Its my crack I can't stop coming back to all while hating every second of it
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
615 points (96.8% liked)
memes
22034 readers
3852 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No 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
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I know this is a meme but I think people look down on internet discussions too much. Obviously it depends on "arguing" type but reddit/lemmy is at least somewhat structured and depending on the community can be good faith and productive. For people who don't live in a big city finding a community to exchange more niche thoughts and opinions (e.g. operating systems, design decisions etc) is incredibly difficult.
I have a related anecdote of being an assistant to older people in IT classes and intellectual starvation is a very big deal. Once people settle down, move further out of the city it's hard to find discussions on their interests without internet comments. The real issue is Facebook groups which are often the only forums available to these people, and they are not fit for scratching this itch for intellectual stimulation as it's design precisely for the opposite of that. This might sound silly, but old people need Lemmy.
It’s my favorite hobby.
At this point, every comment on Lemmy is greeted with angry responses who are willfully choosing to ignore the point I was making and try to fight me.
If I say “I like dogs” someone is going to come along and tell me I’m a jerk for not liking cats even though I didn’t say I don’t like cats. That or someone mansplaining dogs to me.
Calm down Lemmy. Take a breather.
What about birds you heartless monster, you have ruined my day!
It is good fun though.. It's part of the reason I got permabanned from Reddit.. That and criticizing Israel and Nazis.
i got banned for posting a picture of my cat sitting on the porch.
it made me a bird mass murderer, or something. ban was for inciting violence.
it was in 2021. then i was unbanned a few months later with a DM begging me to buy IPO stock.
People like being offended and feeling victimized.
It's a rush and they get addicted to it.
I have a cat and a dog... and a lot of folks will just argue with me on principle or try to make me pick a side. even in real life. or like get in a big stink about if they are purebred or rescue. i have no clue why any of it matters, i guess other than their insecure need to feel validated by getting you to agree with them.
I hate it. It's so stupid and annoying. You can't just like things anymore... anything you enjoy has to 'hurt' someone else and they have to let you know how wrong and bad you are for enjoying it.
I like Cilantro, and I've had internet weirdos tell me that it's able-ist to enjoy it, because my enjoyment of it is some sort of racism against the people for whom it tastes like soap. Or like commentary made at me in the taco line when I order it how it's so gross. It's so ridiculous. I think Pinto beans are disgusting, but I don't feel offended and hurt that other people enjoy them.
Please give your furry friend a treat from me and tell them I said hi!
Of course it was.
They were wrong. How are they going to know they are wrong if no one tells them?
The ones who know they're wrong bother me even more.
Oh, I'm about to argue with one right now you little dumbass
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
Hello, fellow stranger online!
what was i supposed to do, let people just be wrong online?
could be worse, you could let them merge in front of you in traffic.
let... them...?
Is... Is that an option?
It's a hobby.
There's a weird dynamic to arguing online, particularly when it comes to political topics. Most of the time, you won't convince your counterpart. Maybe some point sticks with them later and you'll never know, but either way they're not really the target of the arguments. It's the (potential) audience that the argument is supposed to be for: People less emotionally invested in the conflict may take away something useful from the arguments, people on the fence about an issue might come around to your point, and people sharing your opinion will see that they're not alone and feel affirmed.
Essentially, it's a performance on an public stage for the sake of discourse. Phrased strongly, you don't want "the other side" to dominate the public opinion, so you engage them. In the process, you may hone your own arguments, or you may find them wanting, perhaps even see them start to crack.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Yes, i was entertained for a while.
The end goal of debates is not to change your opponent's mind, but to present your ideas and reasoning to the people watching in a convincing way.
I stop when it is clear the other person is arguing in bad faith.
The block button is your strongest weapon against trolls.
I would argue that counter-trolling is stronger when successfully executed, but also recognize that it's not possible to learn this ability from a Jedi
load more comments
(15 replies)
view more: next ›