This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Ensign_Crab, in What from reddit do you hope to never see on lemmy?

Moderators who coddle bigots.



People who wear mustaches



Battlestar Galactica


There is a decent argument historically that communism and other left movements are extremist, racist, and anti-lgbtq. When you start banning concepts, you open your communities up to several things.

  1. Group think
  2. Banning of other radical ideologies that you may agree with
  3. You alienate those people from exposure to better concepts
  4. You jump start compaction cycles for large scale propaganda organizations that could lead to actual violence

I said “bigots” and you immediately jumped to “whatabout communists?!”


I provided four reasons why this was relevant and you jumped from communism to whataboutism? Talk about being intellectually lazy (Or a state-sponsored account)


You linked "communism" and "left movements" to "banning concepts" as if they go hand in hand.

You're question begging hard, and all of your "reasons" are built on top of propaganda and logical fallacies.


Left-leaning radical ideologies are banned all the time and usually use the same laws set up to ban far-right movements. I am not begging the question but feel free to continue spouting off the names of logical fallacies. I almost have a bingo.

I deal with propaganda and strategic messaging professionally, so by all means attempt to lecture.


I provided four reasons why this was relevant

After starting right out the gate with:

There is a decent argument historically that communism and other left movements are extremist, racist, and anti-lgbtq.

We’re talking about today. On a relatively new community. Frankly, I see no reason to tolerate the bigots you’re so keen on coddling until they take over and make this another version of reddit’s the_donald, complete with organizing nazi rallies. Particularly not with the vague and spurious “there is a decent argument” hand wavy FUD that you didn’t explain as a justification. Are a lot of people saying it?

Moving onto your 4 points, let’s look at how they worked so well over at reddit, with all the virtuous acceptance of intolerance and nazi-coddling they’ve done, shall we?

Group think

No, reddit has never had groupthink. Not for an instant. Thank god they let the bigots in otherwise they’d have groupthink!

Banning of other radical ideologies that you may agree with

Post anything on conservative even slightly counter to their bigoted orthodoxy and see how that goes. Hell, suggest that fascism is not amenable to reason and must be opposed with force anywhere on reddit and see how that goes.

You alienate those people from exposure to better concepts

They had abundant exposure to better concepts on reddit. Look how well that’s worked so far. Clearly the answer is to let them spread their shit all over lemmy.

You jump start compaction cycles for large scale propaganda organizations that could lead to actual violence

the_donald literally promoted and helped organize a nazi rally where Heather Heyer was run over and killed by a nazi’s car. On lovely ol’ bigot-coddling reddit. The sub was not banned for years afterwards. I do not want that for lemmy. I left reddit the instant an alternative that didn’t welcome bigotry got enough users.

Not everywhere has to entertain bigots. There’s already too many places that do. A community that welcomes bigots is unwelcoming to everyone but bigots. But holy shit, does it ever drive engagement.

Or a state-sponsored account

Oh, we’re throwing around wild accusations now?


Yes, I started with the reasons why left-leaning movements have been restricted historically right out of the gate. It is not coddling bigots. It is providing context on why any form of radical idea is restricted, including ideas that we tend to celebrate in these communities. Communist propaganda has historically put fourth that anything that is not communist is inherently fascist. Is that your definition of fascism? Are folks allowed to talk about the French protests? To many they are based in fascism.

In my opinion, you are literally promoting groupthink and closing yourself off to ideas by attempting to ban content that you disagree with based on your own definitions. Life is a little more nuanced when you are not talking about specific issues by which you know the full context.

Also, is it a relatively new community or is it an established one that you want to preserve the culture of? I am getting very mixed messages from you.


Yes, I started with the reasons why left-leaning movements have been restricted historically right out of the gate.

No, you started with an unsupported allegation about all left-leaning movements:

There is a decent argument historically that communism and other left movements are extremist, racist, and anti-lgbtq.

Support it or don’t accuse me of being intellectually lazy.

Communist propaganda has historically put fourth that anything that is not communist is inherently fascist.

Why am I getting “Anyone who disagrees with you is a fascist! Everyone’s a fascist to you leftists!” vibes from this?

Also, is it a relatively new community

In the context of broader world history, which is what you were talking about when you were baselessly calling anyone on the left anti-lgbtq.

or is it an established one that you want to preserve the culture of?

It’s a new community that I don’t want overrun with nazis like you’d prefer.


Asking for proof of this is like asking for proof that the Constitution exists. It’s a very common thing I referenced. Western anarchism has a more positive history but largely linked to furtherment of the cause over actual progression of liberties.




My point in bringing it up is that it’s extremely easy to craft a narrative that starts including relatively positive forms of speech in with the banning. That includes these little forums and your approach is exactly what happened on Reddit eventually leading to the current influx of members here now. The second you start restricting speech is when the forum starts consolidating power.

Donald Trump was elected president primarily because he could control his messaging and direct different narratives to different demographics. He was unable to do that as president so he lost the next election. By encouraging the siloing of information sources, you enable that behavior.

I don’t want Nazis but the best way to turn them is not by sending them into a forum where they are left unchecked.


Asking for proof of this is like asking for proof that the Constitution exists. It’s a very common thing I referenced. Western anarchism has a more positive history but largely linked to furtherment of the cause over actual progression of liberties.

So you’re using historical examples of dictatorial communist regimes to tar the entire modern left as permanently and irredeemably bigoted. Got what you meant from the very beginning in its entirety in perfect crystal clarity. Meanwhile, the bigots are talking about eradicating trans people right now.

My point in bringing it up is that it’s extremely easy to craft a narrative that starts including relatively positive forms of speech in with the banning.

Your point is that because some communist dictatorships were bigoted, we should tolerate bigotry from fascists right now in new communities. No. For starters, bigots are still perfectly welcome on reddit and twitter and facebook and 4chan and stormfront and so on. Not everywhere has to be welcoming to bigots. Not everywhere has to be a high minded polyannish naive community where no one locks their doors and if we just engage with bigots on their terms everything will be hunky dory and they’ll stop wanting to genocide my friends. Not everywhere needs to be a complicit platform for hate.

your approach is exactly what happened on Reddit eventually leading to the current influx of members here now

reddit welcomed bigots since day one. Lemmy needn’t.

I don’t want Nazis but the best way to turn them is not by sending them into a forum where they are left unchecked.

Do they not already have enough recruiting grounds already for your liking? Why let them have this one too? Why should people on lemmy have to deal with all the hate against minorities? Why must bigots be welcome just to make others unwelcome?


My point here is not that I am. My point is that others would. The fact that you still do not understand that after reiterating it repeatedly in every single reply indicates to me that you are either not reading my replies or not in this discussion in good faith. You are what this community should leave behind. There was way too much of this on Reddit.


Well, we’ll see what happens. I hope lemmy continues to be inhospitable to bigots.


And you got downvoted for that truthful reality.

aleph, avatar

r/moderatepolitics was the worst for that.

Their moderation policy basically allowed any abhorrent view as long as it was expressed in a “civil” manner.

Trolls and racists could say things like “well, in my humble opinion, black people are just inherently violent and unintelligent” and anyone who got irate and called them out would get a warning and/or banned.


Unsurprisingly, that’s a fast track to becoming a racist sub. See also the Nazi bar parable.

pizza_rolls avatar

This is my #1 also. So many people "just asking questions"

I also hate the circlejerk of people going "I cannot possibly comprehend being gay/trans/disabled/whatever but I let them do what they want!" They're not aliens, you can listen to them explain what they are going through and have empathy. It's not very complicated.


Oh don’t get me started on the sealioning from the bigots! “But we need to have more Valuable Discussion™ about my horseshit that’s been debunked a million times already!”


I think it’s a good attitude to serve as a stepping stone away from bigotry, it appeals to the bigots by offering some common ground while giving them a path to becoming less outwardly bigoted. Social progress takes time, especially with attitudes engrained as much as homophobia used to be.

zalack avatar

Agreed, I grew up in a very conservative area and was pretty homophobic when I started college.

"They can do whatever they want, just don't ask me to like it" was an important stepping stone towards "oh shit, love is love" and finally actually listening to the experience of gay people.


Ultimately "live and let live" is all we can ask of anyone. If that is their attitude then they aren't a bigot. People are expecting too much of other people now - not embracing someone does not make someone a bigot.

Your starting position to me is honestly enough but unfortunately many people are way away from that. As a gay guy, I'd be happy with people just saying "do whatever you want want, just don't ask me to like it". The problem is too many people claim that with words but then actually act differently.


I don’t want to see your junk and I don’t care who you’re sleeping with. I don’t understand why that’s a hard position for people to take.


Don't understand why you stereotyped people and basically insulted them and then wondered why people are offended? Yea? No one wants to see your fucking junk either. No, just because you're not gay doesn't make you any more or less likely to do what you are accusing them of.




Exactly what I said you bigot.


I think you missed his point.


You are the one who miss the point.


Lol, whatever.


reddit never functioned as a stepping stone away from bigotry. A lot of mods were content to offer their subs and users to serve as stepping stones for bigots to walk all over, though.

GeekFTW, in Why is the boost button so underused?
GeekFTW avatar

Boost, to my understanding, is only a thing on Kbin. Ernest coded Kbin to have better connectivity with Mastodon (Boost was originally our analogue for a retweet) then Lemmy does, and that's one of the options he made (the Microblog section being another. The non-Kbin instances (so all of lemmy, and thus most of the people who can read this thread) just don't have a Boost button.

That being said Boost has changed a bit in terms of how it works since it was created, and it's gonna keep being changed (literally they have said they are working on it lol). For me I basically Boost anything I upvote as a force of habit at this point.

Edit: And to those even from Kbin who don't know since I see some of you in the comments - It's currently like a super upvote. Boost something and it'll make the comment rise higher in the thread, like higher upvoted comments on a reddit thread would go up to the top. (Less if it's changed since the time I learned that from some other fediverse schmuck lmao).


Thanks for the insight. So if I boost something it's only relevant for kbin-users? I actually like it a lot. I can upvote something but still make a distinction to what I consider a quality contribution or something that requires more exposure.

GeekFTW avatar

I have not tested it with accounts from other instances or platforms but:

Boost - Do so on a Microblog page on a Kbin magazine - Kbin users can see it higher in the Hot/Active, as well as Mastodon users seeing something retweeted via that hashtag ('s microblog would be visible to them via ).

Boost - On a Microblog page on a Lemmy Instance - Pretty sure only Kbin can see it lol. Lemmy can't see the microblog stuff I don't think, and Mastodon can't see Microblog content there either irc.

Boost - Do so on a Thread on Kbin - Influence the comment order in the same means as Reddit upvotes. I.E. If I boost a particular (parent) comment, and no other comment has a boost, that comment shoots to the top as if on Reddit I upvoted a comment and every other (parent) comment on the thread had 0 or negative points.


Again I may be wrong.

Edit: If someone from Lemmy can confirm: Is the parent comment below mine on this thread by WalnutWalrus? If so, yes kbin boosts in a thread influence the hot/active comment ordering for lemmy users when they view a thread too (I boosted it to test).


That's very insightful, thank you. I hope it becomes standard practice all over the lemmyverse. I think it can optimise what content you see first.


When I sort by hot on Lemmy and kbin, I get a different order on each site. Sometimes it’s similar, but it can vary quite a bit. It doesn’t seem like boosts affect the comment order on Lemmy.

GeekFTW avatar

That's what I figured, which makes sense.


Maybe You can help me Out; what's the difference between a thread, a post and a microblog?

GeekFTW avatar

Kbin has two parts (unlike lemmy). The Reddit half, and the Twitter half. Reddit half is Threads.

Thread = A normal Reddit post. Forum style, you make a thread, people comment on it (I.E. what we're doing right now)

Comment = A comment on a thread.

The other half is the Twitter half, the Microblog.

Post = A tweet.

Replies = Comments on a tweet.

Things you post on the threads will federate across kbin and lemmy. Things you post on the microblog is federated across kbin, and mastodon via the hashtag of the magazine (i.e.'s microblog corelates to on mastodon, /m/doctorwho to , etc). We, via kbin, will see microblogs on lemmy communities as well but I'm not sure if anyone see's those but kbin users lol.


Just from quickly poking around, I think Boost only alters the comment order for kbin instances. Lemmy only seems affected by upvotes & downvotes. Lemmy also seems to give each post or comment an automatic upvote (or maybe that is just, idk), whereas kbin does not do this. I am also not sure if the automatic upvote transfers between kbin and Lemmy. This all being said, I could also just be completely wrong and misinterpreting things lol.

As a side-note, I can only seem to get my posts and comments to show if I boost my own post... I am not sure if that is just a kbin thing or something unique to my particular instance.

GeekFTW avatar

As a side-note, I can only seem to get my posts and comments to show if I boost my own post... I am not sure if that is just a kbin thing or something unique to my particular instance.

I'm going to assume the latter. I've made posts and comments (just here on mind you) without upvoting and boosting, come back an hour later and others have seen it/commented/upvoted/etc so what you're describing definitely does not seem normal.

sab avatar

One thing I try to keep in mind when boosting content is that if (hypothetically) someone is following me from a microblogging platform, what they will get from me in their feed is a) my original posts and b) whatever content I boost. So it has the potential of affecting visibility of content beyond the original threads or community it belongs to. This is especially true if you make use of the microblogging function in kbin to interact with the broader Fediverse, in which case people might follow you from there.

In consequence, I try to boost content that I think has a general interest beyond the specific thread it is located in, and that I think calls for extra attention. If I merely agree with something or find it valuable in context I stick to just upvoting.

There is of course no problem with following a different philosophy - there's no real reason to worry about whether your profile lends itself to being followed by Mastodon users. But it's something to be aware of when figuring out how to use the function. :)


I'm not a person with a qualified opinion by any means but that sounds like it can be abused to streamline shady stuff like astroturfing or brigading.

sab avatar

It's rather the opposite, as it is the alternative to an algorithm choosing which content will be visible. Algorithms are easily abused - a curated list of real people you follow and trust to share interesting content less so.

On kbin it's a little different thhough, as content widely boosted across the fediverse is given improved visibility by default. In this system we rely more on servers full of bad actors being defederated.

Hank, (edited )

Oh I hope it won't cause a ruckus on kbin. But I bet you can easily switch it off it it gets blatantly abused.

Eavolution avatar

I use it differently to upvoting.

I'll upvote something that's funny, relevant, or just what I want to be seeing. It's hard to put into words.

I'll boost something important, or that I think other people should see, such as that an important person has died, or a useful comment.

krayj, in Can we settle this: how many holes does a straw have?

1 ‘hole’ if you can call it that. Imagine if the straw started life as a solid cylinder and you had to bore out the inside to turn it into a straw: if that were the case, you would drill 1 hole all the way through it.

Another analogy is a donut. Would you agree that a donut has just 1 hole? I would say yes. Now stretch that donut vertically untill you have a giant cylinder with a hole in the middle. That’s basically now just a straw. The fact you stretched it doesn’t increase the number of holes it has.

wolfshadowheart avatar

A strownut if you will


I would eat that

experbia avatar

Imagine if the straw started life as a solid cylinder and you had to bore out the inside to turn it into a straw

This would mean a straw has a hole, yes. It would be like a donut indeed - donuts are first whole, then have the hole punched out of them. This meets a dictionary definition of a hole (a perforation). A subtractive process has removed an area, leaving a hole.

But straws aren't manufactured this way, their solid bits are additively formed around the empty area. I personally don't think this meets the definition.

Your topological argument is strong though - both a donut and straw share the same topological feature, but when we use these math abstractions, things can be a bit weird. For instance, a hollow torus (imagine a creme-filled donut that has not yet had its shell penetrated to fill it) has two holes. One might not expect this since it looks like it still only obviously has one, but the "inner torus" consisting of negative space (that represents the hollow) is itself a valid topological hole as well.


“This meets a dictionary definition of a hole.

But straws aren’t manufactured this way, their solid bits are additively formed around the empty area. I personally don’t think this meets the definition.”

By this logic, how I make a doughnut changes whether it has a hole.

If I make a long string of dough and then connect the ends together and cook it (a forming process) it doesn’t have a hole.

If I cut a hole in a dough disc and then cook (a perforation) it has a hole. Even though the final result is identical?

Kolanaki, avatar

On the matter of the doughnut: If you make them at home, you’re almost always just rolling a cylinder and then making it a circle. I have never actually punched a hole out of a doughnut. That would mess up the toroidal shape.

But also: So you’re saying a straw has 0 holes?


Maybe she’s not, but I am. An intact straw has zero holes. If you stick a pin in the side, it has one. If you stick a pin all the way through, it has two.

zalack avatar

What if you bored from both ends of the cylinder until they meet in the middle?

There would be two holes until, at the moment of contact, it becomes one?

Does the method with which the straw shaft is created influence the number of holes it has?


Not only that, but if you pinch it in the middle until the passage closes, could it still be called just one hole?


No, topologically there would be no holes until the moment of contact. This is the same as there being no hole when drilling through from only one side until the surface on the opposing side is broken.


So how does one “dig a hole?” Straight to China? Or whatever is opposite of you?


Topologically, yes. Buy you could also go down a bit, make a lateral tunnel, then pop back up.

livus avatar

So what you are saying is, if I dig a hole that doesn't go anywhere, then that's not really a hole?


In topology, yes. It must go through to count.

livus avatar

That's fascinating. So most of what I would call "holes" are what, in topographical terms, hollows? Depressions?


I don't even know if they have a name for that since it can simply be undone by stretching the object, which is allowed under topological rules.


Topologically, yes. Coincidentally, “Hole to Nowhere” is the best Talking Heads parody album.

livus avatar

Heh I will have to check that out!


Yes, but topologists can't tell a doughnut from a coffee cup so they're clearly insane.


But here’s the thing. Take that doughnut and stretch it until it’s a cube with two square cutouts in it. Stretch in some of the inner walls. Now you have a house, with a door and a window. Now: does the house have two holes - a door and a window - or does it have one hole?


Locally has two extrinsic holes, that is holes relative to things outside and inside the house, globally has one intrinsic hole. We say that the door is a hole respect to the wall no to the house itself. So both the door and the window are holes locally. But we never say the house has holes, we talk about walls and ceilings so globally that house has 1 hole. Another way of thinking it is that if the house can be deformed into a filled doughnut then it can be compressed to a circle and that’s the definition of a 1-hole.


Topologically, still one


So as you begin to bore, that is one hole. But when you go through the other side, you have in fact made two holes. I think a donut can actually be thought of either as one hole or two holes, or more correctly; two holes that are the same hole.

Back to the straw; if you make another hole in the side of the straw half way up, would it still have one hole? Or two holes? Or three holes?

A bit like thinking of the human digestive tract, most of us would agree that your mouth is a different hole to your anus, but we agree that they are in two ends of the same system

UndoLips, in Will we look back at today's "go green" initiatives as stupid and inadequate?

A lot of the initiatives are ineffective by design because the real goal is to give the consumers agency over the problem. Corporations have known that individual effort is a drop in the bucket but by framing the problem as not not a “corporate” problem but a “society” problem, they can keep not fixing it, for profit.

Hypx avatar

Pretty much. Only large scale solutions will have any chance of working. A lot of it implies stuff like recycling or figure out ways of turning waste into something non-harmful. So anything you see on an individual level is pretty much guaranteed to be pointless.

theinspectorst avatar

A corporate problem and a societal problem are two sides of the same coin. Corporations don't make money in isolation, they make money because they sell things that (directly or ultimately) are bought by consumers.

You could choose to imagine a scenario where the CEOs of Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, etc just voluntarily decide to stop extracting oil overnight, and think that would be more impactful than billions of individual consumers slashing their demand for carbon-intensive products and fuels. But if the consumers don't change their behaviour and continue to demand this stuff, other companies would just step in to fill the gap, takeover the old oil fields, etc.

The sustainable way to change corporate behaviour is through changing their end-consumers' behaviour - i.e. if end-consumers stop directly buying carbon-intensive products and stop buying from carbon-intensive companies.


I think there is two important points that you haven’t considered:

  • Information asymmetry: in economics, this is the situation where one party has more/better information than the other. Of course a big corporation will have more information about a product I’m using that I would on every product I use, especially given that they can hire as many specialists as they want. Because of this, consumers should not be expected to take care of all societal change through their choices
  • You seem to imply that these companies only exist to satisfy a customer need. While this is partially true, this completely omits the fact that since 15 years, every company has a marketing department, whose sole purpose is to suscit this need in the consumer mind. Company are not just need-fulfilling machines, but also self feeding systems. You can’t talk about the fact that renewing your phone emits a lot of carbon without talking about the fact that every phone company spends millions at making you want to renew it
demesisx, avatar

The MOST sustainable way to change corporate behavior is to make it prohibitively expensive for them to engage in behavior that is bad for the environment by levying major financial penalties and taxes on the offending corporations.


Corps frame it as an individualist problem because they don’t want regulation, which is really the only viable way to attack the problem (and regulations needs to be backed by treaties with teeth since it is a global problem).

You can’t expect every consumer to research every product and service they buy to make sure these products were made with an acceptable footprint. And if low-footprint products/services are more expensive or somehow not quite as good, there will be a financial incentive to use higher footprint products (if individuals acted “rationally,” this is what they would do).

theinspectorst avatar

Consumers are also voters. Corporations are not. Whether through the products we purchase at the shops or the politicians we elect at the ballot box, it will be the behaviour of individuals that creates the incentive set within which corporations profit-maximise.

Telling ourselves that this is a corporate problem and our individual behaviour doesn't matter is a comforting fairy tale but it will accomplish little.


Corporations are financial supporters of politicians, though, and they do a good job of making sure any viable political choice is on their side.

It's false choices all of the way down.


Capital has already shifted toward green energy and renewable systems. Capitalism is way ahead of any other process in terms of fighting climate change…/A-rising-tide-of-green-ca…

B16_BR0TH3R, (edited )

That’s frankly idiotic, since lobbyists, corporate donors and pressure groups have far, far, far more power to affect policy than voters.

theinspectorst, (edited )
theinspectorst avatar

You're comparing the collective influence of lobbyists, donors and pressure groups with the individual influence of a single voter - no shit the former looks bigger.

The collective influence of voters in choosing (say) Trump over Clinton, or Biden over Trump, or Macron over Le Pen, or voting for Brexit, has influenced the direction of these Western democracies in recent years dramatically more than any group of lobbyists could dream of.

You're telling yourself a comforting fairytale that society is directed by some powerful secret cabals pulling the strings so you as an individual are absolved from having to do your bit with how you spend your money and how you vote. If everyone thinks like you, nothing will improve. So fucking irresponsible.

B16_BR0TH3R, (edited )

Please don’t invent strawman arguments. I haven’t compared collective influence to individual influence, and I haven’t mentioned any hidden cabal or fairytale story. Everything is out in the open and I’m happy to provide my source:…/S0261379421001256


Those companies pollute to produce goods and services that individuals buy.

What does holding corporations accountable look like if not refusing to give them our money while advocating for regulation?

Throwing your hands in the air, doing nothing to change your destructive habits and just saying "but corporations" isn't gonna help anything.


I think the point is not that the individual should abandon efforts to modify their own habits. The point is that we should also be focusing just as much if not more energy on efforts to regulate and/or change industries that are responsible for more emissions by orders of magnitude. Some small but significant subset of the population going vegan, buying electric cars, or biking to work isn't going to offset the biggest offenders.

The biggest offenders are fighting tooth and nail to be as profitable as possible at literally any cost. You can be damn sure that if what they produce becomes less desirable in one industry, they will try their hardest to get picked up in some other industry. They'll have scientists finding some way to be useful somewhere and demonstrating it with research and lobbyists that will then get the government to mandate/subsidize it so that they make as much money as possible.

I've personally tried to "vote with my wallet" but industries have found ways to green-wash their products to give the impression that choosing their products would be the responsible choice when in reality it is not. Ensuring that your spending only goes to companies making an honest effort to do all they can to be carbon neutral or environmentally friendly is more than a full time job at this point. The only way is to ensure that governing bodies dictate the behavior of these organizations and even individuals so that it is no longer up to the organization/individual to "do the right thing".

Without proactive, strong government intervention we will be well, well, well beyond the point of no return by the time "voting with our wallets" and "modifying our behaviors" changes industries and society enough to have a significant impact.



Claiming that oil companies are to blame for producing all that oil seems stupid. If you use less oil, they make less oil

667 avatar

It’s borderline impossible to use less oil in increasingly car-centric infrastructure systems.

Balssh avatar

Maybe in US, but in Europe the trend is towards more public transportation.


The amount of profit and money in the oil industry will ensure that it's product remains relevant for as long as possible. If it's not through gasoline, it will be something else.

Meanwhile they'll be doing their best to sabotage and lobby against any competition to make it harder for individuals to even have the opportunity to do the right thing. The change has to come from the top (government mandates) in order for it to have any meaningful impact any time soon.


Both are true. The oil companies will lobby to maintain their position, yes. But you’ll also make the choice to drive places when maybe you could cycle


People boycotting certain products only really works if an alternative is available and attainable, or the demand is elastic.

For example, if I go to any grocery store, all the pasta, rice, buckwheat, bread and other staples are packaged into single-use plastic, as are hygiene products like toothpaste and shampoo. I have no choice but to be part of the plastic waste problem since there is no alternative and the demand for food is not elastic—I literally can't go without food and basic hygiene.

But I can and will avoid buying problematic products like teflon cookware, fast fashion, ICE vehicles, tech products with severe privacy/ownership/repairability issues since there are alternatives available and if not, I can go without since eg Alexa smart speakers are not essential for life.

Hence, we need to hold companies, whose products are problematic while not having alternatives and that are essential for life, responsible and force them to change to less problematic practices. In short, eg single-use plastics should be regulated out of existence wherever possible.

And for products that have better alternatives, we need to raise awareness about them and raise their social acceptance/desirability (make them cool). Plus we need to increase their availability and attainability—what use of is an ethical alternative product if it's not easily available in my country or if the price is not affordable to everyone who can afford the "normal" version?


That's not really what OP is saying though? They're talking about corporate efforts to make it seems like the consumers are the problem, not them, and many are still falling for it. As long as the awareness of this is not raised and more people aren't pointing fingers at the corporates the whole don't buy their product is never going to be effective, same for advocating for regulations (rather, especially the regulations). You're assuming everyone knows the root of the problem already, but that's just not the case here.

e-ratic avatar

This is a frustrating kind of defeatist attitiude I'm finding is getting more and more common.

It comes from a place of unwillingness for personal and habitual change. It's hard to accept that we all have to change our lifestyles and accept that how we're living is going to have to change. That there is exists some scenario whereby we all continue living exactly how we're doing now with the same consumer behaviour and expect a bit of regulations to change everything. Or delay changing until after these regulations are in place, when in reality BOTH needs to happen.

What's the point in sitting on your ass complaining about the behaviours of other individuals and organisations when the only thing you have direct control over is your life.

RecursiveParadox, avatar

What’s the point in sitting on your ass complaining about the behaviours of other individuals and organisations when the only thing you have direct control over is your life.

I’m not challenging you on the “sitting on your ass” part because that is true. But I promise you the Earth getting hotter and more polluted is going to exert “direct control …over your life.” And the only real way we can change this is through some kind of political process.

e-ratic, (edited )
e-ratic avatar

Where did I say it shouldn't be a political process? It isn't an either-or. How many people online who are saying "oh why should I consume less when corporations emit the most CO2, there's no point I'm not going to bother" is politically active outside of voting? As in, physically - attend climate rallies or petition their local representative. I'd wager it's a slim minority. Signing an online petition or tweeting does not count.

If people honestly cared so much that they're doing these things anyway, then changing themselves and their consumption habits should be dead easy. So why don't more people do it?

My point is this isn't an excuse to not take any actions locally within your life, which is something you can do RIGHT NOW.


I assume that folks are just looking for a way to keep their comfort zone the same. Finding an excuse is simple, even without blatant logic errors.

e-ratic, (edited )
e-ratic avatar

It is textbook cognitive dissonance.


BP created the concept of a carbon footprint to make customers feel responsible for climate change. The reality is that consumer choices make no difference in the face of China building a dozen new giant coal power plants each year. This needs to be tackled diplomatically, and nations need to be willing to negotiate with much more force. China emits more than double the CO2 of the U.S. That’s just CO2. There’s PFAS, methane, plastics, and hundreds of others pollutants. They’re destroying whole oceans with their huge bottom-trawling fishing fleets. It’s time we get serious about tackling the major polluters first.

coldv, (edited ) in What is the weirdest area of the Fediverse you have found yourself in so far?

There is a write up somewhere about this but I can’t find it right now…

There is a mastodon instance that bans the letter “e” it’s basically a writing exercise and challenge.

In response, is born. Where you can only use the letter “e”, even usernames.

Edit: found the write up! It even contains a brief interaction between users from both instances!


that interaction is wonderful lmfao

sadbehr, avatar

This is what the internet is for.


This has given me a case of the late night giggles.

bratorange, in Is there any evidence that Reddit has suffered at all from the exodus to Lemmy?

Is it important that Reddit suffers? For me the important thing is that lemmy flourishes and has good oc.


It can be seen as a statistic for lemmy’s success


Right? Ignore them, have fun here. No reason to give any thought to them.

Blaze, avatar

That’s the spirit!


Apart from how it's very hard to avoid, given that at least half the fediverse seems to be either Reddit-related, political, or politically Reddit-related.

(Seriously, any pointers on blocking that shit apart from playing whack-a-mole with all the different "subs" would be great, there are simply too many. Each instance can have many mags/communities for the same topic, and there's obviously quite a few instances too. I don't suppose we can filter subs with regex?)


I support this point of view, but at the same time I want the status quo to be disrupted and the internet to change, I’m not a fan of allowing corporations to fall into complacency when they hold so much power.

BrainisfineIthink, avatar

This is what I wish more lemmings would grasp. I’ve commented before how there’s this disillusionment that reddit actually died when a bunch of people left. It didn’t. The sooner everyone can stop being in denial about that, the better.

The situation is really more akin to an abusive ex and the people that left realizing that they’re better off without them. You’re in a better place. Stop talking about, focusing on the drama that your ex brought and just embrace your newer better environment.

Millions of people are in that situation and don’t leave because they’ve been manipulated, they’re scared, and in this case addicted. My brother in law switched from Apollo to the official app and hates it, complains every day, and says reddit sucks now…but won’t leave.


Yeah, but like… I have a gf to have someone to converse with. This new gf of mine basically doesn’t speak so I’m just sitting here watching the wallpapers in silence, whereas my ex, while crazy, was very talkative and entertaining.


Ok but your ex getting hooked on heroin and ending up in a prison morgue won’t make your new gf any more interesting.


Yeah but if my current gf is just being silent I’m like… girl why are we even dating? I’ll keep dating her but damn. It’s not a great relationship and I miss the crazy hoe.

Blaze, avatar

If you miss her so bad, you can just go back. It’s okay, really, I guess most people still go to both website. It’s a website after all, don’t see too much into it.

On my side I’m just reminded everytime I have to use RedReader to access Reddit on my phone that they really don’t want me there.


The thing is I can’t. Because if I do I’ll most likely inadvertently break up with my new gf, and I really do want her to succeed in life and for us to get married at some point. I’ll give her some more time.

I basically never used Reddit on my phone and on the computer it’s always old.reddit + RES. Also a reason why Lemmy feels a bit gnnnnh. Navigating without keyboard shortcuts is a paaaain.

Blaze, avatar

Did you have a look at this?

Also this community might interest you:


Yeah I found that script thing a couple of days ago but I don’t have Greasemonkey or anything like that and I don’t think I want to. But I might have to. We’ll see. The other one I saw a while back but didn’t see a major usecase for me personally. But thanks for reminding me since I am way more miffed about the shortcuts now than I was then and I forgot all about that script thing.

Blaze, avatar

Alright, happy to help!


That’s a great way to think of it.

Excrubulent, avatar

To use your analogy of the abusive ex… would you want someone to just never talk about the abusive ex? Never process the trauma? That’s what a lot of people are doing. Noticing that the abusive ex is imploding into a death spiral is kind of validating of your decision to leave. It’s part of the process. There’s no need to shame people for it.

BrainisfineIthink, avatar

The post is a week old, but regardless, people have had their time to grieve and process. Your friends and family were there for you, they let you vent, they helped you make the transition away from your partner…but they’re gone. It’s time to move on. Let it go. You’re stuck in denial while most people have made it all the way to acceptance. Everyone is ready for you to stfu about your ex.

You’re also reading too much into the analogy. This isn’t really an ex, it’s a link aggregating website and online forum. Just like nobody cared if you deleted your myspace, your Facebook, digg, Tumblr, TikTok, YouTube, etc…nobody really cares that you deleted your reddit account.

Excrubulent, avatar

They’ve had their time according to you but maybe people can make their own decisions? Also maybe just chill about it? You don’t have to listen, you don’t have to be here for any of the conversations.

Also you’ve created an entire community of family and friends with backstories so you can then tell me all these imaginary people want me to “stfu”, but apparently I’m the one “reading too much into the analogy”. I think you’re the one that just wants me to “stfu” but you don’t want to say it directly.

BrainisfineIthink, avatar

I think you’re the one that just wants me to “stfu” but you don’t want to say it directly.

Yes, that would be great. Stfu. Please. Thank you.

You don’t have to listen, you don’t have to be here for any of the conversations.

You seem to have missed the extreme irony in saying this whole replying to a sub comment a week after it was posted by someone who agreed with me.

Excrubulent, avatar

If you want me to stfu you can just block me, or just stop saying things directy to me that are blatantly wrong. Up to you ¯_(ツ)_/¯

And I don’t see what the age of the thread or the fact the poster agreed with you - although they don’t exactly, that’s another thing you’re wrong about - has to do with anything. I’m not here complaining about you talking, I’m pointing out how what you’re saying is wrong. You’re the one literally saying you want people to “stfu”. I’m glad you’ve at least owned it now.


Important? Sort of, or at least it would be... kinda nice. Blatantly giving your user base the middle finger isn't really desired behavior, so I'd love to see any sign of things like that having consequences at all. It's not just about pettiness (although the schadenfreude would be huge in my case, not going to lie), it's wanting to see shitty behavior not pay off.


It’s petty, but I do hope Reddit suffers. Spez and co has profited off user generated content, free moderation of their communities for a decade plus. Forcing users into the Reddit app that is garbage compared to other 3rd party apps, not to mention the privacy concerns with the app which rivals Facebook.

Quote from Spez in 2016. In May, Steve Huffman said in an interview at the TNW Conference that, unlike Facebook, which “only knows what [its users are] willing to declare publicly”, Reddit knows its users’ “dark secrets”

If Reddit collapses or at the very least their IPO collapses and we can prevent another sociopath from being a billionaire I’ll be very happy with the situation.

redpen, in What do the wealthy have now that will roll down to the rest of in the next 10 years? avatar

Their heads, if we play our cards right.

Gabadabs, in Why is *all* of Lemmy filled with Anti Israel content?
Gabadabs avatar

"Is there a reason why Lemmy is so fixated on Israel/Palestine?"
I figure that people who take the time to swap to federated social media are generally going to be people that are a little more political...
and Israel is currently actively committing genocide. So political people are posting anti-israel posts. It's really not more complicated than that.

mamaMiata, in What from reddit do you hope to never see on lemmy?

This may be an unpopular option since I’ve already seen it across lemmy, but the ____porn communities. I’d like to browse pictures of nice landscapes or exotic cars without worry about someone around me noticing “PORN” on my screen.

At this point it seems very old internet, something that made sense when those communities were established, but now is unnecessary gratuitous and not socially acceptable.

Romdeau4 avatar

Do you mean actual NSFW content or things being called “_____ porn” like “unix porn” or “fight porn”?

TonyTonyChopper, avatar

not op but they mean the latter


We have a completely separate instance dedicated for NSFW. So that may be a reality


Couldn't agree more. It sucks to try to bring someone to a new platform and go "you love decorating right? Then check /r/roomporn! No no, it's not porn I swear... Sigh"

average650, avatar

I agree. I think it’s terrible name, and ti just invites unnecessary drama.


Funny you say that cause I’ve been here less than a day and already have seen more porn in All than I ever did on reddit’s /r/all.


Wait till you hear how much I learn and engage with the world in r/animetitties


I sometimes block them within the app. I use Liftoff.


That and the unnecessary profanity.

Subs like nextfuckinglevel. It just seems so immature.


Damn, I had forgotten how obnoxious that was on Reddit. Blocked all of those years ago because it was just unnecessary and a gross way to qualify otherwise unremarkable photos.

finthechat avatar

Blocked all of those years ago

Hey, me too.

because it was just unnecessary and a gross way to qualify otherwise unremarkable photos

These subs lost all value years ago when they just became karma-laundering fronts.

z500, avatar

It never bothered me per se, but it's definitely awkward to come across some chapter of human suffering on r/HistoryPorn.

Asudox, avatar


slicedcheesegremlin avatar

I agree, but I also think that porn should still be welcome here. The issue is there needs to be better control over it entering the feeds, not that the communities themselves should be abolished.


I’ve tried a couple apps and it looks like they’re trying to at the very least not have uncensored porn on your all feed. So that’s a step up.


On Lemmy? I block multiple porn subs a week that are popping up on my feed. It feels relentless to me.


I think the above commenter is referring to stuff like EarthPorn or FoodPorn or UnixPorn

slicedcheesegremlin avatar

Oh duh I always hated the names of those subs. The only thing worse are subs like InterestingAsFuck and NextFuckingLevel which always gave the same vibes as a Watchmojo video.

th0mcat avatar


no. fuck you.

wolfshadowheart avatar

always gave the same vibes as a Watchmojo video.

Oh, that's because those subreddits were literally astroturfed and the mods were shills making money off of the products being shown off.

starlinguk avatar

I don't think porn should be welcome here. In far too many cases, porn equals abuse and/or human trafficking. I haven't got anything against looking at nekkid people, but there's way too much shittiness going on in the porn industry.


he is referring to subs like foorporn/cableporn etc. which are not actually porn


Nothing like someone peaking over your shoulder and seeing you’re browsing r/AnimalPorn…

I totally agree with you. Hopefully lemmy can be a little more mature with community names. (Yeah, yeah… I know the hypocrisy of my username… It’s my gamertag)


There is (was?) a ”nosillysuffix” sub that would aggregate all those *porn subs.


I saw a post about a community created here called “pixel passport” which I thought was a hell of a lot better that “earth porn.”


I really like that name. Way better than Earthporn. Thank you for sharing, I subscribed!

Link: !pixelpassport


Indeed. I like ‘Earthporn’ too, but I think it should be all nature pictures that look like genitalia and suchlike. Rocks or trees that look like penises for example.


EarthPixels. CarPixels. PornPixels. HistoryPixels. This could work.


OnlyPixels sounds great, too, for a general community of nice everything.


Voat, when it was still around, had this same discussion and settled on using _Pix for everything.


What a wild site that was, some real loons were on it, but I did appreciate the fact it wasn’t so overly moderated. At the end though it just felt like a sanctuary of hate that had driven out most of the sane people.


Those are great names! I would subscribe to more communities with names like that.

empireOfLove2, in why are incels frowned/hated upon? avatar

An “incel” is inherently and unavoidably misogynistic. The concept of being “involuntarily” celibate is implying that it is the other woman (or man) at “fault” for not allowing the incel man (or woman) to have sex when the incel very much wants to. Being an “incel” absolves the user of the term of any and all responsibility for their condition and is basically an admission that they will never work to improve themselves or make themselves into an attractive option for their desired mate. It turns their target into a complete sexual object without any other considerations for their own desires.

You can be single and celibate without being an incel. That is just called being single, but open to a relationship or casual sex. It’s also called being a normal ass human being who can hold a conversation and develop normal human connections without viewing anyone or everyone as just a slab of meat to be obtained.

ISometimesAdmin, avatar

Great answer, and to add to this:

There's a world of difference between someone who's single, not satisfied with it, and actively desiring/seeking a relationship (single and looking) and someone who actively self-identifies as inherently doomed to be single due to the actions/perceptions of others (incel).

People in the former category NEVER call themselves incels.

empireOfLove2, avatar

Yup! It’s a self fulfilling prophecy life, and then they wonder why they’re so lonely.

Onii-Chan avatar

Exactly. The issue with incels is that they actively do nothing to improve their chances in the dating world, and then instead of looking inward, blame women for their own shortcomings. "I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and big butt and my butt smells and... women should still want to fuck me because I'm owed sex."

Fuck these people.


I feel that your second sentence is too narrow. It goes beyond blaming a woman (or man). It includes society in general and/or any external construct or group. They may blame genetics, the patriarchy, feminism, or whatever other Boogeyman they want.

The underlying issue is that they are absolving themselves of any blame and refusing to accept themselves as the cause. It’s unsurprising that this very concept is often a self perpetuating issue. Their incel mentality and refusal of accepting any responsibility pushes any potential women (or men) from a desire to be in a relationship with them. It also builds an “us vs them” mentality that is reinforced by the echo chamber communities they build for themselves.

empireOfLove2, avatar

Yes, I suppose they can target basically any group, which makes my initial description too narrow. But I was focusing on addressing OP’s concerns of misogyny, which is gender focused.

The echo chamber is a very big part of it, you’re right. The more validation they receive for thinking that the “other people” are the problem, the more they think it’s okay to do.


This is vey true, they have almost as much as a hate-on for sexually successful men ('chads') as they do women in general ('staceys')

Stamets, in You end up homeless. You have no family, friends, job, in demand job skills, money, credit cards, or car. What would you do to get out of that situation? avatar


  • Loading...
  • amio,

    Thanks for sharing this.

    beaubbe, (edited ) in Can someonr explain thr math of how someone is supposed to be able to be even close to net zero carbon footprint?

    Breathing does not create Carbon, it is only transformed.

    There are basically 2 pools of carbon. The carbon already in circulation in the athmosphere, plants, animals and so on, roaming at the surface. That Carbon can be CO2, or other mollecules, but there is always a fixed amount. You breathing is simply borrowing the carbon for a bit and putting it out again in the air when exhaling.

    The second pool is carbon locked away in the ground, as coal, oil and whatnot. That carbon is OLD and is not supposed to be in the first pool. When you burn oil, the carbon from the 2nd pool ends up in the 1st one. You cannot really offset it because even planting trees just transforms it as wood for a bit, but if the tree burns or rots, the carbon goes back in the air. The only option long term is to send the carbon back in a locked state in the second pool.

    But for you, just reduce the amount of carbon you move from pool 2 to pool 1 to help the earth. Cut on oil, gas, coal as much as you can. The rest is basically irrelevant.

    You can compare it to the water cycle. You are at a lake with a pump, and pump the water from the lake back into the lake. You can keep going forever and will not cause the lakes to rise since the water is pumped from there anyway. BUT, if a mega corporation starts pumping from underground sources and dumping it in that lake, it would overflow for sure. And they would blame you for all the water you are pumping.


    Is there any way to bring carbon from pool 1 into 2? Or we already fucked up and have to live with it now?


    Yes, carbon sequestration is the term for it, but none of them are currently practical to do on a scale that would mitigate the effects of the fossil fuels we burn. Growing trees is an example of this, as they do lock up carbon in the process of growing, but they're kind of a risky prospect since if the tree dies and rots or is caught in a wildfire then it releases the carbon again. Another option is literally just sticking it back underground in mines or oil wells, but of course that takes a lot of energy to do and then whole point of burning fossil fuels is to get energy so this one is currently a bit self-defeating. They're things that might be helpful to do if we succeed in transitioning to clean energy and have an excess of it available


    If we can get nuclear fusion to work, that would be the kind of things that would then make sense to do. I can only hope that we figure it out as soon as possible.


    Absolutely. Or even just excess capacity of wind and solar, to be honest. Whatever works, so long as we don't need it to replace fossil fuels and it isn't itself making more CO2 to lock away the CO2


    Breathing does not create Carbon, it is only transformed.

    Yet somehow when cows do it this is not the case.

    Your premise is that the only carbon that’s new is from fossil fuels, which I can agree with (to a point; it came from biomass originally so is not truly new, just reintegrated after a billion years) but the problem is your view, the view we had for a few decades until very recently, is not the most common view. People talk about carbon in biomass going through the carbon cycle as if it’s a bad thing now, and you get called a fucking denier of all things if you point out that that is ridiculous.


    Cows fart which creates methane. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Like 25x worse. Add on to that we artificially increase the bovine population by orders of magnitude than they’d naturally attain so we can consume them. They contribute a lot to climate change.


    I just responded to this here


    Cows do not create carbon. They turn it into methane which is a worse form of carbon.

    The same way you can turn carbon in biomass to “lock” it from the atmosphere, you can turn it in worse forms of gas that cause even more heating like methane. The methane will turn back in CO2 form once it burns or degrade naturally (a dozen years or so) but while it is under methane form, it will make it worse, accelerating the heating effects. But even stopping all methane emissions is only a temporary solution as carbon from pool 2 keeps moving in pool 1. It may give us more time before reaching the same level of greenhouse effect but we will reach it anyway.


    No one is complaining about the carbon a cow is breathing in and out. It's the methane they produce, which is a very potent greenhouse gas, about 80 times the warming power.


    Methane has a half life of 8 years, and is produced from carbon dioxide and water, specifically it is produced into carbohydrates by plants which are then broken down into methane by certain bacteria in animal digestive systems. It degrades back into carbon dioxide and water through oxidization very quickly in the atmosphere. It’s effect on global warming is miniscule compared to carbon dioxide, by measure of the volume of each produced and their persistence in the atmosphere. Methane is a non issue, and is easily made up for by the fact that cows, and the humans that eat them, are carbon sinks also. Imagine if you stopped cattle production and destroyed all those cattle to stop them from creating methane, how much carbon dioxide do you think they’d create as they biodegrade? This would have a significant impact on warming, way way more than the methane does. The existence of cattle (and any and all biomass in general since they’re all carbon sinks) is a net positive for warming, by far.


    Just no. Not sure where you are being fed your information, but methane is worse than CO2.


    Just no huh.

    The article you link shows carbon dioxide having a stronger impact on warming than methane in aggregate, which is what I’m talking about and what matters.


    Methane in the Earth’s atmosphere is a powerful greenhouse gas with a global warming potential (GWP) 84 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame.

    You were crying about people bemoaning the impact of cows breathing. You were wrong.


    potential. Do you even understand what you’re citing? There are graphs in the article if words are hard. Do you know what radiative forcing is? You should read about it.


    The fact that you are isolating the word "potential" suggests that you don't realise what "global warming potential" actually is. It's a measurement for comparing the effect of greenhouse gases to carbon dioxide, not the top of an error bar


    I understand this, but it’s a comparison between the two compounds, not a comparison of the effect each are having at the volumes they get released.

    Cows uptake a lot of carbon dioxide just by existing as biomass. This more than offsets any methane they fart out.