this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
104 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43685 readers
2445 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Eating meat although they're fully aware, that we have to shift completely away of that (GHG emissions, land-use), and then blame the government that they need to regulate this more.

Yes more government regulations would be great, but it's one of the few individual things that have effect, if everyone would think similar. And a vegan or mostly vegan diet is not really worse in taste and likely more healthy as well... Eating meat is not sustainable (nor morally justifieable), it should be a thing of the past...

[–] derrickoswald@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 minutes ago

Disheveled hair. If you have long(ish) hair and you're going out in public, at least drag a comb through it so you don't look like a bed-head.

[–] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 12 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)
  • People who take phone calls with it on speaker
  • People that have anything on speaker while in a public place
  • Wearing "MAGA" clothing
  • Having a cyber truck
  • Leaving large gaps in the drive thru queue
  • People with young children that they dress up like little adults.
  • People who refuse to learn basic tech (email, texting, etc.)
  • Edit: People that don't like animals, or they dislike just cats. I feel like people who don't vibe with animals in some way are... Off.

~~damn, I'm a judgy bitch~~

[–] PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 hours ago

These are all reasonable. Add people that let others in, in potentially dangerous situations.

[–] freeman@feddit.org 8 points 4 hours ago

People who are using their cellphone/mobile as a telefon (calling someone) but not holding it as a telephone but as a slab in front of their face. And ofc with the speaker on.

Slightly better but still stupid: Videocalling (or Facetiming) with the phone right in front of their nose.

I mean, just hold the phone so that the speaker is at your ear and the mic is right by your mouth...

[–] toastal@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Using proprietary chat apps like Discord, Telegram, Slack, LINE, Meta’s WhatsApp / Messenger. Still judging on apps that require a SIM & mobile OS (like Android) primary device like Signal… or an expensive chat protocol like Matrix.

Hosting your code & bug tracker with a propietary forge like Microsoft GitHub when you say you support open source—but don’t even bother to apply the same mentality to your own project.

…Oh, the question was “secretly”.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 1 points 50 minutes ago

Wait, if not Matrix, what is a good software for this? I thought it was preferred for having an E2E encryption implementation.

[–] filcuk@lemmy.zip 17 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

'It has chemicals in it'

This use of 'chemicals' as something inherently bad just makes it sound like they're parroting some scaremongering tiktok.

[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I had this talk with a member of my family. Water is a chemical, salt is a chemical. Just because you don't immediately know what it is, doesn't mean its bad.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

I’m sure they know, but maybe this is word drift or shorthand for “harmful chemicals”. That’s a lot more plausible than literally turning “literally” into its opposite

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 12 points 7 hours ago

Aks instead of ask

Believing in any form of higher power/religion

[–] TastyWheat@lemmy.world 14 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Shit Parking.

If you're driving a 2 ton metal box and can't have the spatial awareness to fit it into a large rectangle, you shouldn't be on the road.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 hours ago

Whether people read as a hobby or not. As it implies a type of interest into the world around them.

And as a lesser second, what they read.

[–] Zoidberg@lemm.ee 8 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

People who don't like cats.

I've noticed a correlation between people who don't like cats and having narcissistic or selfish tendencies. Could be just an impression but that's how I feel.

[–] TheChargedCreeper864@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago

Oh boy, does this also hold for people who don't like any pets?

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 4 hours ago

I don't like cats, mainly for two reasons:

  1. I am allergic and they just make me feel bad on a physical level
  2. Cats, as any animals, require care, and responsible owners add it to the list of their burdens. It's like constantly having a baby that never grows up - cats can wake you up in the middle of the night, force you to remove feces, etc.

I, however, love people, and am far from being selfish or narcissistic. People around me often find me warm, comforting, and supportive.

[–] halfeatenpotato@lonestarlemmy.mooo.com 3 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Huh, I kinda feel the opposite. You need (or at least SHOULD) be very attentive to a pup. Dogs, in general, tend to crave/require more attention. Cats are more hands-off, so they often attract the kinda people who want a pet for the sake of having a pet - which tend to be narcissistic types.*

*not true of all cat people

[–] Zoidberg@lemm.ee 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Interesting. My reasoning is that narcissistic people crave attention, which cats may not give so overtly as a dog. Basically for a dog, a person is a god and some people love that kind of relationship.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 43 minutes ago

I've definitely seen multiple people talk about how they view it as a red flag when people like dogs but not cats because cats are mean. Their reasoning is that dogs will love you no matter what but cats have to want to get attention. The argument is that people don't understand boundaries/consent.

I see their logic, but I think it's looking a bit too far into it. Yellow flag maybe, not red.

[–] meneervana@lemm.ee 3 points 6 hours ago

In my experience dog owners often like to control another being, cat owners like to just let others be.

[–] wuphysics87@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 hours ago

So people who don't like cats are cats

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Their choices with tech, choices in consumerism (Stanley Cups hype, hypebeast brands, Temu shit, etc), not using blinkers, amount of time spent staring at phones, hobbies

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 16 points 9 hours ago

Being religious

[–] 0_0j@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (3 children)

Quite a few;

literally

  • if one repeats this in 5 seconds in a conversation.

like

  • not against saying like, but when is used in "describing" you will be judged.

obvi

  • ugh, I just hate this.

legit

  • When I hear legit, all I see is insecurities. DO YOUR RESEARCH, TRUST YOUR GUTS.

And yes, I'm millennial.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 11 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I've tried using "u" but I just can't. "You" is only 2 more letters and "u" sounds really cringe

[–] K4mpfie@feddit.org 3 points 5 hours ago
load more comments
view more: next ›