this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
615 points (96.8% liked)

memes

22034 readers
4568 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Absolutely. There’s way too many blithering idiots online. We made the web way too accessible to them back in the ‘90’s.

And if idiots don’t get challenged, you run the risk of them thinking they’re actually right. And that’s very, very dangerous.

I will admit the only reason I attempt to verbally correct them is because I don’t have access to a Reaper drone to shove a Flying Ginsu missile up their ass.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I mean, evidence shows that having their ideas challenged online tends to entrench people in their ideas more so than it convinces them that they're wrong.

So, while I sympathize with your goals, I think your method is having the opposite effect of your intended outcome.

I say this, knowing it's true, and still doing the arguing online thing anyway.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's not about them it's about the other people that might be influenced by their post.

Online is never an A&B conversation, which is why I usually avoid direct confrontation and just provide well structured, clear information, because I don't really care whether I can convince someone who has made up their mind.

It's about deconstructing the argument with clear digestible information for the dozens of lurkers.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

LOL as if. Literally I will see people with logical responses getting ripped apart because the person they are arguing with just sounds more right and or it fits what people wanted to hear in that specific echo chamber.

Say something cause you want to say it, not cause you are giving yourself points on an invisible scoreboard for people that might not exist.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 0 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I think you may want to reread what I wrote because this is barely related. Feels more like something happened and you're just looking for a vent.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

No its related In that, I dont believe the lurkers are appreciating it like you think they are. And that logical responses are often still beaten by emotional forces. And, getting the high of watching a "nerd" get dunked on is likely more of not all of the counter arguments received perspective when commenting against the perceived right take of a community.

If you are commenting, you are doing it for yourself. Inventing an imaginary person that is receiving your argument other than the person you are talking to is silly and delusional in the truest sense of that word.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't think it's delusional to want to teach people things. When you respectfully deconstruct someone's half truths it can help people understand.

This is not to say that you should take everything seriously or that every person is worth engaging with of course you still have to be selective.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Imagining their existence without proof is though. Teaching people is different then screaming into a black box and relying on faith that it did.

And here we are back at the emotional response overpowering the logical one. If you want to teach actually do it than hoping you are passively doing it.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Is your argument that you don't think anyone else reads what people post on social media, and that it has no effect if they do? Respectfully are you insane?

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Right, see how this didnt change your opinion and the magical third person inspired by our conversation would come away with what from this?

Talking to people has impact. Imagining you are talking to imaginary people when you talk to someone else, is not that. But sure. I am probably insane. It doesnt seem like there is a single sane person on the planet looking at our environment. And me treating each interaction as its own is somehow so much worse than having an imaginary friend to comfort your ego.

To busy trying to find how to defend your position you won't even look at it critically.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

You're proving my point for me: you're boxing with your own ghosts rather than engaging what I actually said.

You try to use hyperbolic exaggeration to pin a list of positions I have never claimed to hold. This is almost certainly from past arguments.

With this exchange as an example, If I was an onlooker I would see someone who told me that there is a purpose in respectful debate and working to add clarity and consciousness instead of trying to win for onlookers and then another who has had no point engaged it and instead lashed out, that would both effectively communicate the point and teach me how to engage with someone who is talking past me.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 0 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

I am responding to what you say you just can't see from outside your own perspective.

You fail to see you doing the same things and assume people will take your side. Its ego. You have a hope of how you are perceived, but its without a backing. Its fine that you have faith but recognize it as such rather than stamping it as truth.

You are exactly like every other person and your impact is what you make it, not what you wish it was. This conversation was the same as arguing against the religious and arguing their prayers are not being listened to. I know I can not argue you out of your position as their is no logical way you argued yourself into this one where you are seen as the hero of logical and empathetic commenting.

Its just silly and it lacks the same sanity you claim me to be missing. I'm outie. Good luck with your prayers.

P.S. the point was neither of us could know what someone reading this would think since we aren't them. And they dont even exist. I am talking to you for you. Not for anyone else later. I respond because I want to respond, not for hypothetical higher ground.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

You're telling on yourself in real time you're accusing me of not seeing outside my position while demonstrating exactly that.

You're diagnosing my motives by something you literally cannot know because you have not engaged with a single word on the screen.

You're making unfalsifiable claims for the sake of, what I can only assume at this point is to insensing me based off of the amount of times you've doubled down and never actually responded to the points I've made

You're projecting your own behavior on me without evidence.

You're claiming that third party is in an online discussion don't exist while writing a public comment. It may be true that no one's reading this because we're so far down the rabbit hole it's very easy to disprove in general, just think about the last time you read a conversation you didn't comment in.

"I respond because I want to respond, not hypothetical higher ground." That's exactly my point I never said I had any moral higher ground just that there are holes in the argument worth exploring, I'm not trying to win or prove you wrong build a scaffold for respectful online debate. This is an example of you anchoring your own trauma to me.

At this point I would like to respectfully disengage I will still read what you say if you have something to say but I won't take it any further because at this point it's cyclical.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Evidence isn't what bullies and bigots rely on. It's their feelings of superiority and their justification of violence.

hence why they will never argue with evidence or facts. They will just insult and harass and threaten.

and if you use the evidence of their own words against them... well get ready to get reported to the mods.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What evidence? You didn't pull this out of your ass, did you?

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I don't believe it!

spoilerGet the joke?

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I hate saying this, I feel gross saying this, but the internet needs restrictions. I don't know what the solution is. I hate all the ones that are being tried right now like age verification or needing an ID, because they really seem more focused on surveillance than anything else... But... God damn.

The general public should not have unfettered access to the internet. I think we have shown that this technology is too dangerous for humanity as a whole. There's just too many idiots and bad actors. Again, I don't know what the solution is. How do you balance privacy and personal freedom with the dangers that come with giving everyone access to everything? Unfortunately, I don't see a solution that doesn't come off as draconian or controlling in some way, shape, or form.

Maybe it's something like a multi-layer internet, where the first layer anyone can access but is mostly read-only with a few exceptions. If you want to access the second layer which allows you to post, comment, upload, etc., you need a license. The barrier to entry should be small, something on the level of a HAM radio license. A simple class, an easy test, and a small one-time fee and you're good for 10 years. You can even allow access for anyone at a library, university, or business.

It wouldn't fix everything, and deep down I know that if anything like this were tried it would be twisted and warped by the powers that be to become just another form of control, but holy shit we need something or society is going to tear itself apart.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 1 points 1 day ago

This already exists. News media for instance used to have standards as to who they would hire - like you'd have to spelel properely and everyhting. Then most of the major outlets were bought up by the wealthy and... well, they still exist but people don't bother to read them anymore.

Even now, blogs exist (like Mastodon) but people on "social media" (where we are now) prefer to simply scroll and speak rather than listen.

What you are saying still exists though - it's simply not here. Read this if you are interested: https://medium.com/@max.p.schlienger/the-cargo-cult-of-the-ennui-engine-890c541cebcb.

[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 0 points 1 day ago

you feel gross saying this for a reason

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world -5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

yeah, your such a big tough strong guy who is so smart.

so strong that you fantasizing about murdering people who upset you by saying things you don't like... so brave. so smart. so strong.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

All thoughts are not created equal. Something tells me yours are created even less equal than most.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol -1 points 1 day ago

Ew. Using the 3/5s compromise even in a comment section is pretty gross.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

yeah, so superior when you're go to is insults and threats.

almost like you're a bully, and a coward.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

yeah, so superior when you’re go to is insults and threats.

yeah, your such a big tough strong guy who is so smart.