And look at the downvotes: People don’t want to hear this - upvotes when someone goes against the “community rules” of Olympia, downvotes for this comment.
But it’s exactly the same thing: Someone is rightly complaining about how absurdly degenerate humanity has become at an event that is meant to be entertaining.
You are complaining that Lemmy removes political posts because people don’t want to see unpleasant political realities. Yet this post, which is about an unpleasant political reality, has 108 upvotes, 1 downvote, and has not been removed. The post objectively and directly contradicts your claim. You’re literally commenting on a Lemmy post saying “Lemmy would remove this post” - but this is clearly false.
You are being downvoted for saying something clearly false, not because of discussing an unpleasant political reality. Your comment does not even discuss an unpleasant political reality. It discusses your opinion of how posts are handled on Lemmy.
You are trying to claim that people downvoting your comment proves that people don’t want to deal with unpleasant political realities, but that’s not why people are downvoting you. The downvotes on your comment only show that people don’t want to deal with objectively and demonstrably false opinions about Lemmy moderation.
"Incidentally, Lemmy would have had this comment removed by a moderator because “no politics.”
And people actually think that’s great because they don’t want to deal with the unpleasantness of reality; they just want to be entertained - see here."
The first sentence is false, because your comment is on Lemmy and not removed.
The second sentence is false, because people on Lemmy do want to deal with unpleasantness, and don’t just want to be entertained - as proven by the engagement in this post and many others.
The claim “The ‘no politics’ rule is too arbitrary” is only hinted at in your comment - if you had instead commented this sentence initially, you probably wouldn’t be downvoted as much. Although it would be a totally off-topic comment for this post. If this is what you intended to communicate, you did not communicate it well.
So now that I know what you’re trying to communicate, I can say that yes, I agree with you that “no politics” is a very arbitrary rule. However, that does not automatically make your other claims true (which we can tell by the fact that your other claims are demonstrably false).
Is it maybe possible that you don’t understand how federation works? And possibly that you’re posting these comments from a non-Lemmy service, which is cross-posting to Lemmy without you realizing it? This might explain the confusion.
So you’re saying that it’s great that athletes are banned from the Olympics if they dare to make a political statement? That the Fediverse should give its moderators the same power as the IOC to protect unpopular opinions from being spread too widely - on the grounds that it should only be fun and games?
No, I am saying nothing about the Olympics and its stance on political statements. I am completely uninterested in anything about the Olympics right now. I am interested only in your wrong statement, and in helping you to see how your belief is wrong.
All of my claims pertain exactly to one specific thing: your claim that “people don’t want to deal with the unpleasantness of reality, they just want to be entertained”, specifically that you seem to say this is prominent on Lemmy.
That claim, you must now admit, for the reasons I have previously explained, is wrong. Don’t you agree?
Because all over Lemmy, I see posts about unpleasant political realities. Genocide, child abuse, political murders, corruption. These are some of the most popular and discussed things on Lemmy.
Yes, there are a few small communities where politics is forbidden, but to say that this is the general case for Lemmy is clearly inaccurate, don’t you think?
My statement refers to the fact that the Lemmy post I linked to has a lot of upvotes by Lemmy standards. From this, I conclude that the statement “no politics in all major comms is a good thing” is a popular opinion around these parts. Well, I disagree, because I am a fan of how this Swiss television commentator so courageously shows people how absurd such a rule is. This guy is going to lose his livelihood for this.
So I think it’s worth a few downvotes to point out to people here how fatal it is to believe that applying the same “no politics” rule would lead to a different outcome than what the Olympic Committee is doing when they campaign to get this heroic Swiss commentator fired.
I can’t understand how someone can have so little capacity for abstraction that they can’t comprehend this.
Okay, I understand what you’re saying, and the funny thing is that I totally agree with you on your opinion about no politics rules. I think no politics rules are silly and too broad, too.
So, knowing that we agree on that, let’s try to be precise here, because I think you still have some misguided views. Particularly :
“From this, I conclude that the statement “no politics in all major comms is a good thing” is a popular opinion around these parts.”
From what I can tell, you’re drawing that conclusion based on one post you saw with about 300 upvotes. This is a really flawed line of reasoning. Have you ever studied statistics or cognitive biases? I would really recommend it, because both of these areas show how easily the human mind can look at one recent or mentally prominent data point and fallaciously extrapolate a too-general conclusion from it. Lemmy has many users with many contradicting views, because we are all different people. Yes, there is a group of Lemmy users that wants to see less politics. But for you to conclude from the existence of that group that it is a dominant, or even popular opinion, is a really serious logical error. In fact, it is an issue with abstraction, exactly like you said. You need to be able to conceive of the community in the abstract, not from one single concrete post before your eyes.
Let’s look at an actual sample of meaningful, multiple data points: the top posts of the last year.
Of the 22 posts on this page, 13 (more than half) of them are political, and many of them deal with unpleasant realities. The other posts are largely about the growth of the Fediverse, which is itself a politically charged topic to most users. From this, it seems clear to me that Lemmy is generally a highly political environment that actually enjoys talking about unpleasant realities.
I know that you had a few direct personal experiences that say otherwise, but this is why the capacity for abstraction aided by statistical thinking is so important.
Very confusing take since from what I see Lemmy is absolutely saturated with unpleasant political realities
Isn’t it still the same logic?
And look at the downvotes: People don’t want to hear this - upvotes when someone goes against the “community rules” of Olympia, downvotes for this comment.
But it’s exactly the same thing: Someone is rightly complaining about how absurdly degenerate humanity has become at an event that is meant to be entertaining.
No, the logic is entirely different.
You are complaining that Lemmy removes political posts because people don’t want to see unpleasant political realities. Yet this post, which is about an unpleasant political reality, has 108 upvotes, 1 downvote, and has not been removed. The post objectively and directly contradicts your claim. You’re literally commenting on a Lemmy post saying “Lemmy would remove this post” - but this is clearly false.
You are being downvoted for saying something clearly false, not because of discussing an unpleasant political reality. Your comment does not even discuss an unpleasant political reality. It discusses your opinion of how posts are handled on Lemmy.
You are trying to claim that people downvoting your comment proves that people don’t want to deal with unpleasant political realities, but that’s not why people are downvoting you. The downvotes on your comment only show that people don’t want to deal with objectively and demonstrably false opinions about Lemmy moderation.
I say that it could hardly be more arbitrary than “no politics.” Nothing else.
No, you say
"Incidentally, Lemmy would have had this comment removed by a moderator because “no politics.”
And people actually think that’s great because they don’t want to deal with the unpleasantness of reality; they just want to be entertained - see here."
The first sentence is false, because your comment is on Lemmy and not removed.
The second sentence is false, because people on Lemmy do want to deal with unpleasantness, and don’t just want to be entertained - as proven by the engagement in this post and many others.
The claim “The ‘no politics’ rule is too arbitrary” is only hinted at in your comment - if you had instead commented this sentence initially, you probably wouldn’t be downvoted as much. Although it would be a totally off-topic comment for this post. If this is what you intended to communicate, you did not communicate it well.
So now that I know what you’re trying to communicate, I can say that yes, I agree with you that “no politics” is a very arbitrary rule. However, that does not automatically make your other claims true (which we can tell by the fact that your other claims are demonstrably false).
Is it maybe possible that you don’t understand how federation works? And possibly that you’re posting these comments from a non-Lemmy service, which is cross-posting to Lemmy without you realizing it? This might explain the confusion.
So you’re saying that it’s great that athletes are banned from the Olympics if they dare to make a political statement? That the Fediverse should give its moderators the same power as the IOC to protect unpopular opinions from being spread too widely - on the grounds that it should only be fun and games?
No, I am saying nothing about the Olympics and its stance on political statements. I am completely uninterested in anything about the Olympics right now. I am interested only in your wrong statement, and in helping you to see how your belief is wrong.
All of my claims pertain exactly to one specific thing: your claim that “people don’t want to deal with the unpleasantness of reality, they just want to be entertained”, specifically that you seem to say this is prominent on Lemmy.
That claim, you must now admit, for the reasons I have previously explained, is wrong. Don’t you agree?
Because all over Lemmy, I see posts about unpleasant political realities. Genocide, child abuse, political murders, corruption. These are some of the most popular and discussed things on Lemmy.
Yes, there are a few small communities where politics is forbidden, but to say that this is the general case for Lemmy is clearly inaccurate, don’t you think?
My statement refers to the fact that the Lemmy post I linked to has a lot of upvotes by Lemmy standards. From this, I conclude that the statement “no politics in all major comms is a good thing” is a popular opinion around these parts. Well, I disagree, because I am a fan of how this Swiss television commentator so courageously shows people how absurd such a rule is. This guy is going to lose his livelihood for this.
So I think it’s worth a few downvotes to point out to people here how fatal it is to believe that applying the same “no politics” rule would lead to a different outcome than what the Olympic Committee is doing when they campaign to get this heroic Swiss commentator fired.
I can’t understand how someone can have so little capacity for abstraction that they can’t comprehend this.
Okay, I understand what you’re saying, and the funny thing is that I totally agree with you on your opinion about no politics rules. I think no politics rules are silly and too broad, too.
So, knowing that we agree on that, let’s try to be precise here, because I think you still have some misguided views. Particularly :
“From this, I conclude that the statement “no politics in all major comms is a good thing” is a popular opinion around these parts.”
From what I can tell, you’re drawing that conclusion based on one post you saw with about 300 upvotes. This is a really flawed line of reasoning. Have you ever studied statistics or cognitive biases? I would really recommend it, because both of these areas show how easily the human mind can look at one recent or mentally prominent data point and fallaciously extrapolate a too-general conclusion from it. Lemmy has many users with many contradicting views, because we are all different people. Yes, there is a group of Lemmy users that wants to see less politics. But for you to conclude from the existence of that group that it is a dominant, or even popular opinion, is a really serious logical error. In fact, it is an issue with abstraction, exactly like you said. You need to be able to conceive of the community in the abstract, not from one single concrete post before your eyes.
Let’s look at an actual sample of meaningful, multiple data points: the top posts of the last year.
https://discuss.tchncs.de/?dataType=Post&listingType=All&sort=TopYear
Of the 22 posts on this page, 13 (more than half) of them are political, and many of them deal with unpleasant realities. The other posts are largely about the growth of the Fediverse, which is itself a politically charged topic to most users. From this, it seems clear to me that Lemmy is generally a highly political environment that actually enjoys talking about unpleasant realities.
I know that you had a few direct personal experiences that say otherwise, but this is why the capacity for abstraction aided by statistical thinking is so important.