Unrealistic: in the real version, no awnser would be declared as fact. Even if one is clearly wrong the awnser will always be:
"It is important that we listen to both sides"
Social media in a nutshell
The next US presidential debate in a nutshell.
“If you can’t pound the facts, pound the table”.
— republicans.
I'm Sam Reich and I've been here the whole time!
That's gonna be...
* rolls a dice *
16 points taken away from Brennan
Commenting against the Lemmy narrative be like:
How do you shout over somebody in a text forum?
He's good
What is the Lemmy narrative from your experience?
Israel bad, AI bad, police bad, Elon bad, Capitalism bad, Boeing bad, Microsoft bad, Apple bad, Facebook bad, rich people bad, landlords bad, C.E.O.s bad, ads bad, cars bad, SUVs/trucks very bad, piracy good, bikes good, uBlock Origin good, trains good, Linux good, bats good, Ukraine good, protests good, socialism good ...
Linux good should have been repeated at least 5 times in that list
I agree. Cannot repeat that one often enough.
i can easily agree with 90% of that. The remaining 10% needs asterisks pointing towards further nuanced discussion. I'll not specify which topics go into which category.
I also agree with most of that, but that doesn't make it OK to downvote opinions to the contrary for no other reason than "I disagree".
If comments of different perspectives, made in good faith get downvoted to oblivion then participation is discouraged, debate gets replaced with circle jerking and Lemmy becomes a very boring and out of touch echo chamber just like Reddit.
Downvotes should only be used for comments that are off topic, factually incorrect, hateful or made in bad faith etc.
Downvotes should only be used for comments that are off topic, factually incorrect, hateful or made in bad faith etc.
So something like this comment: https://lemmy.ca/comment/9747509 Which equates not liking Elon Musk with hate groups against minorities?
Usually when people complain about something like "the Lemmy Narrative" they're usually not bringing nuanced discussion to their posts and are just upset that people aren't agreeing with their "hot takes."
Do you have an example on why any of these povs are wrong?
No, I don't think any of those claims is entirely wrong but I don't fully agree with most of them either.
What's this!? Complexity in your opinions!? Don't 100% agree or disagree on something based on a 3-5 word sentence?! Straight to jail.
Wow, quite an extensive list. Haven't expected that. Thanks for sharing!
Yeah, I guess there is some truth to it.
Lol what maniac would hold opposite opinions for all of these? I like AI though.
Wait, aide from all the others, "Boeing bad" is just a narrative? Dude, have you been living under a rock?
To be honest, I agree with all of these. Seeme line I am at the right place.
Imo the only actually divisive opinions are around tipping.
Unfortunately, this is what happens to people who give up on learning and critical thinking. They glom onto people who can shout bullshit in a loud, confident voice because the bullshit is more important to them than the person actually being right.
And let's face it, everyone is vulnerable to that shit in some way or the other. But being conscious of that vulnerability is the first step.
Republican debates in a nutshell.
Not just republicans / politically right-wing oriented folks. From my experience you encounter this everywhere where people haven't learnt how to have a civilised discussion. An important part of this is the ability to self-reflect and distinguish emotions from opinions from facts. Humans are emotional beings in their core and therefore the most are fallible. It's only natural to resort to an emotionally driven and often stubborn defence mode if one encounters a contrary opinion. Even more so if that opinion is expressed in an emotionally loaded manner. It's unfortunately a very counter-productive human behaviour.
And we have that a lot on the internet. Sadly.
Not only right wing, but mostly right wing. The left isn't the side mostly denying the science of climate change, or the medical consensus of vaccines and gender reassignment therapy.
I don't think I ever saw this show. Is it basically the same as the drinking game of the same name?
I don't know the drinking game.
There's a few variations, but the one I'm most familiar with is like go fish, except you don't have to be honest if you have the card someone else asks for. I've played versions done with trivia, though where you have to determine if the answer given is real or bullshit (which would be more likely to turn into a game show). I've only done the latter like twice and I was drunk at the time so I don't remember the exact rules. 🤣
Kevin got the point so he wins.
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links
