this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
1411 points (98.3% liked)

Comic Strips

12519 readers
3044 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 37 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (12 children)

Israel bad, AI bad, police bad, Elon bad, Capitalism bad, Boeing bad, Microsoft bad, Apple bad, Facebook bad, rich people bad, landlords bad, C.E.O.s bad, ads bad, cars bad, SUVs/trucks very bad, piracy good, bikes good, uBlock Origin good, trains good, Linux good, bats good, Ukraine good, protests good, socialism good ...

[–] geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Linux good should have been repeated at least 5 times in that list

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 months ago

I agree. Cannot repeat that one often enough.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 months ago

At the very least it's much better than it used to be. So long as you're running hardware that won't make you jump through hoops to get working, and that's less common and less awful than it used to be.

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago (2 children)

i can easily agree with 90% of that. The remaining 10% needs asterisks pointing towards further nuanced discussion. I'll not specify which topics go into which category.

[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (10 children)

I also agree with most of that, but that doesn't make it OK to downvote opinions to the contrary for no other reason than "I disagree".

If comments of different perspectives, made in good faith get downvoted to oblivion then participation is discouraged, debate gets replaced with circle jerking and Lemmy becomes a very boring and out of touch echo chamber just like Reddit.

Downvotes should only be used for comments that are off topic, factually incorrect, hateful or made in bad faith etc.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Downvotes should only be used for comments that are off topic, factually incorrect, hateful or made in bad faith etc.

So something like this comment: https://lemmy.ca/comment/9747509 Which equates not liking Elon Musk with hate groups against minorities?

Usually when people complain about something like "the Lemmy Narrative" they're usually not bringing nuanced discussion to their posts and are just upset that people aren't agreeing with their "hot takes."

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Shit takes get downvoted. Rational disagreements don't.

[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

If you define a "shit take" as a comment that is factually wrong and or harmful, that's fine and I've already said that. If your idea of a "shit take" is "I don't like / disagree with your opinion" then I hope you're fine with Lemmy becoming an out of touch echo chamber and I've also already said that. Why am I having to repeat myself?

It doesn't take much browsing here to see plenty of rational disagreements that have been downvoted for failing to conform with the groupthink.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I can agree to 80% but also disagree with 80%. None of those are simple cut and dry situations and a simple answer is naive at best. And, most importantly, I can say that without sitting on a fence

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Couldn't have said it better myself. It's nuance that's almost entirely missing from much of online discussions. In my experience; the more I learn about a topic, the more I realize how much I don't know/how complex it is. Then there's also the fact that most simplistic and absolute statements are almost guranteed to be wrong. Not literally all cops are bad.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Then there's also the fact that most simplistic and absolute statements are almost guranteed to be wrong.

So why are you the one making simplistic absolute statements here? Are you just making a Strawman you can knock down?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] MadBigote@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Do you have an example on why any of these povs are wrong?

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

No, I don't think any of those claims is entirely wrong but I don't fully agree with most of them either.

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 months ago

What's this!? Complexity in your opinions!? Don't 100% agree or disagree on something based on a 3-5 word sentence?! Straight to jail.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Nuance is bad. It tries to make people think and that hurts their head!

[–] overcast5348@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I'm a renter, and my parents have never owned a house, so I've dealt with landlords all my life. I don't agree with "landlord bad". Are there shitty landlords? Yes. But it's a leap to go from that to "all landlords are bad".

Can you imagine the backlash from the same left-leaning group that goes "landlord bad" if you applied the same logic to a racial or religious group?

Landlords serve an important purpose in the marketplace and any uncontrolled rampant exploitation is a failure of the government and not the entire group of people who sell the service.

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

No one's born a landlord. It's not comparable to race in any way. Comparing racism to being against unregulated and manufactured housing scarcity feels like a really bad faith argument.

[–] overcast5348@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Okay, ignore race, consider only religion.

People are born into a religion and are free to leave it or embraced a different religion. It is completely in their choice.

Similarly, people can be born into a family that owns zero to two properties, are free to acquire more or sell what they have. It is completely in their choice.

Why is it okay to judge one group by the actions of "a few bad apples" and not the other?

[–] Llamalitmus@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So while I'm undecided on landlords, I think your logic is flawed. Are you saying that criticising the concept of owning land and charging people for housing is the same as being born into a socially constructed group or the same as choosing or being born into a organization structured around shared beliefs? Because I'm not sure they're quite the same thing.

[–] overcast5348@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, I'm saying that it's unfair to criticize an entire group of people for the actions of some people who happen to belong to the same group while the rest are perfectly fine contributors to society.

On the other hand, if the sole purpose of the group is to spread hate/cause unrest/violence then I'd be okay with hating the entire group.

Hating landlord-ism as a concept makes sense to a certain extent, but I'm yet to see a realistic alternative provided by anyone. Hating landlords is something that I don't agree with. --> this seems to be a controversial stance.

Along the same lines, I hate religion but I don't hate all religious people. --> this isn't that controversial a stance. They're both essentially the same to me.

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A realistic alternative? The occupant owns the dwelling. That removes the problem entirely. People can't afford to buy? Well if you can't own residential property you don't live in. Prices will correct.

Alternatively, the government historically has given most middle class Americans the majority of their generational wealth through land gift programs, then you gave first time homeowner loans, which could easily be retooled to give the property to those living there and have all payments go towards ownership,

There's so many options better than someone fucking you in the ass as hard as they can so you can bearly survive.

[–] overcast5348@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I'm not from the US so correct me if I'm wrong - didn't the governments of US and Canada give away land in what was essentially "bumfuck nowhere"? Isn't land still cheap in comparable locations?

If only people who live on the property are allowed to own it then prices might go down a bit. Say 50%, a number that I'm pulling out of my ass. I genuinely don't believe that demand in cities will let prices go down by even that much. But even with a 50% crash, a shit ton of people would never get to live in a city (someone who just moved out of their parents' home, someone who is recovering from a loss due to a bad business, someone who just immigrated etc.)

So what would be the solution to those people? Live in a few hundred kms away from the city and commute every day?

As much as I'd like to own property in the city that I live in, I don't think banning landlords will lower prices enough for me to buy a house here. So, I'd rather rent and live in the city than go live in some village.

[–] Zacryon@lemmy.wtf 12 points 4 months ago

Wow, quite an extensive list. Haven't expected that. Thanks for sharing!

Yeah, I guess there is some truth to it.

[–] Barzaria@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Lol what maniac would hold opposite opinions for all of these? I like AI though.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago

I like AI though.

Burn the heretic! Buuuurrrrrnnnn!

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Wait, aide from all the others, "Boeing bad" is just a narrative? Dude, have you been living under a rock?

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I've heard beans are good too.

[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

burn the witch

[–] Tixanou@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

I've heard not pooping for three days is good too.

[–] otto_von@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

To be honest, I agree with all of these. Seeme line I am at the right place.

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago

Imo the only actually divisive opinions are around tipping.

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Cows are also good. Unless they are raised in a stock yard.

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

If we were just a few years short of total collapse in a socialist or communist economic system, would it be OK to call either system bad?

I've worked for so many retail corporations that are so single minded to quarterly earning going up to push stock prices up, they don't even care how much money they actually make, and what they pay people. You can make 2mil a day, and they will fire everyone and close the store because it wasn't 2.000002mil. A lot of things are breaking.