Garbanzo beans = chickpeas

It’s good to that you recognize that cheese is extremely bourgeois.

K.

The good thing is that people who care about nutrition tend to understand the value of prevention.

The burden of evidence is really on them, the world of nutrition science is very mature in terms of evidence based dietary recommendations and that mass of science is going to suddenly go away because these people cry of conspiracies and epidemiology while sharing meat-industry funded papers (including epidemiology related ones). Much like other pseudoscience fandoms, they exist because of being privileged and loud, not because of being correct.

The very idea is as dangerous as drinking raw milk while throwing fuel & matches in every forest. I wouldn’t be a good moderator for that as I would be morally obligated it to shut it down or use it to post ‘demotivational’ content. These “carnivores” are at the level of flatearthers.

Dipterror

they’re free to choose the narrative that makes sense to them, even if one narrative is being pushed much more heavily than the other.

This just translates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean or “reversion to mediocrity”. Much like 🤬🤬🤬🤬it’s /all, every time that mainstream spills into a community it ruins it and brings it closer to the mainstream.

In biology, you may recognize some of these phenomena from biochemistry: osmosis and diffusion. The demand to disable the “semi-permeable membrane” ends the purpose of the compartment.

Either the invading posts/comments get removed or the influx of participants (including voting) has to be rationed somehow. Doing neither is not a discussion about narratives, it’s a mobbing. It’s the opposite of promoting discourse, as that setup heavily favors the “mainstream” narrative, the status quo.

I should mention that I’ve been a moderator of internet communities since before Web 2.0 and I find the moderation tools for Lemmy type platforms to be terrible. If the expectation is to not have practical moderation, but instead to separate into fedi-islands and block the problematic networks, well, that would be a very blunt way to get to the same goals. Instead of having moderators individually ban users, you have admins ban entire networks of users.

There is no getting away from the need for moderators. Musk proved that again since he took over Twitter. Zuckerberg is proving it again now. You’re not building a protopia by hampering moderation, you’re building a cyber-wasteland. Any success with that will be temporary, like a pump and dump: you get a period of growth and a honeymoon, and then the critical mass of assholes is achieved and they turn everything to shit, and then most users have to start searching for greener pastures food forests to migrate to. Another term for that is unsustainable, it can’t last.

The point of this is that you should be able to counter those comments with words, and not need moderation/admin tools to do so.

Rationality is much more complex than you think. The experience of the COVID-19 pandemic should’ve taught you that already, first hand. The simple model of persuasion by presenting reasonable arguments and evidence is wrong. There’s an entire field looking into cognitive biases that show how irrational humans are. How exactly do you plan to argue with people who believe in “alternative facts” and “post-truth”?

All I see in the article you posted is a lack of experience in dealing with bullshit, a lack of understanding of the viral or memetic nature of bullshit.

It’s harder to just dismiss that comment if it’s interrupting your fictional story that’s pretending to be real. “The moon is upside down in Australia” does a whole lot more damage to the flat earth argument than “Nobody has crossed the ice wall” does to the truth. The purpose of allowing both of these is to help everyone get a little closer to reality and avoid incubating extreme cult-like behavior online.

It’s disheartening that you haven’t learned yet that flateartherism is a variant of creationism, another religiously inspired pseudoscience.

why?

Eternal recurrence

"What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: ‘This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!’

“Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: ‘You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.’ If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you. The question in each and every thing, ‘Do you desire this once more and innumerable times more?’ would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight. Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life?”

• Friedrich Nietzsche

Ufff… these were not the most advanced societies at the time (not philosophically, not technologically, not culturally, not in any meaningful way):

The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone. – Frank Wilhoit

There are paradoxes in the system, but rest assured that these religions, the Abrahamic ones and other World religions, are all conservative in their construction.

You are not going to find the answers to the paradoxes, you’re not going to find the equilibrium. I’m certainly not going to give you the solutions in some obscure comment, this kind of stuff requires shelves of books and papers.

Note that if you think the satire magazine is some dangerous fascist organization posting their propaganda in order to recruit for an underground militia type organization, you have to prove that. It’s not too difficult to prove or disprove, but that can be a skill in of itself, something all moderators everywhere should have.

Here’s one of their covers satirizing French racists:

“Islamists” are politically far-right - paleoconservatives, theocrats, fascists.

#bystanding

(it’s a word)

Why are you maintaining it? Or is Homer stealing some parts?

Fuck cars.

We need a Tab Day.

ಠ╭╮ಠ

Welcome to dangerous bullshit awareness. Strap in and start reading, it’s going to get worse.

Naomi Klein has a bunch of nice contemporary books to start to get a grasp on it. I don’t know^* of a book that’s specific to your case, but I hope that you’ll understand that you’re case is not that specific.

LET’S GOOOO