AceTKen

I don't have much to add that I didn't write elsewhere, but thank you in particular for your response. Thoughtful and thorough is always awesome to see! I hadn't considered the shift away from life skills to money-making skills, but you're quite correct.

I do use discussion and debate as linked terms, yes, but they aren't the same. I'd like to see more of both.

Debate like how you're used to seeing "Debate Teams" engage in? To me it's as useless as most online commentary. They're bending rules to steamroll or Gish Gallop opposition. It's not interesting or enlightening and there's a distinct lack of substance.

Real debate with (as you mentioned) citations, respect, a point, and actual experts? Love it. At my college there was a debate between two professors who had differing opinions about research in their field and it was awesome.

But there CAN be value in internet discussion. Moreover, I feel there SHOULD be value. I've experienced it many times in the past and even somewhat recently in this community. When it happens and you get someone who thinks differently than yourself, and who treats you like a real person instead of "the opposition," it's absolutely wonderful.

Yep, it is a leading question. I added an apology to the initial topic because our threads are not normally leading in any way as I save my opinion for response posts below generally.

It was done because of the way that I'm currently feeling with a lot of experience on my side. If you don't think discussion has gotten worse, you're more than welcome to post why you feel that way. I'd be interested to see what you have to say.

Maybe. It's pretty rare, and on Reddit or Lemmy, it's been very much in the minority. Maybe 1 out of every 100 lead to something worthwhile. It actually makes me really miss a good forum.

The reason this pissed me off in particular is that I've been running communities since I was 16 years old starting with a forum of an article-based site that I was the head writer (and main editor for contributors) for.

Some of those issues are persistent in Lemmy to this day and are things I tried to add rules against in the sidebar. Things like:

• Calling someone dumb for bringing forth a logical opinion. No discussion, no "here's where things fall apart" or "here's why that isn't applicable to the situation", simply "lol fuck u, ur dum." Or as with modern social media, a drive-by downvote. Most often in the forum days, this would come from someone who you'd recognize as being very opinionated, but not intelligent or self-aware enough to articulate why they felt a certain way. We've got tons of threads on this community where bad logic is called out, then the person downvotes and doesn't comment further. My feeling is that this is because they don't want to be wrong, so they don't engage. They internalize the idea that their opponent must just be stupid, and walk away.
• You can be right for the wrong reasons, and wrong for the right reasons. There are tons of examples. You do not have to disagree with someone in order to point out that their reasoning sucks.
• Your morals are not an argument. You can use how you arrived at those morals, but not the morals themselves. Your morals are not logic and apply only to your outlook.
• It's okay to be wrong. It's downright awesome to become smarter due to someone correcting you or providing newer / more accurate information. You shouldn't argue from a position of "I'm right, let me convince you." Instead we should approach things from "This is how I arrived at this position. Are you able to articulate why I'm incorrect in believing this?"

Things at present remind me of my high school days and that "shut up nerd" culture that the jocks were stereotyped to have. Everyone thinks they have the moral high ground. Everyone thinks their position is the most defensible. Everyone feels they are better than their out group.

Looks like what I'd want to use, but to reach broad support it needs a Windows client as well.

Yes. Which I agree with and feeds into what I said.

If someone is passing (or is perceived to be passing) a moral judgement because of what they feel is right, and someone else doesn't feel they deserve that scorn, there's no doubt that those judged react negatively. This is true no matter the sides involved.

The examples I gave don't disregard this in any way. Are you able to articulate why they might?

Also, speaking as a mod, we don't downvote people we disagree with here, only people who don't add to the discussion or who go on the attack.

I don't know if I agree with that for either the vegans or woke folk.

Let me try to explain - if you are verbally harassed by religious folk of a religion that you don't believe in who have an issue with something you don't see as a problem (say you mixed fibres in a sweater like a real heathen), who is at fault? You for upsetting them, or them for having an issue that you do not?

What if they just keep bothering you and saying how morally reprehensible you are every chance they get? If you're like most people (including people who aren't vegan or claim to be non-woke), you'd say "Don't put your moral judgments on me." I feel that very much applies in all of those situations.

It's the same reason most non-religious people don't like people protesting abortion clinics. A personal belief and some indignation does not mean the world should change to suit someone's sensibilities.

I am as confused as you are by this comment section. She's also given statements that are anti-genocide as well. You can be opposed to multiple shitty things.

It's not a complete retirement package by any means but it is a way for them to get some of the value out that they put in. We definitely encourage them to diversify their portfolios.

Huh! I had no idea this was a thing. Thanks for bringing it up!

The Wide Awakes were a youth organization and later a paramilitary organization cultivated by the Republican Party during the 1860 presidential election in the United States. Using popular social events, an ethos of competitive fraternity, and even promotional comic books, the organization introduced many to political participation and proclaimed itself as the newfound voice of younger voters. The structured militant Wide Awakes appealed to a generation which had been profoundly shaken by the partisan instability in the 1850s, and offered young northerners a much-needed political identity.