Aesthesiaphilia @ Aesthesiaphilia @kbin.social

Posts

1

Comments

588

Joined

2 yr. ago

Does ASMR even mean anything anymore? Did it ever?

If you hard

Then you hard

Middle east southish is actually a pretty good description

Still Southern.

asking for sources is not always sealioning

True, but it's not very relevant to the discussion here. I'm explaining things I've personally seen on the internet, not trying to convince you of the same. You're asking for evidence for something that's several layers of abstraction from what we've been discussing. I can understand your desire for evidence of the bold claims I've made, but that's a lot of effort on my part, especially for this topic where state-level actors have an interest in covering up the pure statistical facts.

I actually don't think you have any ill intent in asking, just curiosity and healthy skepticism. It's a question of effort.

• Thread is about climate change
• Redtea suggests we should look at alternate approaches than the typical capitalist
• I question
• Redtea cites a book and makes a pro-China statement as part of his thesis
• I find his motives suspicious due to the statement
• You question my suspicion
• I explain my experience
• You ask for evidence

We're several layers deep into this right now. I could come back to it later when I have more energy and am motivated and I could spend some time finding you stuff, but it's a big ask for me to spend like an hour looking up and compiling stuff for you to give you a snapshot of what I've seen on the internet over the past 5-10 years.

So you're saying that in areas which allow for people to live without cars, people live without cars, and this is why people who live in areas that DON'T allow for people to live without cars, should also live without cars? What?

If the environment is designed solely for cars, you can't just ditch your car. And unless you're wealthy you can't just up and move.

No, I think you misunderstand. If I'm arguing with you, my intent is (usually) not to convince you, personally. This is usually because I pick arguments with people I suspect are speaking in bad faith, or who are heavily emotionally invested in an idea. My intent is to convince lurkers.

You might also notice that as I get further down an argument thread, I tend to engage more directly with the person I'm arguing with. That's because there's less audience down here, and we're actually having at least a little bit of a productive conversation.

So is honest argumentation effective or isn’t it?

It can be effective but it is rarely efficient. In the time it takes you to present a detailed, sourced, and well-reasoned argument, and convince a single person who strongly felt the opposite way, twenty other people who have no strong feelings either way have been convinced by a well-timed quip or insult. And that's if you could convince the other person at all.

find evidence

lol

We've been over this

If a thing is legitimately near the top of a particular ranking, then “superlative” praise of it is not superlative at all

I'm not going to bother to get a ranking of countries by "technologically advanced infrastructure" (see above point about sealioning). But the point is it doesn't matter. The point could be made by saying "since China has a technologically advanced infrastructure" or, even more to the point, "since China has an interest in actively guiding its infrastructure". No one would argue that China is a 3rd world country. But no. It's not a technologically advanced infrastructure. It's "one of the most technologically advanced infrastructures in the world". That's superlative relative to the topic at hand, and that's why it's a red flag. The verbiage is familiar.

But also, the context. If someone said "Germany has one of the most technologically advanced infrastructures in the world", well, we could debate that, but I wouldn't suspect any bad faith. Because there hasn't been a history of state-motivated actors pushing that agenda on the internet on behalf of Germany.

Every Democrat is better than every Republican, period. Given the choice between the two, it's an obvious choice.

How is this not a given? With the modern GOP, how could you ever trust anyone who allies themselves with that party? Even if they're personally a saint, they're still allied to the GOP.

Internal elections that most working class people can’t attend is one of our problems; they’re taking advantage of voter fatigue.

Guess which states have implemented vote-by-mail? Democratic strongholds.

Voting 3rd party is effectively the same thing as not voting. I mentally tend to consider those as the same thing. But yes I should have clarified that.

hopefully at least part of you wants to learn and help others learn.

Sometimes, yes. But we can't ignore that the internet is an ideological battleground. For us (democrats, and US leftists in general), ignoring that fact got us Trump in 2016, and I don't want to make that mistake again.

And this is just a personal thing, but I'll often get more involved with arguments than with learning when my brain is spent from work. It's easy (for me) to point out propaganda and cognitive dissonance, and yes to call people names. It takes more mental effort to learn or teach.

I am so confused at your comments here. It’s a webpage.

It means there's no link to it from the worldnews@lemmy.ml community that I'm viewing. I would have to proactively navigate to a new website to check the rules, and why would the instance have different rules than the community? I wouldn't naturally in the course of logging into my kbin account, opening this thread, and commenting on it, see those rules or a link to them anywhere.

moderators need to know how to spot and resolve types of detractive content that aren’t simply name calling.

This is a nearly impossible ask, because that type of content is tailored specifically for plausible deniability. There's a ready-made "mods are overreaching/censuring" argument if they get banned or silenced. Community censure is the only way to stop these types.

Name calling and insults are also not a productive way to address what you consider bad-faith conversation.

I disagree. Attacking an idea requires a lot of effort; indeed, that's why sealioning and JAQing off is a type of trolling at all. It's asymmetric warfare, designed to wear a person down who's trying to attack an idea.

Conversely, responding to a bad faith argument with "that's stupid and you're stupid for saying it" is a no-win position for a concern troll. They either waste time getting dragged into the mud with you trading insults, which doesn't convince anyone of the thing they're pushing. Or they leave and they don't get the chance to push the thing in the first place.

what good is insulting someone who isn’t actually acting with malice?

It's a quarantine. How often have you managed to convince someone of something by arguing with them on the internet? Or been convinced of something yourself? It's quite rare. The whole idea is that forums are a debate stage, and the 85% of forum users who just lurk are the audience. You're not trying to convince your opponent; you're trying to convince the audience.

How. Explain.

So like, I prove you wrong, and you just go, "no"

Cool talk, bro

Any presentation of a counter argument is treated with derision

It would be helpful if the vast majority of the "good faith" arguments in favor of Chinese policies didn't so frequently turn out to be from state-funded actors pushing propaganda. After having a few conversations with these types, you learn to spot red flags (no pun intended)

And as it has one of the most technologically advanced infrastructures in the world

Praise for China interjected seemingly at random, in a superlative nature is a common one. And very suspicious. Chinese shills are not as advanced as their Russian counterparts, in that they're not allowed to criticize their masters and in fact gain points for effusively praising their masters. Makes em easier to spot. The goal of a China shill is to say that China is superior. The goal of a Russia shill is to say that everyone is equally shit.

My concern with you is that you're not trying to take an idea that happens to be Chinese and promote it towards the rest of the world. We could talk about the merits of that. It's that you're taking a Chinese system and trying to promote it towards the rest of the world. With all the baggage that comes with it.

You understand the difference? My worry is that your primary concern is not the idea, but rather the fact that it came from China.

But let's discuss the idea itself. You're basically saying that unilaterally shutting down processes is a good approach to fix the climate. How would you port that concept to countries which are not primarily manufacturing-based, like the US and Western Europe?

Voting 3rd party is the same as not voting.

Primary them. Oust them from the party.

See: Andrew Cuomo, Katie Hill, Al Franken...

That never happens on the Republican side.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/5029/eight-americans-support-ground-war-afghanistan.aspx

Americans vote for representatives who determine when and where the military gets involved. But even if it had been subject to a direct vote, the outcome would be the same.

You can view it, by pointing your browser to lemmy.ml.

Yeah, that's outside of my federation account. For example, right now I'm viewing this post with the url kbin.social/m/worldnews@lemmy.ml. But I don't think there's any mechanism to look at the page kbin.social/lemmy.ml or something. Or at least I'm not aware of it.

Anyway, the page is back up, and I read it.

I understand the intent of the rule, but I've seen communities who require "only respectful discourse" get swamped by sealions and bad-faith "just asking questions" types with dogwhistles and veiled references. In my opinion, sometimes namecalling and insulting is a necessary counter to someone spreading a poisonous bad-faith idea, especially when it's outright propaganda. But, I'm not a server admin, so I'll try to be more respectful of that rule in the future.

I read the page that 133arc585 linked. I can't actually see the lemmy.ml homepage unless I log out of my fediverse account, I believe.

I understand the intent of the rule, but I've seen communities who require "only respectful discourse" get swamped by sealions and bad-faith "just asking questions" types with dogwhistles and veiled references. In my opinion, sometimes namecalling and insulting is a necessary counter to someone spreading a poisonous bad-faith idea, especially when it's outright propaganda. But, I'm not a server admin, so I'll try to be more respectful of that rule in the future.