Without giving you spoilers: based on the novel, the 1st arc is really special. The other arcs (like the 2nd world) are still fun, still worth reading, but they don't reach the same level as the 1st one.
Who was this written by, a Brit?
Nope. Likely an American.
When cooking, people in general like to use round numbers, like "200°C", since a difference of 5°C in oven temperature is not a big deal.
And yet they went with some oddly specific 205°C. That only makes sense if they're used to Fahrenheit, eyeballed a round value (like 400°F), converted it into Celsius (204.4°C), and then rounded it up to discard the decimal.
I'm also going to say they're completely clueless when it comes to cooking - 200°C is the oven temperature. The chicken itself reaches a far lower temperature, in the 70~80°C range. By the time the chicken reached 200°C, it's already dry and close to catching fire. (The self-ignition temperature for biological stuff is typically between 200°C and 250°C.)
Unless demanded by local legislation, that's a clear PTB in my book.
So. You have a link about the usage of force by the dogs of some broligarchic junta. Clearly unnecessary, unless someone thinks people in wheelchair are such a violent threat that it demands such measures. The group was arrested mostly for "Crowding, Obstructing, and Incommoding" - i.e. some "quick, find some law that fits this situation, so we can get rid of those things! Heil Chrump!".
Then you have a commenter (the_q) correctly pointing out shit won't progress unless people actually fight back. And another (PancakesCantKillMe) clearly quoting something; I don't even know (or care) who this Thomas Turbano guy is, but the second comment is clearly a quote.
So, let ask me the following: accordingly to the LW mods, is self-defence violence?
- If it is not, then those comments should not be removed as "advocating violence".
- If it is, then they're effectively promoting that people should lower themselves from human beings to punching bags of their local junta.
Don't get me wrong - I don't even think they're doing this "intentionally". I get LW mods are full of Good Intentions®, and for the sake of some idyllic vision of pacifism, where tyrants will magically stop being tyrants if you say them "tyranny bad! EDIT WOW THANKS FOR THE GOLD, KIND STRANGER!". However Hell is full of good intentions.
This series is a fun twist on the "expelled from the party" formula - and since it's relatively small stories interconnected by Ed and Tia's travels, the plot doesn't get old.
This chapter highlights something the ch15 did too: that even if people don't remember the events of the first time Ed was in the party, some feelings are etched into their souls. In ch15 it was Tia afraid of losing someone "again", here in ch24 it's Doben getting pissed at Ed (the sidekick of the "fake hero" that unrightfully stole his position).
OK - sorry. My bad.
If you are the comment police please show your badge.
I wasted my time re-explaining the OP to you, because it's clear that you lack the basic reading comprehension necessary to even know what people are talking about here. And because you don't know it, but you were still willing to vomit your opinion and re-eat your own vomit, you were being nothing but a dead weight and a burden in this thread.
If this is "comment police" behaviour, I don't know. Or care. I also don't care if this hurts your precious fee-fees of entitlement so much you screech "waaaaaah, you is of comment polyce? wurr is you are badje???" My blocklist is full of dead weight like you, after I tell them to go fuck a cactus.
Go fuck a cactus.
Three through the thread. That said two are too many, when the second replies to a comment telling the first comment already misses the point. The focus is on things like:
[Alice] I like apples.
├ [Bob] Why do you hate bananas, Alice?
│ └ [Alice] I like bananas. I just like apples better.
│ └ [Charlie] ur contradict u are self lol. U liek apples or bananas?
│ └ [Alice] I like both.
├ [Dan] Put some bleach on your apples.
│ └ [Ed] Yeah, Alice should not be here.
├ [Fran] Eeeeeeew apples are disgusting lmaaaoo
├ [Gio] Bananas all the way. I don't like apples.
├ [Hector] I assooome Alice never ate bananas.
...
└ [Zed] BRAAAAAAINNNS! And bananas. No apple.
I picked a non-political example to avoid intrusive discussions. (But it does affect political discussions too.) You see this shit in real life, and in Twitter (ye olde "Twitter MC of the day" boils down to dogpiling), and in Reddit, and here. And yet it's non-contributive; it's a bunch of people saying the same shit, if you're Alice this shit is aggravating, and if a newbie sees it they say "nope, I'm not going there". All because the "hive mind" decided bananas >> other fruits > shit > apples.
(Or that you must use the 3-2-1 rule for backups. Or that "animes", "mangas" and "pokemons" violate everything that is sacred. Or that a certain game mechanic is shit/good instead of being good/shit. You get the idea.)
We need some way to address this. That's what OP is asking about.
About downvotes vs. toxic positivity: that link works nicely to provide us a definition. I think "toxic positivity" = "social unacceptable of people acknowledging negative emotions and/or attitudes" should work well enough, is that OK for you?
I don't notice it. Even in instances like Beehaw and Blåhaj (both deactivated downvotes), I don't see this popping up. In Beehaw for example you can pretty much rant to your heart's contents; as long as it's reasonable, and you aren't being an arsehole to other users, it's well-received.
As such, if any measure addressing dogpiling needs to tweak how downvotes work, I don't think it'll breed toxic positivity. I don't think messing with the downvotes would be necessary for this, though.
I always tell myself I should hop into Piefed more often. And I never do it.
...at this rate I'm low-key wishing my instance shifts from Lemmy to Piefed.
So like I said, and thank you for making it clear, you are missing the point. // I’m explicitly saying that the root cause of dog piling is moderating selecting for a culture that confirms to their biases
Nah, it's the complete opposite - you confirmed that I accurately understood your false claim. I understood your claim and I believe it to be wrong. I'm calling it bullshit.
Simple evidence that you're wrong: dogpiling happens even in real life. Even if there's no bloody "RL mod" selecting for a culture that confirms their personal biases. If A happens in the absence of B, that shows that either
- B is not the root cause of A; or
- There are at least two independent causes for A.
Ockham's Razor makes short work of #2.
[I listed earlier another evidence, by the way. Right at the start. Go dig it.]
[shifting goalposts] The issue isn’t the dog piling. it’s that moderation specifically selects for it when it meets their biases, and only enforced policies selectively.
Nope. Dogpiling is itself also a problem. And both problems interact. However, one problem is not the cause of the other.
Communities through the process of their creation create the rules and norms they abide by; not a side bar with some words on it.
That argument would be valid if and only if the written rules had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the community's behaviour.
The rest of your comment boils down to a verbose turd of red herring sprinkled with a "chrust me, I have kwalifikashuns 2 say dis, than I'm rite ur rong". I did read it fully but I'm not arsing myself with it.
I don't think I'm missing the point.
What I'm saying is that the rules would still help, even if you have a strongly editorial moderation cultivating a comm reactionary to minority opinions. Because the root cause of dogpiling is not in that moderation and their practices - like you said, the moderation is only selecting for/against it, but the root is in human nature.
And depending on how the rule against dogpiling is made, it could even curb down strong editorial tendencies.
Not being able to downvote
As said in the very comment that you're replying to, and as OP confirms, the downvotes are not the relevant part here.
You are not contributing to the discussion by insistently hammering on a marginal point, across multiple comments.
Not being able to downvote or reply is discouraging engagement
In some cases you do need to remove some forms of engagement, because they go against the goal of creating an active and vibrant community where users can discuss a certain topic. Engagement is the metric, not the goal.
And in the specific case of dogpiling, it's rather clear that it's the sort of engagement that goes against that goal.
The question here is how.
creating an environment that only allows toxic positivity.
"Toxic" is a weasel word that means nothing and everything at the same time; ask 1000 people what it is, and all 1000 will give you different answers. If you must use it, define what you mean by it, as I'm not going to assume.
Thanks for the info. Then I'm glad to have insisted on the main topic, their take on it was sensible.