I’ve found a few and they seem to be growing as of late:
- questions about Lemmy demographics
- anything discussing negative effects of porn
- benefits of AI
- negative effects of “wokeness”
- critiquing of individuals in trans community
- calling out men as predominant perpetrators of violence towards women
- anything US pro-conservative
One topic that I’ve noticed used to be a nonstarter and is now popular is anti-democrat conversation.
What are other nonstarters you’ve experienced?
EDIT: seemingly asking people what the community doesn’t want to talk about is a nonstarter
EDIT: calling out men as being predominate perps of violence is NOT a nonstarter and accepted within the community. A select few think that’s being a terf but they are wrong.
> Claims they want to start a conversation
> Acts offended when people actually start a conversation about their posts
I’m convinced people railing against wokeness are just AI bots at this point. OP, can you prove you are not a stochastic parrot without saying something silly?
Countering arguments with ad-hominem puts you right up there with AI bots when it comes to providing value to online discussions.
Not really… AI bots are bad at providing value because they have no values and don’t understand context. You can deliver a scathing reproach that has value as long as it fits the context and reflects your values. But do you consider your response an ad-hominem?
Yes, really. You’re effectively saying “everyone who disagrees with my worldview is a bot,” which is a textbook example of ad hominem - dismissing a position based on who is assumed to hold it rather than engaging with the argument itself. That kind of framing is both delusional and extremely bad faith.
To your question: no, what I said isn’t ad hominem. Criticizing someone for making an ad hominem isn’t the same thing. I’m not using a personal attack to avoid addressing your argument - I’m pointing out that you’re using personal attacks to avoid having one. There’s a difference between attacking someone instead of responding to their point and calling out someone for refusing to make one.
everyone who disagrees with my worldview is a bot
I hardly consider my opinion on AI a “worldview”. It is an observation that generative AI use in decision making and creativity reduces cognitive activity. Yes I asked OP to disprove me in an “ad-hominem” manner though. I guess we violently agree on that?
Nobody has claimed your views on AI count as a worldview, nor are they in any way relevant to this discussion. The discussion is about you blanket dismissing everyone who criticizes “wokeness” as a bot.
Okay then, swap out AI with wokeness, it still doesn’t come to the level of a “worldview”. It is still an observation.
You can swap out “worldview” with any other term you like as that is neither relevant to the discussion. You’re getting hung up on terms and completely ignoring the substance of my argument.
Exhibit A
I’m not even from the Lemmy world instance. I’m from the instance that specifically rails against AI slop. Thank you for being silly.
Do you have anything of value to contribute?
What is your intention with this response? Do you expect me to suddenly give you something you value as a response? That would be silly based on the conversation this far.
You never replied to the question in the post. You just came in with your own silly anti-AI agenda. Essentially showing that this discussion is a nonstarter for you. So I guess this was a valuable discussion after all.
You never replied to the question in the post.
I think you might be hallucinating.
Just say what you’re alluding to
I think you should evaluate why people don’t want to entertain these topics.
Even if the answer is “bias”, it’s worth looking into the nature of that bias to find out why people think that way.
However, I’ll save you a bit of time: most of these “topics” are based on a false premise. They are strawman arguments which indicate a misunderstanding of a particular argument/viewpoint. This makes any conversation a non-starter, which is why I suggest forming a more complete understanding of other arguments.
However, I’ll save you a bit of time: most of these “topics” are based on a false premise. They are strawman arguments which indicate a misunderstanding of a particular argument/viewpoint.
A statement that shines a moon-sized spotlight on the bias of its author towards groupthink.
Thanks, but I didn’t ask that and your assertion is based on your own bias/opinion
How is your response any different than what you are complaining about?
Edit: this is rhetorical, I am actually not interested in a response. Oh the irony.
calling out men as predominant perpetrators of violence towards women
…and children, as well as other men. If there’s violence, statistically, the perpetrator is most likely male. Most people in jail are men too. I guess this only becomes controversial to those who believe group averages apply to every individual within that group.
We have a funny thing going as a society where we say violence is always bad on one hand, and then have men solving things with violence as the plot of all our fiction. If you’re poor, the state monopoly on violence is also not invisible, so the first message seems as hypocritical as it is.
I’d really, really love it if we had a more balanced discussion that could actually reach AMAB people. I do think socialisation is the main problem here.
Yup. It all starts with how we’re raising boys and what societal norms they’re expected to conform to. The main avenues that we give men to receive approval are limited to physical strength and violence, emotional toughness, sexual prowess/penis size, financial and social power and logical aptitude (which is waning as of late).
If you don’t meet these standards then you have to work hard to internally accept yourself and two of the skills men aren’t taught to practice are emotional intelligence and community building, hence the lonely male epidemic and resulting fits of violence.
We need to raise boys differently, and build a society where they have opportunities to build self-worth and have a community to lean on without feeling ashamed to need emotional support.
All that to say that today we have an epidemic of violent, emotionally inept, unsuccessful men.
All that to say that today we have an epidemic of violent, emotionally inept, unsuccessful men.
Do we, though? I’m not sure if you’ve come across the Male Sedation Hypothesis but it basically argues that we should be seeing more violence from disenfranchised young men - and yet we aren’t. The hypothesis suggests that this is largely due to porn, video games, and drugs. Rather than acting out, many men are withdrawing from society into their mom’s basements, supplementing real-life relationships and career success with virtual equivalents.
Seriously. Men are perceived as dangerous by default and that influences how we think about solving problems.
Yeah I think the problem is that in order to address the problem you have to call out how widespread it is and that’s where people, men, get defensive and don’t allow the conversation
I’ve discovered starting a sentence with colorful insults doesn’t land well.
It doesn’t even have to include an insult. Even the most clinical approach is stifled.
Another is the non-monolithic nature of (real) science and the requirement for (real) scientific methods (e.g., replicated, non-sponsored studies).
You’re saying that people don’t want to discuss how science could be wrong or not universally true?
Yeah people just hear, “a study shows XYZ” and think, oh truth. When in fact there’s a lot of manipulation that goes into these studies similar to statistics and there are constantly debates among scientists who disagree with each other’s assertions.
I think controversial or even unpopular and a true nonstarter are two different things. “We should bring back racial segregation” is a nonstarter, as it should be. “AI will make life somewhat cheaper” will get you some support, even if it brings out angry luddites and denialists in response.
Fair, so what are some other unobvious non-starters
Being obvious is almost a requirement. It’s hard to instantly reject something you haven’t heard much about.
Like, “ancient Egypt never existed” would get curiosity at the very least, despite the fact it’s around as factually incorrect as flat Earth theory. A socially harmful belief like “left handed people are of the devil” would get a stronger negative response yet, once people know you’re serious, but not at the same level as “gay people are of the devil”.
Alright…since you’re being devil’s advocate I’ll lay out some criteria:
- Topic would almost entirely be received negatively
- You feel that it’s not something that the community would or should immediately balk at
- It’s a serious discussion
You feel that it’s not something that the community would or should immediately balk at
This happened to you recently, right? This post itself is getting a negative reaction because we can tell, and it comes across as whiny.
People have opinions on and offline. You can contradict them, which is okay, but people are never going to like it, and that’s okay. Lemmy has a strongly left-wing, open-source bent, and reacts accordingly.
I’m trying to gauge where the community has landed as of late, because like I said in the original post, there have been big shifts like opinions on Democrats and in regards to your questions, I’ve experience some strange intersection between misogyny and pro-transness.
Anything that runs counter or even questions accepted correct answers. Correct answers are extremely american centric and left-leaning.
No, most people here are mostly well-off and from rich countries, that refuse to even try to understand other people and their positions. While pretending to be open to ideas and other culturs and views. It has little to do with reality.
Yeah the hive mentality is so strong and inhibits progress.
