Actual Discussion

1,968 readers

1 active

0 users here now

Are you tired of going into controversial threads and having people not discuss things, circlejerking, or using emotional responses in place of logic? Us too.

Welcome to Actual Discussion!

DO:

Be civil. This doesn't mean you shouldn't challenge people, just don't be a dick.
Upvote interesting or well-articulated points, even if you may not agree.
Be prepared to back up any claims you make with an unbiased source.
Be willing to be wrong and append your initial post to show a changed view.
Admit when you are incorrect or spoke poorly. Upvote when you see others correct themselves or change their mind.
Feel free to be a "Devil's Advocate". You do not have to believe either side of an issue in order to generate solid points.
Discuss hot-button issues.
Add humour, and be creative! Dry writing isn't super fun to read or discuss.

DO NOT:

Call people names or label people. We fight ideas, not people here.
Ask for sources, and then not respond to the person providing them.
Mindlessly downvote people you disagree with. We only downvote people that do not add to the discussion.
Be a bot, spam, or engage in self-promotion.
Duplicate posts from within the last month unless new information is surfaced on the topic.
Strawman.
Expect that personal experience or morals are a substitute for proof.
Exaggerate. Not everyone slightly to the right of you is a Nazi, and not everyone left of you is a Tankie.
Copy an entire article in your post body. It's just messy. Link to it, summarize, and add your thoughts.

For more casual conversation instead of competitive ranked conversation, try: !casualconversation@piefed.social

founded 2 years ago

moderation log

moderators

AceTKen@lemmy.ca

jet@hackertalks.com

People prefer to suppress different perspectives rather then engaging - especially on social media (hackertalks.com)

submitted 1 year ago by jet@hackertalks.com to c/actual_discussion@lemmy.ca

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There is a book called “On Being Certain”, by Robert A Burton who’s a neurologist, discussing how we know what we know. He postulates that the sense of “conviction” has less to do with objective reality and far more to do with “a feeling of knowing.” He also suggests that we are far less self-aware than we think we are.

People see a different viewpoint and their body reactively brings up all the conditioning received from popular advice. Instinctively, they hit the downvote button, thinking that they are rightfully decreasing the noise of a dangerous idea and protecting the less aware.

Most people aren’t interested in debate nor challenging the reality they find themselves in, or even the framing and interpretation of that reality.

Is lemmy supposed to be better then other social media?

How do we make lemmy a more thoughtful place? Or how do we create meaningful spaces on lemmy for thoughtful discussion of opposing views?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 10 months ago

that is the problem with voting. some folks treat it as a rare thing to only do in the most extreme case and I was like that. now though its useful for me to upvote everything due to an effect I want in my feed. others downvote almost everything or upvote almost everything. Its would only actually be useful if everyone actually voted on everything genuinly which honestly would be a bit of a chore from my perspective. I really wish I could order by number of comments in the he last X period of time. heck would even get better if it could be more meta and be able to select for most chains with Y number of users. The only thing that would scare me about that is bots or folks knowing people sort by that and gaming the system. Oooh. I would love to be able to filter out for links or images with no body of the person talking about why they like the image or link.

permalink

fedilink

source