Big oil quietly walks back on climate pledges as global heat records tumble
Big oil quietly walks back on climate pledges as global heat records tumble
Energy firms have made record profits by increasing production of oil and gas, far from their promises of rolling back emissions
You're viewing part of a thread.
Yeah, that’s outside of my federation account.
I am so confused at your comments here. It's a webpage. You can point your browser to (or click the link:) https://lemmy.ml. You can do it on your computer, on your phone, on your refrigerator. It's a website. Just like https://youtube.com is a website. I don't know why you're even mentioning kbin here, it would be like saying you can't view facebook because you're logged in to kbin.
I understand the intent of the rule, but I’ve seen communities who require “only respectful discourse” get swamped by sealions and bad-faith “just asking questions” types with dogwhistles and veiled references. In my opinion, sometimes namecalling and insulting is a necessary counter to someone spreading a poisonous bad-faith idea
The presence of name calling and insults is always a problem. The absence of name calling and insults does not guarantee there is no problem. Moderation is still necessary even with "only disrespectful discourse" rules; any effective moderation needs to know how to moderate as well: moderators need to know how to spot and resolve types of detractive content that aren't simply name calling.
Name calling and insults are also not a productive way to address what you consider bad-faith conversation. You should attack an idea and not the person. There are already other rules in place to help address when the idea itself is harmful: there is a rule against bigotry, xenophobia, racism, sexism, and the like; there is a rule about knowingly spreading false information. I would also stipulate (and this is personal speculation but I feel it to be an accurate view): most people who are "spreading propaganda" are not doing it with the knowledge that what they're saying is propaganda and with the intent to spread propaganda; most probably believe what they say to be true for various reasons including their media exposure, the political climate in their interpersonal interactions and their community and country, their parental influence on their beliefs, etc. If you look at it from that point of view, what good is insulting someone who isn't actually acting with malice? They're going to be less likely to reevaluate their beliefs and look at what you're saying objectively if you're spewing emotionally charged personally attacks at them, even if you are mixing in valid logic and evidence. And you're hopefully not here purely to argue and throw insult; hopefully at least part of you wants to learn and help others learn. If that's even part of what's driving your participation, wouldn't you want to do so in a manner that's more productive to everyone involved? So, in my opinion: if they're not acting with malice, insulting them does nothing good; if they are active with malice, report them and if there's proper moderation it'll be removed.
I am so confused at your comments here. It’s a webpage.
It means there's no link to it from the [email protected] community that I'm viewing. I would have to proactively navigate to a new website to check the rules, and why would the instance have different rules than the community? I wouldn't naturally in the course of logging into my kbin account, opening this thread, and commenting on it, see those rules or a link to them anywhere.
moderators need to know how to spot and resolve types of detractive content that aren’t simply name calling.
This is a nearly impossible ask, because that type of content is tailored specifically for plausible deniability. There's a ready-made "mods are overreaching/censuring" argument if they get banned or silenced. Community censure is the only way to stop these types.
Name calling and insults are also not a productive way to address what you consider bad-faith conversation.
I disagree. Attacking an idea requires a lot of effort; indeed, that's why sealioning and JAQing off is a type of trolling at all. It's asymmetric warfare, designed to wear a person down who's trying to attack an idea.
Conversely, responding to a bad faith argument with "that's stupid and you're stupid for saying it" is a no-win position for a concern troll. They either waste time getting dragged into the mud with you trading insults, which doesn't convince anyone of the thing they're pushing. Or they leave and they don't get the chance to push the thing in the first place.
what good is insulting someone who isn’t actually acting with malice?
It's a quarantine. How often have you managed to convince someone of something by arguing with them on the internet? Or been convinced of something yourself? It's quite rare. The whole idea is that forums are a debate stage, and the 85% of forum users who just lurk are the audience. You're not trying to convince your opponent; you're trying to convince the audience.
hopefully at least part of you wants to learn and help others learn.
Sometimes, yes. But we can't ignore that the internet is an ideological battleground. For us (democrats, and US leftists in general), ignoring that fact got us Trump in 2016, and I don't want to make that mistake again.
And this is just a personal thing, but I'll often get more involved with arguments than with learning when my brain is spent from work. It's easy (for me) to point out propaganda and cognitive dissonance, and yes to call people names. It takes more mental effort to learn or teach.
And this is just a personal thing, but I’ll often get more involved with arguments than with learning when my brain is spent from work. It’s easy (for me) to point out propaganda and cognitive dissonance, and yes to call people names. It takes more mental effort to learn or teach.
So you're here to play a game. To play whack-a-mole. I find that to be a disturbing approach to interacting with humans. I know I'm idealistic, but for anyone who (like me) is attempting to have real human-to-human conversation, someone coming in with the intent to just shout "fallacy!", "propaganda!", "wrong!" and play a game is extremely offensive.
For us (democrats, and US leftists in general), ignoring that fact got us Trump in 2016, and I don’t want to make that mistake again.
You have contradicted yourself here with another of your comments. In another comment you said
How often have you managed to convince someone of something by arguing with them on the internet? Or been convinced of something yourself? It’s quite rare.
And now you're saying you have a duty to convince others to change their mind by arguing with them on the internet. So is honest argumentation effective or isn't it?
No, I think you misunderstand. If I'm arguing with you, my intent is (usually) not to convince you, personally. This is usually because I pick arguments with people I suspect are speaking in bad faith, or who are heavily emotionally invested in an idea. My intent is to convince lurkers.
You might also notice that as I get further down an argument thread, I tend to engage more directly with the person I'm arguing with. That's because there's less audience down here, and we're actually having at least a little bit of a productive conversation.
So is honest argumentation effective or isn’t it?
It can be effective but it is rarely efficient. In the time it takes you to present a detailed, sourced, and well-reasoned argument, and convince a single person who strongly felt the opposite way, twenty other people who have no strong feelings either way have been convinced by a well-timed quip or insult. And that's if you could convince the other person at all.
The only thing you’ve convinced any reader of is how much you suck.
Rule 2 violation!