imaqtpie

A few things.

• Admins can and do ban accounts that downvote rampantly

• Obvious bot brigading is obvious. It became harder to tell on reddit when they started fuzzing the vote numbers, but could frequently still be figured out. It's easier on Lemmy, someone just has to report some unusual voting pattern to the admin and they can check if the voting accounts look like bots.

• I was once told that the algorithm is less weighted towards upvoted comments and more weighted towards recent comments on Lemmy, when compared with reddit. I am not sure if this is true, but I have noticed that recent comments tend to rise above the top upvoted comments in threads when viewing by Hot.

• Without any way for bad content to be filtered out, you just end up with an endless stream of undifferentiated noise. The voting system actually protects the platform from the encroachment of bots and the ignorant mob, because it helps filter them out from the users who have something of value that they want to contribute.

Lemmy is highly sensitive about transgender topics. We have a very high percentage of trans people, and thus mods tend to be quite zealous when protecting this space from transphobia. They may sometimes be overzealous, but that's not the worst thing in the world.

I don't think a permaban was necessary based on your comments. But I also don't think you would be happy about making other Lemmings uncomfortable or driving them away from the platform because they feel unwelcome. Is it more important that we all perfectly agree on various semantic definitions, or that people feel welcome and able to connect and communicate with others on Lemmy?

I'm not criticizing you or anything like that because I don't think you were trying to hurt anyone and I think the ban was excessive. But I'm just trying to help you see the situation from the other side and maybe approach the topic with a little more delicacy in the future.

I dunno man. How can you be sure the comments you're seeing on reddit are from bots? There are some bots, but there are also a lot of ignorant mfers on that site.

I would also say that Lemmy is much better moderated, partially because it's still small enough that the mods and admins can stay on top of everything. Reddit is so chaotic that absolutely horrific comments and threads tend to slip through the cracks quite regularly nowadays.

Well... some people still are. Just not nearly as many on Lemmy compared to Reddit

Congratulations on your eleventy-first birthday, Mister Baggins!

Now that's some real dedication. Thank you for your cervix.

I don't think anybody is expecting women to do administrative work on behalf of men's rights. It's more that women tend to react with outright hostility when men advocate for other men.

It's actually the feminists who frequently argue that men need to be fighting for women's issues. I haven't seen the reverse from male advocates, partially because it's quite obvious that such a request would be summarily denied. Men generally just want:

• funding for men's shelters

• sympathy & aid for male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault

• solutions for the growing educational achievement gap

• a discussion about various legal discrepancies when it comes to conscription, marriage, and parental rights and responsibilities.

None of this requires women to assist or flex their institutional power. But when men are systematically denied access and funding for various forms of governmental aid, it seems like certain women are flexing some of their institutional power to prevent men from having access to the same kind of social safety net that women enjoy.

It’s emergency airplane crash logic. Put your own supply of air on before you help the person next to you.

This is a faulty analogy, because men's issues are women's issues and vice versa. It's impossible for women to actually solve their own problems without also solving men's problems. How are women ever going to keep their oxygen masks on if they are surrounded by men who are suffocating and trying to rip the mask from their face? In order to help anyone, you need to help everyone.

To be fair, the men's rights movement is absolutely characterized as alt-right by the mainstream media. People tend to assume all sorts of things about you when you bring up any kind of men's issue. Most people (including other men) have difficulty empathizing with grown men, and thus they subconsciously expect that men's advocates are motivated by something else, such as misogyny. It's hard to move past our biological and cultural tendencies and view men as vulnerable and in need of support.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Trump, Biden, and Bernie are all too old. They could all die at any time, and thus it's not an effective political argument for either side.

The reason why Biden is being attacked from that angle more effectively is because he is showing signs of dementia. That's a whole other issue aside from the likelihood of death.

Uhh, I just explained why. People can argue whatever they want, but the actual behavior and performance of the candidate supercedes their biological age as a barometer for electability.

Also I never said it wouldn't matter, in fact I specifically acknowledged that it would be a talking point, then explained why that wasn't the most important factor at play.

You do realize that age is not a perfect proxy for mental competence? A good number of people remain mentally sharp well into their 90s, while others experience rapid dementia as early as their 60s.

I'm not saying his age wouldn't be a talking point, but I'm damn sure Bernie could express his platform with more clarity and vitality than Biden at this point. Unfortunately I dont think it's a real possibility, but it's stupid to act like the the actual birth date matters. It's the signs of cognitive decline that are problematic.

I dunno what that guy was thinking, but it seems obvious to me that nuclear fusion is the long term solution for energy generation.

Nuclear fission not so much, but it's definitely debatable which has more fundamental flaws between fission and wind/hydro/solar. All renewable energy sources ultimately depend on natural processes which are not reliable or permanent. And they also tend to disrupt the environment to some extent.

Nuclear fission has no such limitations, but instead trades long term risk for short term stability. Basically renewable sources are and always will be somewhat unreliable, and Nuclear fission is the least bad reliable energy source to pair with the renewables. So in the medium term, fission makes a lot more sense than fossil fuels, and in the long term we should be looking to fusion.