People don’t set up cool-looking characters in videogames, exercise, dress well, or put on makeup for others, but for themselves.
This is the same. The strangers do not matter. They are not the point.Many people do those same things for the attention and acceptance of others around them. I’d say more people do that when it comes to things like make up and dressing well. Human are social creatures and want to be accepted by others.
I think you’re wrong there.
Some people, do it for themselves, for sure.
Other people, would never do it if it not were the approval of others.
And many people are lying about doing it for themselves because they don’t want to appear to be approval-seeking, especially if that is why they do it.
The easiest way to figure it out is to see how they behave around others vs not around others. Many folks, are two-faced in public vs private. And some folks, are not.
Can’t tell you how many friends/girlfriends I have had who say one thing in public, and another to me in private, and they are polar opposite. Let, usually on political stuff mostly. Because they know going with the popular opinion will get them points and they don’t want to cause social friction. Also why they celebrate rather than call out their friends shitty behaviors…
and frankly you can’t really blame them. because if you do stand up for things you believe in and they are not part of the group consensus, you’ll be ostracized. especially by the other folks who are posing who are desperately afraid of being ‘exposed’.
group social cohesion requires going along with/approving of the group belief, even if it’s wrong or stupid. hence why people get conned into believing crazy nonsense, their need for social approval overrrides everything else.
and some honest folks do admit, they only do shit for approval, or karma, or internet likes and they would not longer doing the thing they enjoy if they didn’t score any points from it. like I’ve met people in my hobbies who straight up admit they wouldn’t bother doing the hobby if they couldn’t get anonymous internet people to like them for it, who also get very mad if their post doesn’t get enough likes.
That would require anyone looking at them.
Wit the AI bubble, nobody can buy better PCs, and have to run their games in lowest settings that hide other players.
Nobody is looking at aynone. It’s all floating names.
1000% worth it.
If you don’t challenge things, you let bullshit flourish and that influences societal views.
what was i supposed to do, let people just be wrong online?
could be worse, you could let them merge in front of you in traffic.
let… them…?
Is… Is that an option?
It’s a hobby.
Yes, and if you don’t agree you can debate me!
Hello, I’d like to have an argument
OK. Do you want to have the full argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
I can not!
Yes, you can!
I cannot debate you, and I will not debate this point.
but you just did?
No I didn’t.
This isn’t an argument, it’s just contradiction.
Yes it isn’t.
Is it the 5 minute argument?
I can answer with confidence: sometimes!
It was the arguing that taught me when not to argue.
If you think you can get beyond pleasure without going through it, we are definitely on different trips. - Zen Without Zen Masters
If only I could know that the ones I am arguing are actual humans not just bots. In the former my arguing could be fruitful and turn them to not vote any longer for the right extremist party in my country.
Assume everybody is a bot, and achieve zen today.
deleted by creator
Why would people argue with people online?
Don’t get me started…
Oh young bot. We humans are such fascinating things aren’t we?
Sexual gratification
It is fun arguing with people you disagree with as long as both argues in good faith and has uses good etiquette. Both needs to be open minded to a certain degree.
The goal of a conversation is not to convince, but rather to explore your own and their mind. To grow together. A conversation is not a competition, we should not aim to “win” a conversation.
I agree with you.
Oh no, is this an echochamber now?
/s people!
I disagree. This is not an echo chamber.
Horray!
No it isn’t. I win!
I agree, yes. I always try to have that conversation, even if the other side seems to be arguing, since at the beginning I am interested in their thoughts and motives, and trying to get them to understand mine. I do enjoy getting people angry though, so at certain point, if they are clearly arguing in bad faith, the calmness becomes a tool, to make them look like morons.
You’re never going to win, and that’s not even the point. The point is to provide pushback to people who rarely receive it so that everyone else reading the exchange has a chance to see accurate information.
For example, it’s staggering how many people insist they want socialism when what they’re actually describing is social democracy, yet they have no idea what either term actually means. They’ll argue, foaming at the mouth, that humanity’s only hope is “socialism,” while demonstrating they don’t understand the ideology they’re advocating for.
The same goes for the abundance of anti-American rhetoric. Some criticism of America is absolutely justified—I have plenty of criticisms of my own country. But it’s interesting how many people who endlessly denounce America never mention what country they’re from or hold their own country to the same standard.
So no, the point isn’t to win the argument. The point is to apply enough pressure that the other person starts making obvious mistakes, exposing the weaknesses in their own position. That’s the entertaining part.
We must be on different lemmys because it seems pretty well understood here that the whole point of socialism is that the workers democratically control the means of production, only liberals from the USA act confused about that
So no. This is exactly what I’m talking about.
Socialism is not “democratic ownership of the means of production.” Where did you get that from? What YouTube channels are you watching?
Socialism is social or public ownership of the means of production. Democracy is a method of governance, not an economic system. The two are not synonymous.
In fact, there are companies right here in the United States that are run democratically. They’re called worker cooperatives. The employees collectively own the company, elect management, vote on major decisions, and often have much smaller pay gaps between executives and line workers. They’re successful examples of democratic workplaces operating within a capitalist economy.
Socialism, by contrast, is an economic system in which the means of production are owned socially rather than privately. That ownership can take different forms, including state ownership or worker ownership, depending on the model.
Capitalism is the opposite: the means of production are privately owned, and profits accrue primarily to the owners or shareholders.
And thanks for proving my point. What liberals have to do with any of this, I have no idea. You pulled that completely out of your ass because you heard it on conservative talk radio or somewhere similar.
It’s badly phrased but I think that “workers democratically control the means of production” translates to “workers own the means of production”.
So I think you are ranting over nothing.
As for worker co-ops in capitalist countries I would argue that those are indeed bubbles of socialism within a broader capitalist system. Just like you can have communes inside a capitalist country. Have you heard of socialist market economy or economic democracy?
No, I’m objecting because you’re collapsing multiple distinct concepts into the word “socialism.”
A worker co-op is a company where the employees collectively own that particular business. That does not mean the economy is socialist. It is still operating in a market economy, competing with privately owned firms, buying and selling goods, and responding to prices. That’s capitalism permitting an alternative ownership structure.
Socialism, in the classical sense, is public or social ownership of the means of production across the economy. How that ownership is administered, through the state, municipalities, public trusts, or some other institution, is a separate question. “Workers democratically control the means of production” is one proposed implementation, not the definition itself.
That’s why economic democracy, market socialism, worker co-ops, and socialism are related but distinct concepts. You’re treating them as interchangeable.
Ironically, this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. People hear the word “socialism” and start attaching every form of worker participation, workplace democracy, or cooperative ownership to it, even when those things can and do exist inside capitalist economies.
And the reason I’m ranting is because you are the exact thing I was talking about in my original comment.
This thread is a whole lot of words for “I am full of myself and dumb”.
This is a good bit of projection if I’ve ever seen it.
If this is your takeaway, my confidence in our people has dropped a few more notches.
“Waaahhhhh, this thread is a little too intellectual for my tastes, which must mean you’re all the dumb ones, not me, surely!”
To be fair, when you try it in person, they’re all “Who are you? How did you get in my house? I’m calling the cops!”, then it’s no fun at all.
Oh, I’m about to argue with one right now you little dumbass
I won, so yeah. 😤
Got me banned from reddit and now I’m here so I’d say in a weird ironic sense, sorta?
