JuBe

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] JuBe@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

I guess my idea was that locking the comment thread wouldn’t censor the viewpoints, and everyone could still read the differing views while tamping down on toxicity.

[–] JuBe@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

If a conversation isn’t productive and people are just becoming mean and ugly toward each other, then all we’re left with is people being mean and ugly toward each other. That doesn’t promote community, it creates rage bait. And not that it necessarily means a conversation can’t be productive, I would assume — although maybe incorrectly — that the reason people are on Lemmy is because they’ve seen what happens when rage is monetized on social media platforms, and they came here to get away from that.

[–] JuBe@lemmy.world -3 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Mod here: We’ve received several reports from this comment thread. If I had the power to lock just this thread, I would because I can see how this conversation has some seeds for productive discourse, but that doesn’t seem to be the direction that things are headed toward right now.

I would encourage people to reread what each other has said, and rather than immediately thinking of a rebuttal, read it a second or third time until you can interpret what the other person said a different way than you initially read it.

[–] JuBe@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

Mod here: We’ve received several reports from this comment thread. If I had the power to lock just this thread, I would because I can see how this conversation has some seeds for productive discourse, but that doesn’t seem to be the direction that things are headed toward right now.

I would encourage people to reread what each other has said, and rather than immediately thinking of a rebuttal, read it a second or third time until you can interpret what the other person said a different way than you initially read it.

[–] JuBe@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

A report was received about this breaching rule 1. In this case, the title used to submit the link provides more context than the original title, and will be allowed to remain.

[–] JuBe@lemmy.world 57 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I hope she finds a healthier relationship.

[–] JuBe@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a way to edit the title, but I think this article would have been clearer with a comma. I'm going to leave it up, but sticky this here with a clearer title: "[The] Senator [Who] Elon Musk Called a 'Traitor' Gets Rid of His Tesla: Don't Want a Car Built By an 'A**hole'."

[–] JuBe@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago
[–] JuBe@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

We’re not talking about a threat to Democrats, we’re talking about a threat to democracy. Go back in history, and look at Germany between the mid 1920s to the 1940s. Puritanical votes in the face of authoritarianism didn’t empower people to combat genocide, it decimated their ability to do something about it. RFK, Jr., the environmental advocate was so firm in his beliefs that he went groveling to the guy that pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accords, doesn’t believe in Climate Change, and just generally doesn’t give a shit about anyone or anything unless it benefits him. RFK Jr. wasn’t a serious candidate. Stein? The woman shows up every four years, and didn’t even know how many members of Congress there are — and she’s the one that should be trusted to know the policy and diplomatic complexities to bring peace to an ideological, geo-political battle spanning millennia? Are those the “other things” you demanded? In order to accomplish things in the real world, it takes consensus and working together in order to achieve results without dictatorial power. A vote for Harris isn’t a vote for genocide or a perfect world, it’s a vote for moving forward — or if you want to be super cynical about it, a choice for one of the two candidates that can win who is the least likely candidate to exacerbate tensions and cause the spilling of more innocent blood.

If you can’t understand that, then it just means I can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. There isn’t a third option out there that is coming to save us — it’s up to us to save us, even if we have to do it piece-by-piece because there is no magic snapping of the fingers that is going to fix this.

[–] JuBe@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Except, you’re implying that’s not what you’re doing. You want to believe that your vote can accomplish everything you want, as easily snapping your fingers, but that’s not how it works. No positive change in history has happened in a day, but you seem to want to vote as if positive change can happen immediately.

[–] JuBe@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The “long term” doesn’t matter if the candidate that wants to “be a dictator on day one” gets his way, but you know what, maybe your self-righteousness will save us all. You say what you want but you have no way of achieving it. So, bye Felicia.

view more: next ›