cool as a cucumber in the moment, during the screwup, and while handling the fallout of my screwup. (Becoming a surgeon would also take advantage of this trait, but my guilt and personal responsibility would be even worse with a screwup, and I’d probably get sued for malpractice. And the more immediate issue: I’m so squeamish.) Like typical people I don’t want the consequences of that type of job, so sadly my “underreacts to crisis, cool in a crisis” trait goes unexploited for the benefit of myself and others. Except for the two (2) total times in life an emergency happened in front of me and I called 911.

    (What I mean by saying I am responsible for lives in a way I cannot opt out of: maybe I take a left in traffic onto an empty road instead of going straight, and 5 seconds later another car is behind me instead of getting the stretch of road to themselves like they would have if I just went straight. I stop at a stop sign and go on my way. This 10 second extra delay in their travel might be the difference between a speeding car hitting them or them being gone already. Without me, they would not have been hit, but you can’t really hold me responsible for something I had no way of foreseeing or controlling beyond this speculation that it could happen.)

  • Emotional_Series7814@kbin.melroy.orgtoNew Communities@lemmy.world•*Permanently Deleted*
    6·
    3 months ago

    Genuinely curious. I’m aware the term is often used as a pejorative. Is this for people who feel they fall into that group, or anyone who technically qualifies? For example, someone who was just laid off and is now unemployed, and wasn’t receiving education or training—this person probably does not see themselves as a NEET and they and society have not yet applied that social stigma to themselves. What are the boundaries of NEET for the purposes of this community?

  • Emotional_Series7814@kbin.melroy.orgtoNew Communities@lemmy.world•Sealioning - a community for posting examples of sealioning and other forms of trolling on social networks
    1·
    6 months ago

    And that’s exactly the ambiguity I was trying to get at with my last paragraph.

    I’m kind of surprised I got downvoted while contrarian “source?” comments got lots of upvotes. In all honesty, it feels bad. I am not sure how I said anything anywhere near offensive that deserves disapproval, but being contrarian seems a lot more purposely meant to piss off and still meets lots of peoples’ approval.

    But even still, I have gone and assumed bad faith or at best, an attempt to be funny and make people laugh through what is still in the end just contrarianism. I do not think it is possible they are genuinely asking for a source because I think we’re making claims based on general observation of the world, things that do not need to be cited, like “the sky is blue” or “things fall when you drop them”. Just look up and see (or trust the wealth of statements talking about the sky’s blueness if you are (color)blind). Perhaps I’m incorrectly assuming bad faith here based off of a trend of seeing contrarianism, and I’m incorrectly extrapolating that trend here. It is very ambiguous. I really do not think I am wrong, but given that we’re literally talking about the difficulty of determining good vs. bad faith engagement it feels a little arrogant to not acknowledge the possibility that I might be wrong.

  • Emotional_Series7814@kbin.melroy.orgtoNew Communities@lemmy.world•Sealioning - a community for posting examples of sealioning and other forms of trolling on social networks
    112·
    6 months ago

    I think the key part is whether it’s being done in good faith or bad faith. Sometimes I ask a stupid question on Lemmy, but because I am honestly curious and not trying to get into a fight, and I usually accept the reply to me and don’t take it as an invite to get into a debate, I think people can tell I’m not sealioning.

    If I replied “source?” for your comment right now, I’d be trolling. I almost certainly know that it is a bad idea to discourage sourcing information, and that should not be something I need a cited source for. That would probably be sealioning. Someone asking for a source on a meme I posted is probably genuinely curious and not sealioning.

    And as per usual, judging intent can be difficult, especially when people (including me) come into a forum with my own sets of biases, pieces of knowledge I have that I incorrectly assume that everyone else knows, and absence of knowledge that others incorrectly assume everyone else knows. So people who are not sealioning might get mistaken for it just because they want a source on something they do not know that most people do. I see where you are coming from.