First time I've ever seen it happen when it wasn't explicitly spam or obvious trolling. I'm more confused about it than anything.
Huh. And here I thought we were having a nice conversation.
I'd ask that you please consider that you may not have been as clear with your intended message as you may have thought, and not that the person speaking to you is just a bad-faith idiot in the future.
Not sure if I agree with that. I'm not basing my use of devil's advocate on classical debate models. I would, in fact, argue that those aren't relevant in modern society for the most part.
In our rules, I state:
DO: Be a “Devil’s Advocate” if there’s no opposition and you can see some arguments for the other side you’d like to see addressed. You do not have to believe either side of an issue in order to generate solid points on a view.
Elsewhere I've spoken about something I feel devil's advocate helps with - namely that you can be right for the wrong reasons and wrong for the right reasons. There are tons of examples. You do not have to disagree with someone in order to point out that their reasoning sucks.
This is an absolutely garbage example, but it's one from my real life. My mother-in-law is an atheist, as am I. When I asked her how she arrived there, her reasoning was (in full, and apologies to anyone reading this stupid shit) "Religion is gay."
Now... I agree with her about there not being a God, but not her reasoning. Asking clarifying DA questions and having her answer her own questions helped her express her actual opinion and not just... the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard in a religious discussion. I do the same here when someone expresses something that leaves major chunks in their argument or opinion, even if I agree.
Asking strong questions to fill gaps in my opinions and belief structure are also called a "Steelman" (opposite of a strawman) which are of incredible value in logic courses.
We almost need like... some kind of "Supreme Court" or Mod review system. One way or another, it's a really hard problem to solve for certain.
All good, and this was exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for and appreciate the answer. I didn't really see anything that disagreed with what I asked though.
As I mentioned, some of those questions were unanswered by the original responder and some were just assumptive next steps based on what I was reading. They weren't leading, they were clarifying and harder to answer and asked from another perspective. I try to ask (at least somewhat) challenging questions in order to get a more nuanced and informed take on topics and hope that asking them helps those that can explain as well. I'm on the side of bannings being generally bad for discourse and Communities as a whole. Permanent multi-Comminuty bans for small slights is even worse and makes Lemmy look thin-skinned and childish.
And to borrow the coffee analogy again, Reddit would be like Dunkin' Doughnuts (in which nobody gives a fuck about you as long as you get your swill there and make them money) and Lemmy would be more like an ethically-sourced small-batch experimental coffee shop where some batches are great and some are dogshit (except some of the baristas are kind of dicks because the band on your tee shirt said something they didn't like once). I don't think either is perfect, but I like it here better.
Heh. I'm Canadian; I've got zero issues with socialism. Safety nets have helped me at various points in my life and many of my friends as well that, in the US system, would have been destroyed for their entire lives.
Updated the link in the side panel, thanks!
To explain, the priority-shuffling means that I value things in a different order. For example, a strict vegan may value not eating meat more than survival in a starvation situation. I value the survival more and would eat the meat - it's a different stack order.
I value my family more than your family. You most likely hold the opposite stack order. That's all I meant. This is where a lot of confrontations come in; people don't understand or care about the order of other people's stack and don't understand that someone values X over Y. Hell, people don't often understand their own stack.
That's the issue and speaks to what I was getting at. I value an open and good-faith exchange of ideas, even if those ideas are not the norm. I'm all for people being gay even in the middle of a Southern Baptist church, for instance. It being a transgression doesn't matter. If a taboo flies in the face of a logical and scientific position, then the taboo should probably go away, which may take tact, time, and effort.
People react poorly to anything position they hold that is morals-based, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Most worthwhile change is resisted, at least somewhat. You know that saying "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"? It's most often because the position they got into was based on a moral stance, not logic and they've reinforced themselves over time (often with echo chambers that misrepresent opposing views).
If a solution just requires everybody to change, it’s not a solution.
If a solution requires just enough people to change, it's may not be an easy solution, but may be a worthwhile one.
the practice of playing devils advocate has never been to foster discussion
Well, it's what I've been using it for and my debate teacher before me, so that's not a correct statement. You can see here for how it's considered a valuable tool in a discussion or educational context. It's also used in a legal context quite frequently.
Presenting flawed arguments as a rhetorical device is generally a waste of your audience’s time at best
The arguments aren't flawed, they're often ones that there is no easy answer to, present a different value system, or cover an angle that the initial speaker hadn't considered. If anything, they're a way to become more correct by covering bases that hadn't been prior.
Nothing. It’s not a problem.
There are a large number of people that would disagree with that statement as it leads to unjust bannings. Kind of the impetus for this thread.
Downvotes filter low quality, irrelevant, and illegal content.
They can do that, yes (although I would say that reporting is a much more appropriate response than just a downvote for illegal posts). It's not used solely for that in practice however. It also is used to bury community-appropriate content by those ideologically opposed to the content (for example, vegans vs. people in the carnivore diet sub). It could be burying valuable, community-appropriate posts. Downvotes can also be accidental or malicious (in the case of brigading or bot farms). Downvoting something you disagree with also doesn't make it any of the three things you listed.
If you go to a community formed around a concept and play devils advocate… you deserve what you get. That doesn’t make it an echo chamber. Just makes you captain Ahab.
If you go to a Community and mid-discussion post something factual that a mod doesn't care for without being malicious, you aren't playing devil's advocate, you are simply replying to a thread and using the platform as intended. These are discussion platforms and using them to solely remove any other position is, in fact, the definition of an echo chamber.
The stance of "don't question anyone on my side for any reason because we're right" is neither healthy, nor particularly intelligent. If I were a sub based around a controversial idea, I'd build a Steelman FAQ as a stickied thread and direct detractors to it and leave it open for debate. I would also add to the Steelman as more and better arguments flowed in. If my side of an issue were correct, it would be a helluva thing to reference and would allow us to keep controversial discussion to a thread that people could avoid if they wish.
I didn't remove it and I'm the only Mod here. WTF.
Ah. Looks like it was an admin... Well, that's not generally how I work here unless you're breaking a rule, and our rules are conversation-focused. I dunno what the etiquette for restoring it would be or if it would just be me pissing off an Admin which is probably not smart.
Oh, absolutely. It's worse on Reddit without a doubt!
I agree that you can do that stuff, but most people don't have the time or wish to do it. Instead, they just get turned off the Community (or even platform) altogether and just... leave.
Even if they do start their own Community, that's not even a sure way to stop it. As I described above, I have been banned from other Communities for playing devils advocate in my own Community.
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. We try to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are highly encouraged as no-discussion downvotes don't help anyone learn anything valuable. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
We’re back! Instead of putting a neutral topic in the introduction, I'm placing a bit of opinion on an issue to see if it helps spur discussion. We are also actively seeking moderators and people who enjoy discussion (and understand that being wrong is an important part of being a better person)! Send me a message if you’d like to help out.
This week, I'd like to discuss something that's been a bit of an issue for me personally.
Lemmy (and Reddit before it) appears to have a problem with overly-aggressive bannings for perceived slights. In the topic linked above there were people permanently banning users from multiple communities (any they moderate - dozens in some cases) for single downvotes, 4 downvotes across a ten-month period, and bannings because a moderator thought they maybe sorta kinda read that a user may have had a negative thought about their pet issue.
I've personally been banned from Communities (and sent some pretty vile PMs) for posting in our weekly threads here playing devil's advocate where I state hard questions that I do not necessarily feel are correct. They think they've discovered some secret agenda by finding posts I've made here and use them as "receipts" in order to dismiss anything they think they're reading that may be contrary to their opinion. Any context provided for the post falls on deaf ears.
I'm someone who operates on the idea of "If you can not defend an opinion from scrutiny, you should probably not hold that opinion."
To quote myself:
It’s pretty tragic that people can't handle opposing opinions. I think the activist nature of Lemmy is kind of a self-destructive spiral and people need to learn how to live with each other again. But I guess that’s the issue with modern social media as a whole… Nobody has any idea how to convince anyone else, only to yell at them louder.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Are niche Communities correct for banning anyone who downvotes?
- Do downvotes represent a "disagree" button for you (this Community notwithstanding)?
- Most importantly, what would it take to change this?
- Does it help build the Community? What about the platform as a whole?
- Is there a way to build a "safe space" without building an echo chamber online? Is that even a valuable thing to build?
Was recently banned from a whole bunch of DB0 communities for, as best as I can gather, downvoting once when I viewed by All (potentially accidentally while scrolling).
Important notes:
- I don't use scripts.
- I don't mass-downvote Communities. If I see a post I generally don't like when browsing All, I may downvote one post, block the Community and move on.
- Some of the communities I was banned from don't have any posts in them so I wouldn't have been able to downvote anything.
- Of all of these Communities, in my history I downvoted one post in one of them. Voting in this manner is not vote manipulation. It's quite literally a feature of the platform and as a mod of another Community, I would consider it pretty good etiquette.
- One of my bans reads "Appeal Granted, not a brigading member" but I'm still banned.
- I don't troll.
WTF is going on here?
EDIT - Updated Info from the conversation below: In the initial image, you can see two "ban waves."
The 10 bans three months ago stem from a single downvote in one Community. It was @Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com See here: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/34853477
I was called out by name for a single downvote and culled from a score of Communities I did not participate in by them.
The other bans from two months ago are from four total downvotes over a 10-month timeframe in one Community.
I have also stated in this thread that I don't have issues with AI-gen images, but there are shoddy ones and well-done ones.
EDIT 2: Now unbanned from the ten Communities listed as "3 months ago" in my initial image, but have been banned from three more because of this thread with the reason given being "self-proclaimed anti-AI brigader" which are two things I didn't claim to be. God dammit Lemmy...
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. We try to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are highly encouraged as no-discussion downvotes don't help anyone learn anything valuable. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
We're back! We're testing the waters with the new influx of people to see if this is valuable or not. We are also actively seeking moderators and people who enjoy discussion (and understand that being wrong is an important part of being a better person)! Send me a message if you'd like to help out.
This weekly thread will focus on The Future Of The USA. You may not be American (I'm sure not), but what happens with America can impact the world.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- How do you feel things are going there?
- How are they impacting relations with your country if you aren't from America?
- Do you think things will get better or worse?
- How do you think things could be made better?
- What should other countries do to mitigate the damage that may be occurring?
- What are your thoughts on tariffs?
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. We try to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are highly encouraged as no-discussion downvotes don't help anyone learn anything valuable. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
We're testing the waters with the new influx of people to see if this is valuable or not. We are also actively seeking moderators and people who enjoy discussion (and understand that being wrong is an important part of being a better person)! Send me a message if you'd like to help out.
This weekly thread will focus on games (board or video) that are fantastic, but have one extremely annoying aspect that doesn't fit, doesn't make sense, or makes the game worse.
No starters this time as there's tons of examples. Let me know yours and maybe what you did as a workaround or house rule (if applicable)!
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. We try to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are highly encouraged as no-discussion downvotes don't help anyone learn anything valuable. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
We're back! We're testing the waters with the new influx of people to see if this is valuable or not. We are also actively seeking moderators and people who enjoy discussion (and understand that being wrong is an important part of being a better person)! Send me a message if you'd like to help out.
This weekly thread will focus on Political Purity Testing. The definition we will use for this discussion is here along with some real-world examples.
The attitude can essentially be summed up with "If you're not 100% with us, then you're against us."
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Do you feel it is helpful or harmful to a side of an issue to purity test?
- Do you feel these tests are encountered more as you enter extreme areas of thought?
- Are there alternatives to purity testing that you'd rather see implemented?
- Do you feel this happens more on the left or right wing, or is it roughly equal?
- Here's a goofy quiz about which Canadian Political Party you most agree with. Take it and let us know the results if you feel like it! https://canada.isidewith.com/political-quiz
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
This weekly thread will focus on Helping Us Fix Weekly Topics. This Community seems to have a problem. I generally do my best to create open-ended topics that don't lead the reader to respond in any specific way, all while providing what I think are interesting starters. I've purposely picked other moderators that do not think the same as I do on many topics, but have the skill to explain why they feel the way they do. Results of all of this seem to be extremely limited.
If I try and introduce some opinion in a topic for people to pick at (even if I don't believe it), they tend to get very aggressive and seem to insult moreso than discuss. They focus on moral arguments instead of logical ones and abandon discussions when challenged which sort of defeats the purpose (and goes against the rules) of the entire Community to begin with.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Can we do anything with moderation or rules to help encourage you to respond more?
- Are there any format changes you'd like to see that may help?
- Do you ever feel that Lemmy is a more aggressive form of social media and therefore limit your discussion?
- Does the activist nature of Lemmy help or hurt further adoption?
- What topics would you like to see covered?
- Is Lemmy even a good platform for discussion to begin with?
- Would you like to be a mod and help out?
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
This weekly thread will focus on Climate Change. We're not going to discuss if it exists (it very obviously does), but what we can do. I've seen a lot of blame thrown around, but not much on what can actually be done so I'd like to get some ideas on that front.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Should the focus be on individual actions or holding corporations accountable for their environmental impact?
- Should governments prioritize investment in renewable energy over fossil fuels, even if it means higher short-term costs?
- Is it more effective to implement strict climate change laws or to rely on voluntary measures and market-driven solutions?
- Should countries be obligated to accept climate refugees displaced by environmental changes?
- Is geoengineering a viable solution to combat climate change, or does it pose too many risks?
- Should climate change education be mandatory in schools worldwide?
I tend to browse /All and by New on Lemmy. I went to respond on a thread on !vegan@lemmy.world to thank someone for a recipe that looked good, and found out I had been banned.
Odd, considering I hadn't posted to that sub at any point in the past. I checked the modlog to find that "Mod" had banned a bunch of people citing "Rule 5."
Their Rule 5 states: Bad-faith carnist rhetoric & anti-veganism are not allowed, as this is not a space to debate the merits of veganism. Anyone is welcome here, however, and so good-faith efforts to ask questions about veganism may be given their own weekly stickied post in the future (see current stickied discussion).
I (and hundreds of others) seemingly broke rule 5 of this community without ever posting there. What is going on?
And my apologies if this isn't the place for this, but I had no idea where else to post the question.
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
This weekly thread will focus on the sometimes painful art of being wrong.
I don't mean not having an opinion and then forming one, I mean having an opinion, and then having that opinion changed with new or more accurate information.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- When was the last time you were wrong? What about something somewhat major?
- What was it regarding?
- How did it make you feel?
- What do you feel is the best way to correct someone with an ingrained opinion?
- Is it easier online or in person?
- When do you give up on talking to someone?
- Would you be open to a new thread type here where we create a Steelman post as a group? (eg. We start from questions and end up at THE post / article for finding information on a touchy subject)
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
This weekly thread will focus on debate, discussion, and the lack thereof on social media (including Lemmy).
My apologies for "leading" a bit more than I try to normally in these weekly threads, however this is a topic that pisses me off in particular. Not only as a mod of a discussion-based community, but as someone who loves it when someone challenges me and proves me wrong / disproves my logic so I'd very much like to hear outside opinions on the topic. I can't even partially understand how people don't want to have a more cohesive / logically sound opinion.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Do you feel that discussion is worse now? If so, what caused it? If not, where may others get this feeling from?
- Is it potentially a platform issue, or does it happen everywhere?
- Does discussion even matter any longer? Why or why not?
- Do you feel that more could be done to encourage discussion with outside views or are we better off just "bubble"-ing ourselves and blocking everyone we disagree with?
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
This weekly thread will focus on the word "Woke" and its meaning, use, and misuse.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- What does the word mean to you?
- Is it applied correctly or incorrectly?
- Is it even applicable any longer?
- Do you feel that Conservative media misapplies it, and is "everything I don't like is woke" an appropriate sentiment or simply uncharitable?
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
This weekly thread will focus on words, their import, and their use / misuse.
With respect to the late, great George Carlin.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- How do you feel about political (or forced) movement of language? For example, pro-life and pro-choice being two sides of the same issue because nobody wants to identify as "anti-"anything.
- What are some words that are nebulous, but everyone "knows" the meaning of?
- Are there any manipulated words that annoy you?
- Do you find any common patterns with how words are used by various groups?
view more: next ›
I do like the idea for sub-only Communities. I wonder if it's on the dev list?