Sotuanduso

Not upset, just suspicious because I've seen you asking that question a lot.

Obviously what I consider political is up to my discretion, but I'm pretty sure the general definition does not include contentious memes, and mine doesn't either because I gave a clause about one side considering the other side evil because of it.

In general, if a person asks themselves "is what I'm posting political?" they can answer correctly 95% of the time, and the 5% of edge cases won't upset 95% of the complainers.

In this context, it's matters related to government, politicians, or the general culture of a country, in which there are two or more major camps of conflicting opinions, where a good deal of people in one or more of those camps view the other camp as evil because of their view.

If the post is in a community where only one of the camps is significantly present, but the post is attacking the other camp, it is still political.

Why do you ask? Are you hoping to expose some inconsistency in my definition? Maybe use it to call something I like political with the expectation that I'll disagree with you? Or were you expecting my definition to be biased, calling something political that shouldn't be, so that you could expose me as a moustache-twirling villain?

It's a shame because this is still the biggest meme community in the fediverse. There have been more non-political memes here in the past 2 hours than the next two general meme communities combined had in the past 12 hours.

Exactly. We complainers aren't saying they can't post about politics, just requesting they post their political memes in the designated political meme space.

EDIT: A message to people from Hexbear

Thank you for your input, but I stopped responding to arguments here at least 24 hours ago because I can't juggle that many conversations at once. I would ask that you respect that and not continue to argue with me about what is and isn't political, because I'm just going to ignore it anyways. Thank you.

There's a basic expectation, when you make an argument on a public forum, that it'll be judged on the content of the argument, not on who posted it. If you want to look through their history to see if they're a troll, and then just ignore them if they are, there's nothing wrong with that.

What you did was say "you're stupid and lazy," but for no good reason, you used that guy's own words to say it. That was entirely unnecessary. It didn't prove any inconsistency, it just proved that, like many people on Lemmy, the guy thinks a lot of people are dumb.

What is non-toxic about using someone's own words from past threads to insult them when you already have enough of a text wall to make your point?

Keeping things in their respective communities does help people filter what they want to see.

I, for one, like to see "haha that's funny" posts more than "oh look the bad guys are bad" posts, which is why I peruse this community and not political memes.

I'm not trying to minimod and create rules that don't exist in the community, though. I'm just expressing my opinion. You don't have to listen.

Also, what does this have to do with instance? Nothing's stopping you from posting on another instance's community, right? Federation is nice like that. Or did you mean that lemmy.ml is a political instance? If so, I didn't know that.

Wouldn't this fit better in political memes?

Can we not dig up people's comment history to win arguments? That's kinda toxic.

Earlier in this conversation, it was stated that the prevalent political stance here is left-wing, and that people who complain about politics usually disagree with the prevalent stance.

If that's true, that means the people who don't care about politics are usually centrist at best, or right-wing.

You decry not caring about politics because not caring helps the fascists, but if the people who aren't caring would lean right anyways (and you presumably believe right-wingers are fascists or fascist-enablers,) then getting them to care is only going to harm your cause.

Even if they somehow don't have a stance, if you tell them they're not allowed to be ambivalent, do you expect them to join your side?

Or... maybe some people just don't care about politics and would rather see dank memes than "Nazis are bad" even if they agree that Nazis are bad.

The bots thought I was one of them.

People who whine about political content are usually just whining that the prevailing consensus is not consistent with their opinions.

Are you implying that there's a problem with not holding the same set of opinions as the majority? Reasonable disagreement without implicit immorality is possible on many issues.