Credit card for dental work sounds quite american

I would if it was a native feature. I’d tag people “Made sense once, don’t block”

Why use an app for something that works perfectly fine via web browser as well? The less apps I have on my phone the better.

I actually found pretty much what I was looking for. Not very active community and I don’t know how well it’s moderated but at least I can give it a chance next time such topic comes to mind.

!actual_discussion@lemmy.ca

Crazy what amount of pushback I’m getting for even daring to ask such thing. It clearly must be fascism and pedofilia I want to advocate for in there because why else would someone want to have serious conversations…

I don’t understand your reasoning here. You seem to be implying that if we allow people to have open, honest debates, they’d somehow end up on the logical conclusion that sexual violence is good or justified. I’m sorry, but I just can’t see how that would happen. I’ve never in my life heard an intellectually honest, rational thinker make that kind of argument - though I have heard them argue the exact opposite.

I also don’t know why you seem to assume that ideas like these wouldn’t face any pushback. I’m not suggesting we create a space free of criticism - I’m suggesting we discuss ideas like civilized people, rather than shouting over one another and calling names just because we don’t like the tone of the sounds someone is making.

The only ones who need to fear open debate and discussion are authoritarian governments, because they don’t want people discovering the truth. And I seriously doubt that the moral rightness of sexual violence is some hidden truth the government is secretly trying to suppress.

Would you mind walking me through the steps of how a space like this becomes a breeding ground for fascists and sexual abuse? I genuinely don’t understand how you imagine that would happen - or why there wouldn’t be anyone pushing back. For that to be true, it would almost imply that fascists and rapists are the only ones capable of having good-faith discussions with each other, while everyone else with a functioning moral compass would’ve already been banned for incivility.

What I want to talk about isn’t the point of this thread - it’s about how I want to talk about it. Basic decency toward one another shouldn’t be an unreasonable thing to ask. I’m more than happy to discuss my underlying motives, but I want to do so in a civilized manner. These mental acrobatics - where, because I’ve said some “magic word,” I must now, with high probability, be a certain type of person - are absolutely ridiculous.

This looks promising. Funnily enough I’m even subscribed to it.

I’m not sure I get what you mean. I don’t see why one community couldn’t cover all these topics under the same set of moderation principles. I’m imagining something like a philosophers’ conference, where you can seriously discuss even seemingly ridiculous topics - like “why can’t we eat unwanted babies?” - and no one would be tempted to accuse the person of actually advocating for such a thing. We’re just playing with ideas.

It’s not criticism of my takes that hurts me, but the mean-spirited responses when they target me personally rather than my ideas - especially considering the effort I myself put into being fair and decent, even toward those I disagree with but then seem to get next to none of it in return.

You’re right about me getting hurt, though. I’m a real person with real feelings, and I’m not immune to cruelty. Dealing with rude, indecent people here does make me feel pretty bad on a regular basis.

I not only block political communities here, but I also filter out every post containing terms related to current political events or specific political figures. While I might touch on topics that are political by nature - like the Israel-Palestine conflict - I rarely engage directly with politics in a broad sense.

For example, yesterday I tried making a post about the concept of “sigma males,” where I even preemptively acknowledged my doubts about its scientific validity and criticized how it tends to frame even negative traits in a positive light. Yet all the responses I received were ridicule, personal attacks, and accusations. Apparently, I overlooked the fact that the term “sigma male” acts like a lightning rod for a certain kind of person - people who completely disregard the actual question and just start spewing hatred and negativity.

I’d really just like a place where I can indulge in my cold and analytical, autistic topics of interest with other like-minded people. I don’t even mind disagreement - on the contrary, I enjoy it, as long as it’s done in good faith.

What exactly is your problem here? Do you not have even a drop of self-awareness to realize that you’re now acting exactly like the kind of person that made me want to find a community free of people like you in the first place? You’re being a textbook example of someone who just can’t stay on topic and insists on making it about the person asking the question rather than addressing the question itself.

My comment history is open for anyone to see what kinds of topics I like to explore. I’m not going to start listing them here, because that’s not relevant to my question.

it really is a much nicer place to be than reddit

I can see how that would be the case for a certain type of person - perhaps even the majority - but interestingly, my personal experience has been almost the opposite. The people here tend to lean in the same political or ideological direction, and they’ve become extremely sensitive to any ideas that seem to go against their worldview. They’ve dealt with so many bad actors in the past that the moment someone starts making the kind of noises that trigger their alarms, it becomes almost impossible to engage with them meaningfully. You quickly end up having to defend yourself against preconceptions formed simply because you’re willing to touch on a sensitive topic.

I think the contrast within the userbase here is actually sharper than on Reddit. There’s a large number of incredibly decent, mature, and thoughtful people - likely due to the higher average age - but there’s also a surprisingly large group of extremely vicious activist types who will dogpile on you the moment you say anything even halfway critical of their cause, or not critical enough of what they oppose.

Based on my experience trying to have deep and sometimes difficult conversations here, I’ve come to believe that if such a community did exist and gained even a bit of popularity, it would likely result in a large number of the currently active users here getting themselves banned from it. In the end, it might just be a small group of users left - the ones actually interested in playing fair. I don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing, though. You really don’t need that many people to have insightful discussions. Often, even one person is enough, as long as they’re approaching it in good faith.

Moderation would definitely be an issue, though. Dealing with the worst offenders is easy - it’s the gray areas that are challenging. The space wouldn’t just need to be heavily moderated; that same standard would also need to apply to the moderators themselves.

It’s actually somewhat effective in my experience. Another thing I’ve recently started doing is calling out mean comments. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a mean person but it’s quite difficult accusation to argue against when the evidence is right there in front of their face.

False dichotomy - Assuming that because someone doesn’t agree with one viewpoint, they must fully support the opposite. Framing the issue as if there are only two mutually exclusive positions, when in fact there may be many shades in between.
Strawmanning - Misrepresenting someone’s argument - usually by exaggerating, distorting, or taking it out of context - so it’s easier to attack or refute.
Ad hominem - Attacking the character, motives, or other traits of the person making the argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.
Reductionism - The tendency to reduce every complex issue to a single cause - like blaming everything on capitalism, fascism, patriarchy, etc. - while ignoring other contributing factors.
Moving the goalposts - Changing the criteria of an argument or shifting its focus once the original point has been addressed or challenged - usually to avoid conceding.
Hasty generalizations - Treating entire groups as if they’re uniform, attributing a trait or behavior of some individuals to all members of that group.
Oversimplification - Ignoring the nuance and complexity inherent in most issues, reducing them to overly simple terms or black-and-white thinking.