ohhh. old.lemmy doesnt work fyi
I worked at a greyhound just under 2 decades ago. Met a former inmate who was just released that day. Told me they gave him a bus ticket to the city of his choice. He was 21, I think he was there since 18.
It was very obvious that institutionalizing had damaged his executive function. Dude had no clue what to do, no direction. Clearly had forgotten how to have autonomy.
He said he had no friends/family and picked the town cuz he'd been there once as a child and had good memories.
Is that for admins only? Or can I see lemmy.ca's info?
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.
That's different from fostering discussion. Discussion is open ended. Devils Advocate is fundamentally about substantiating the opposite argument. I didn't say it lacked value all together. I'm saying you're using it in the wrong context, and the results are downvotes and non-engagement from your audience. Especially if they believe you're sincere.
You're conflating Socratic reasoning with devils advocacy and citing an anecdotal experience as evidence. Socratic reasoning explores limitations of ideas. Devils advocate argues for the sake of argument as a form of apologetic exercise.
If you want to discuss censorship of dissenting opinions that's a valid discussion that you are severely undermining by mislabeling your arguments as devils advocacy.
If you argue against something that is incorrect, you are not playing the devils advocate; by definition.
Just car-brain mentality on full display.
I doubt half of those residents would even have drivers licenses.
It's been an even greater strength for big corporations though. There's a lot of immigration lawyers who own Tim Hortons. Same with education; their entire business model requires extortionate tuition/rent that only foreign students can afford.
We need to name and shame the people profiting off of this mismanagement. Pointing the finger at the government just causes them to deflect aimlessly.
I called this in July of 2016 when Trump won the GOP nomination. I said, "Historians will mark this day as the beginning of the dissolution of the united states of America." People actually laughed at me.
IMO things have set in motion that cannot be stopped.
Here's my predictions.
-
Millions of Americans are going to die. Be it starvation, hospitals shutting down, or catastrophic weather events with no federal response.
-
California will bypass the federal government and fund agencies like FEMA directly. This will trigger a mass restructuring of the fiscal relationship between the states and the federal government.
-
As the USA divests itself from steel and semiconductor supply chains, backbone companies like Apple and Lougheed Martin will leave the USA for the EU.
-
In the short term agriculture and domestic manufacturing will plummet. In the long term, a crashing US dollar and real estate market will incentivize foreign investment into those industries.
-
Trump will die in office. (I think he wants to die in office, at this point.) His succession will be a disaster and result in a DNC government. His backers will allow this because all they cared about was eliminating POCs and stealing the publics money. Their agenda will be right on schedule.
-
Without it's supply chains and military contractors, the USA will eventually lose military dominance to China. The companies and their supply chains will migrate to EU & Commonwealth countries; who will form a military pack to counter China (& to a lesser degree Russia)
-
Canada will replace the USA in leading the global economy. The CAD will become a world reserve currency. Unlike the EU Canada is geographically better positioned to export globally. As Canadian energy and agriculture exports increase so will the incentive for foreign governments to hold CAD.
-
Climate Change will catastrophically interrupt the global food supply in North America; as well as drastically increase energy requirements and trigger mass population displacement. This will accelerate the "switcheroo" of US & Canada on the world economic stage.
-
The aging populations in developed nations will set the stage for developing countries, with growing populations, to gain much more leverage dealing with their more developed trading partners. USA & China will trade infrastructure investments for the agriculture and manufacturing they can no longer sustain domestically. Foreign investment from developing countries into developed countries will trend.
-
The next 'Pandemic' will technically remain an "epidemic" because air travel and global tourism will be a fraction of what it is now. Due to steel supply interruptions and manufacturer relocations, airlines will lack the fleets and budgets to maintain the service levels we see now.
-
MAGA will replace the KKK and it will never completely go away unfortunately.
Picture this....
I don't need to picture it cuz that's happened to me dozens of times.
A) Gotta get over it. Post engagement can literally come down to timing.
B) Negative scored content rebounds all the time. It's hyperbole to say 1 person can kill any post.
I would say a better method would be to avoid internet arguments and only engage if you are in a good place to do it constructively
Some things to not justify a response. Nobody is entitled to my engagement. The phrase "No response, is a response." very much translates to downvotes.
banning them equates to a loss of freedom.
It equates to a loss of information. The people who downvote and don't reply aren't going to start replying if downvotes are removed. That leaves ludicrous statements on the same playing field as mediocre ones.
downvote things they disagree with and it encourages alienation.
How is net any different than people simply not upvoting? Wouldn't people simply upvote everything else more? Wouldn't we end up with the same vote rankings just different numbers?
wrote a carefully worded response instead, because that is the best way to connect through the internet.
As you identify later, I don't necessarily want to connect or correct every incorrect thing I see on the internet. I agree this presents an opportunity for self growth, but there's also diminishing returns. Engaging every single person is obviously not realistic.
One downvote click and any attempt at empathy is gone.
The engagement is gone. One can empathize enough with someone they disagree with to recognize the futility in engaging with them.
Harmful people get banned anyways, so how do downvotes assist that process?
-
Downvotes raise the ranking of superior content, improving user experience. This includes low quality, irrelevant, or illegal content. This effect is immediate and does not require moderation.
-
Downvotes provide a temperature check and a frame of reference. You can see the consensus of the community without having to read way too many comments. Without downvotes you can only ascertain the opinions of people who took the time to respond.
-
Eliminating downvotes is largely used by highly moderated subreddits (r/conservative for instance). The ones that most accurately fit the definition of echo chambers and who exist to perpetuate an agenda not foster discussion.
TLDR: I do agree that engaging people in good faith is the best thing... but I also think downvotes provide value.
Agreed. There's a massive difference between an active community member with high standards and a random downvoting everything.
If your community is low traffic than 1 downvote troll can really damage a community posts engagement.
for posting in our weekly threads here playing devil's advocate where I state hard questions that I do not necessarily feel are correct.
Please understand that the practice of playing devils advocate has never been to foster discussion. Whatever value it had has been completely obliterated in this misinformation age. Presenting flawed arguments as a rhetorical device is generally a waste of your audience's time at best. At worst it makes you appear to be an ignorant troll.
Are niche Communities correct for banning anyone who downvotes?
Contextually yes. If 1 person's downvotes represent a significant fraction of the total votes, and that person on average downvotes more than upvotes, I would argue a ban is appropriate because clearly that user does not enjoy engaging the content posted.
Do downvotes represent a "disagree" button for you (this Community notwithstanding)?
Always has been.
Most importantly, what would it take to change this?
Nothing. It's not a problem.
Does it help build the Community? What about the platform as a whole?
Ever heard of the Knights of New? Downvotes filter low quality, irrelevant, and illegal content.
Is there a way to build a "safe space" without building an echo chamber online? Is that even a valuable thing to build?
People really need to take responsibility for their media diets and stop conflating every group consensus with an echo chamber. You are in control of what communities you participate in. One can find communities built around almost any idea or belief.
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.
I use old.lemmy