True. But then you got 1 karma for every comment you made anywhere on the site and often the requirement was like 50 karma.
Restricting posts to users who have managed to make a maximum of 50 comments that didn't overwhelmingly piss everyone off isn't actually very restrictive.
I really don't buy into any of this "oh, you had to only say what people wanted you to say!" handwringing. I never once saw a user with negative karma who wasn't just there to actively cause trouble. I'm quite certain this notion that you had to subscribe to some sort of groupthink to make it through the karma system originates from a very tiny number of people who perceive not being actively anti-social in a social space as oppressive persecution of their "totally valid" "alternative opinions". By all means, show me accounts that were actually participating in good faith that were pushed out of the conversation by the karma system and I'll loudly complain with you on their behalf.
But you can't do that. Because they're always some flavour of racist nazi troll dickhead.
I said whatever the hell I wanted and was frequently confrontational or contrarian and still had some embarrassingly high amount of karma simply because I participated a lot and wasn't actively there to fuck things up by intentionally being a toxic edge-lord troll.
AFAIK the intention was to build a franchise and now Robert Downey Jr has finished with Marvel they're all keen to pick it back up again (he's also pushing for Jonny Depp to join the franchise.)
Because of the things you said and how you said them. Self-evidently.
In this comment you represent that your original statement is moderate and has wide agreeability.
Your original statement does not. If it was intended to, then you need to attend to the fact that you have not represented your views on the matter effectively and people are responding to you as though your views were other than they are.
If the original comment when read by people who aren't you means what you meant it to mean, then this second comment is horseshit and you should either stand by what you said and accept that others find it repellent, or perhaps, reconsider your position.
To be clear: Your original comment is unambiguously saying that you support the rise of a fascist state that would intentionally harm minorities. It does not matter if your intention was otherwise and you've just not made yourself sufficiently clear. We only know what you actually said. What you actually said is that you are in favour of this. By all means confirm that you are and own it, or, if you are not in favour, just fucking figure out what you need to change for the comment to reflect your actual values and edit it (possibly with a footnote explaining you needed to edit it because it didn't quite express what you meant originally.)
Don't just throw your hands in the air and complain that people are responding to the things you said as though they are what you meant. And if they are what you meant, then fuck right off with trying to figure out how to soften it just enough to get people onside with you.
There will always be people who fall for these traps. Of course they are individually to blame for being duped however just blaming them doesn't solve anything. The solution is to try to reduce how many do by providing great education (formally and culturally), minimising the ability for fascists to find platforms to spread their messaging and offering real solutions to the problems that those people have so they don't feel they need to latch onto anyone offering to do so for them.
As such, anyone who should be expected to understand this and who is in a position to achieve those goals. Is to blame for the inevitable consequences of not doing so (ie, neo-liberal political entities.)
It seems as though the only "problem" that the modern American right are concerned about is how to ensure they have unquestioned power and authority and that noone ever oppose them.
Does this make you a leftist? No, it makes you a realist. That is, unless you ask this question to most conservatives who will instantly label you as one.
The problem is deciding what is actually a problem, and once it’s been decided, which one solution out of many possible ones we’re actually going to pick.
I find that often once both sides have decided that there is a problem and it should be solved but start arguing about mutually exclusive solutions to that issue, one of the sides (and it does switch) is focusing on addressing the output of the problem and the other is focusing on addressing the cause of the problem!
"Ow, my foot hurts!"
Side A: "let's give you some painkillers to stop the pain"
Side B: "forget about the painkillers, stop standing on their feet!"
Side A: "I've already stood on their foot, there's nothing I can do to undo it. Do you want me to rewind time or something? Why don't you care about treating their pain‽"
Side B: "If you keep standing on their feet they're going to stay in pain no matter what!"
Side A: "how can I get this person painkillers for their pain without standing here? Why are you so blind to this person's suffering‽"
Etc etc forever while we achieve nothing and let everything turn to rust and ashes to the backdrop of everyone silently screaming inside of their heads.
Not sure I agree that an engineering mindset wouldn't be an improvement on that tbh. There really aren't normally multiple equally valid solutions to big problems. Just people with a more or less complete understanding of the issue arguing that their understanding and subsequent solution is the best rather that just fucking listening and thinking competently to arrive at the right answers together.
Yeah they're only ever really used cooked. (I gather that they aren't nearly as nice to eat raw and might make your stomach a bit upset if eaten raw but possibly are not actively bad for you like eating a raw potato is.) Cooked they're pretty nice. Kinda like if a banana thought it was a potato.
I wonder if they might actually be combining them from different deliveries. IE, they grab an average ripeness one from the Monday delivery, an average ripeness one from the Tuesday delivery etc and by the time the last delivery is added the first one is about ready to eat.
Have you ever had the chance to try plantains? They're a bit like bananas but for cooking and while they can be used yellow, generally they are used green.
Just like me trying to avoid sweeteners for decades now because I suspect they might turn out to be bad for you (and noone has ever tried to suggest they are actively good for you...) If it turns out you're wrong, you've lost very little, if it turns out you're right then there's no way to retroactively undo the harm.
I have a fairly sensitive sense of taste and if I eat an unwashed fruit with a rind and manage to touch the actual fruit without washing my hands after touching the rind, I can often taste a bitter chemical flavour that otherwise isn't there. How harmful those chemicals may be and how exposed I'd be without directly transfering them to the food or to my mouth (or eyes or whatever) I'm unsure (and, tbh, while I always wash oranges and stuff, I often eat bananas unwashed as there's no need for the outside to come into direct or indirect contact with the actual fruit itself.) I'd still prefer to just not eat whatever it is if I can trivially avoid it (both for possible safety reasons and just not having my food taste like bitter chemicals reasons.)
I'm not sure if that's true as afaik bananas release some sort of heavier than air gas that causes both themselves and lots of other produce to ripen faster. The more airflow the less banana gas.
Counterpoint: the generic communities being hosted on Lemmy.ml (an instance with a very strong political identity) simply because it was oldest was a real risk for the growth of Lemmy as a whole and this is a fantastic opportunity to rebuild those core communities on more generic Instances like Lemmy.world.
That is true of most people. Those aren't the ones that matterfor building something new and will migrate eventually. It's always been a minority of users who do the heavy lifting of establishing thriving communities and those peoplez by definition, are the ones who are willing to roll their sleeves up and do that work on a new platform when the old one stops working for them.
True. But then you got 1 karma for every comment you made anywhere on the site and often the requirement was like 50 karma.
Restricting posts to users who have managed to make a maximum of 50 comments that didn't overwhelmingly piss everyone off isn't actually very restrictive.
I really don't buy into any of this "oh, you had to only say what people wanted you to say!" handwringing. I never once saw a user with negative karma who wasn't just there to actively cause trouble. I'm quite certain this notion that you had to subscribe to some sort of groupthink to make it through the karma system originates from a very tiny number of people who perceive not being actively anti-social in a social space as oppressive persecution of their "totally valid" "alternative opinions". By all means, show me accounts that were actually participating in good faith that were pushed out of the conversation by the karma system and I'll loudly complain with you on their behalf.
But you can't do that. Because they're always some flavour of racist nazi troll dickhead.
I said whatever the hell I wanted and was frequently confrontational or contrarian and still had some embarrassingly high amount of karma simply because I participated a lot and wasn't actively there to fuck things up by intentionally being a toxic edge-lord troll.