What gets you downvoted?locked
What sort of post or comment gets you downvoted the most? Especially if you don't think it's bad behavior in the first place, or don't care. Does not have to be on Lemmy, but we are here...
One of the good things about Lemmy IMO is that it's small enough to see the posts that are unpopular. If you do "Top Day" on most channels, you cash reach the bottom, see what people here don't like.
As far as comments, attempting to rebut the person who is telling me my post sucks, is what gets me into negative numbers most often. The OP is going to voite it down, of course, and nobody else cares, usually.
Either nuance in a topic people are very black and white about or not being able to figure out how people can read things as the opposite of what I wrote.
Only happened a couple of times, no regrets.
Asking people to see nuance here and the rest of the web is the worst. You're either left or right. Urban or not. Up or down. There is no in between, partial solutions are useless. Drives me bonkers
If you call both sides right/wrong when both sides are right/wrong, both sides downvote you.
Mention a third option, middle ground, or reasonable compromise is a downvoting.
Tell them to chill, you might have well stuck a hornets nest up you ass. There's a reason you occasionally see people just admitting they were wrong or changing their mind get sent to the front page, its just rare.
I reckon it's the issue of pseudo-anonymity combined with the lack of tone in a text post. If you're talking IRL it's much clearer that you're making a joke or whatever, but all that gets lost in text. Also you generally know who you're talking to IRL, whereas online you don't know if that comment was written by a professor of ethics or a teenager who watched a single video on the topic and is parroting opinions they are now convinced are correct.
That's why I really like the /s marker, unfortunately it gets a lot of hate.
What a constrictive outlook on human dynamic and expression.
What's interesting is that the language allows multiple meanings. The commenter above can either be driven bonkers by presence of nuance or the lack of it and both interpretations are correct.
The first sentence can be seen as being against nuance or it can be seen as being against the online experience of asking for nuance.
The next sentences can be seen as arguments against nuance or examples of behaviour encountered when asking for it.
And the final bonkers can either be against the use of nuance or the repeated responses to it use.
So without further clarification, we can't really be sure which stance the commenter implies.
With only these two situations presented, it's a 50/50, left or right choice, so I'll go ahead and presume it's the latter, since that seems to be more likely encountered in online chats.
If the commenter meant that a black/white mindset drives them nuts, then I redirect my comment, in the sense that:
Yep, I still make the misstake from time to yime and try and give a resonable take on a rant post when I feel like they are too unfair.
Latst time was a few days ago when I responed to a person in a Linux community ranting about how Windows 11 sucks because he didn't know how to use it properly and that it had the audacity to not include drivers for 20 year old equipment.
I got massively downvoted and after I explained that I was an IT tech that didn't run Linux on my main machine, I was weirdly called out and some idiot claimed that you can't be an IT tech if you are not running Linux as your main computer OS.
It was kinda funny, I was bashed contiously by the open community for a minor disagreement, while I believe that I stayed polite throughout the conversation
Linux users drive me crazy. They clearly see that Windows users try to use Linux like it's Windows and encounter problems. Why can't they see that trying to use Windows like it's Linux will have the same issues?
Heh, I get down votes from both sides a fair bit. In one part I am supportive of views, but raise obvious issues in other areas. This makes the For team upset. The Against team hates me too because my stance is on the For team's side. The result is an inbox full of fine examples of how in-fighting destroys the grass while the other side of the fence has no idea they're apathetically winning.
Almost all of this comes down to people attempting to express their self-assessed virtuosity as superior to others, or they are driven by a manipulative fallacy—argumentun ad populum is a big one in echo chambers—causing them to easily sway closer to extremes with little critical thought first.
This is why we are supposed to discuss and not argue, remaining constantly open to exploring and contemplating new information. It is not about who is right or wrong, rather the discourse and learning from it. But that's not the default setting in many Lemmy communities.
The older I get the less patience I have for actual morons. if someone wants to put words in my mouth I don't have to be there for it. I just block and move on.
That first one is where I feel I've seen myself and others get downvoted more than anything else listed here. Maybe it is recency bias from that one thread the other day lol.
Honestly though in all actuality there are very few topics where nuance does exist like with guns for example: it's a very nuanced issue and calls for bans without acknowledging the reality that for many in America relying on the justice and police systems is not always a good or even safe option when it comes to personal safety, but at the end of the day you either ban them or you don't and any extra asterisks are minutiae, so people don't really care about your personal reasons they just want to know what side you fall on in the conflict.
So often nuance-enjoyers come off as effectively saying "what if we rape but only sometimes?" on the topic of whether rape should be a crime in society.
Every topic has nuance.
Every. Single. Topic.
There is even nuance when talking about nazis. Like the fact that they rose to power by giving people economic solutions prior to speed running pure evil. That doesn't anything that they did was good, because the nuance is in how they implemented those economic actions. The small details that made it work so they could rise to power at that point point time in that location.
Nuance doesn't mean good or evil, just complexity and more details than most people think about. Sometimes it isn't super relevant, and can be used to distract from the high level details, but it is still there. Nuance with racial disparity is keeping in mind that a lot of racism is implemented in different ways regionally, while still being racism.
That isn't nuance. That is weaponized compromise.
The fiddly details about consent and coercion in relation to rape would be about nuance.
Asking why you're getting downvoted is usually the easiest way to get downvotes.
But I often wish I would get a comment about downvotes. It's easy enough to see why I'm getting downvoted when I post stupid shit, but sometimes I feel like even the most uncontroversial post or comment will get at least one downvote. I want to know when I'm wrong, so I can learn!
Like, the other day there was a post getting downvoted to oblivion and nobody told OP anything. I commented my reason and OP actually seemed to be learning from that, edited the post and the downvotes stopped accumulating.
I've seen completely normal and innocuous statements heavily downvoted here. Some people seem to just downvote everything and other people seem to downvote anything that already has downvotes. But one thing is for certain, it's treated as a like/dislike button, not as a meter for content that does or doesn't contribute to the subject.
I don't think either of the popular behavior descriptions of "upvote if it contributes" or "upvote if you like it" really describe why most people upvote/downvote. My personal downvote criteria is more of a checklist:
If any of those are true, depending on the severity I'll leave it be or downvote. I'd imagine most people are similar.
Those are all reasons I downvote too, but I'd lump them all into the "doesn't contribute to the conversation/community" category. I'll also report something if it's dangerous misinformation, or very hostile towards an individual.
I had a conversation with someone about one of my downvotes posts, which helped to understand yet another stupid derailing tactic that terrible people use to stifle conversation. I really appreciated their feedback, even if I didn't see any way to avoid the misunderstanding.
Anything slightly "feminist". You know, like pointing out that women do the majority of unpaid care work. Or saying it's not nice to objectify women. Or sometimes mentioning the word women will do it.
Lemmy has a much, much, much better crowd than reddit, but it definitely still got the "not all men", "I only ever comment on stories about extremely rare false rape accusations" crowd.
I remember on Reddit once I commented a very vague description of a very personal experience I had with SA. Not fucking joking, people were defending this person they knew literally nothing about, except for the fact that I had said "oh yeah, I've experienced SA".
I haven't seen anything that bad on Lemmy yet so hopefully it stays chill.
I'm so sorry to hear that. Anyone with a shred of integrity approaching the issue will see that the statistics do not point to some pervasive false accusation culture, but rather a systemic issue of SA perpetuated primarily toward women for almost all of human history. It doesn't mean that any other types of issues should be discarded, but reddit would have you think that every other rape accusation is false, and that all the true ones are against men.
It's just an obvious bias on their part that is continually perpetuated by men dominating the platform on the mainstream subs. Lemmy has been better in that regard, because I think folks here are a little better about checking their biases for better discussion.
The problem is that this topic is very complex and very opinionated, and any opinion has very dangerous logical consequences if it's even slightly wrong. So you get people arguing tiny semantics against people with traumatic personal experiences, which is not a good recipe.
It's better, but very far away from good. My comment and the other one mentioning the same thing are already the ones with the most downvotes in this thread. So thanks to the downvoters for proving my point, I guess.
I'm guilty of this because I genuinely don't see why "not all men" is bad. As an example, I see a concerning amount of women who emotionally abuse their husbands or boyfriends publicly in subtle ways, but there isn't a huge culture around avoiding all women. As a dude, saying that "not all men" is negative doesn't seem that different from saying "I'm not racist, but..." or "I'm not sexist, but..." because the conversation never seems to be about men with red flags or the people in power who don't do anything when SA is reported.
What am I missing or not getting?
Let's leave aside the labels (sexist, racist, etc) for a moment, because these conversations tend toward applying/avoiding those and it just loses a lot of nuance.
Let's metaphor this, because I think that helps. Is it possible for someone with millions of dollars to have a truly bad day? Of course it is. Is it possible for them to be hurt by someone with way less money than them? Obviously, yes. Positions of privilege never fully insulate anyone from hurt or harm, and those in worse positions can perpetuate harm. That's fully understood and accepted.
I don't think anyone with integrity would say that women are in a position of power relative to men. Women have been systemically and systematically oppressed for virtually all of human history. A woman even being able to talk back to a man without severe physical consequences is an insanely recent development at scale in our world. There are still dozens of countries that are not letting women wear what they choose, marry who they choose, go to school. Men (as a group) have never been subjected to anything remotely close to anything like this, and in fact have perpetuated it for all time.
Now, there are some whackos out there who hate all men because of that. They're super, super rare, and they're wrong. Most women are indeed wary about random men, especially if they have experienced assault or harassment, but that is a far cry from hating all men.
To boil it down, there's a huge historical and modern difference in the way the genders/sexes are treated, and that cannot be ignored just so we can try to achieve the utopian world of no distinction. We have work to do as a society, as genders, and as individuals to repair this gap together. Good men belong right next to us, doing that work. And every good man I've ever met has willingly done so. Instead of asking "why are you avoiding me?", they give us space and support. Instead of asking "why not men?", they do the work to support fellow men instead of asking women to do it for them. Instead of saying "not all men", they actively engage in not being those men and are content in that.
While I don't think what you said is wrong (though I have some semantic disagreements; I don't think men are privileged but do think that women are disprivileged), I don't think it's that relevant. Power dynamics are far more complex than what you're describing. While you can conclude that women on average have less power than men on average, that doesn't mean there aren't a huge amount of men subordinate to other men, women subordinate to other women, or men subordinate to women. In all of those cases, some higher figure is abusing their power, whether it's by SA, violence, manipulation, or especially not holding someone else accountable.
The way I see it is that by making blanket statements implying that men are the problem, you're distracting yourself from the root problem while alienating a good chunk of people who would support your cause, including male SA victims. It (anecdotally) seems like the pool of vocal SA victims is in actuality limited to just women who have been assaulted by a man. That division seems unnecessary. It's the same way of thinking that alienates women who have Autism or adults who have ADHD; people only talk about the biggest or most substantial sub-group rather than the group as a whole.
I'm with you. I spent a LOT of time in r/TwoXChromosomes before moving to lemmy to try and understand that commmunity, and their arguments for why "not all men" is bad basically boiled down to "we're tired of having to include that at the bottom of every post, just let us rant." Which like, okay... but you're spreading information and culture by making a public rant post. If you refer to "men", that by default means "men in general", not "some men". So yes, you really should specify which ones you're talking about every time. The exception is if you do specify a subset of men or even singular man, in which case, yes, "not all men" comments are unnecessary at worst.
to kind of sum it up, I think "not all men" tends to be kind of a red flag in the same vein as "all lives matter". Not quite as bad, and obviously it's contextually different as "not all men" refers to feminism rather than race relations, but I think it kind of makes the point as a metaphor.
You'd think a niche social media network populated by tech obsessed weirdos would be a bit more inclusive.
I pointed out that it was silly how Barbie made Ryan Gosling more of a star at the Oscars than any woman and got downvoted for it.
Anything that's true but people don't like.
It's very misused as the disagree button rather than the not relevant button.
It is neither. It is just a downvote button. It may be “misuse” to you, but to others maybe not.
Just talk about how you genuinely enjoy Microsoft Windows as an operating system.
Daring to suggest that MacOS is enjoyable to use is also something that will get a lot of people angry for no reason.
With Chromium browser as well
Saying something centrist instead of left-wing. I feel like I'm left of center in most places, but right of center here. Stuff like "we should try to just have a well regulated capitalist system instead of going full on socialist, because as bad as capitalism is, socialism has been shown to be worse," would get me downvoted into oblivion.
uh...
One issue is that socialism means different things depending on who you ask.
If they mean pure socialism, it’s true.
what is pure socialism?
If you make a comment like that on the wrong instance, that happens, but it's not like that on every instance. Commie instances are filled with tankies and they have always been very dogmatic, just exhibiting nuance and historical awareness will get you those massive downvotes. Also deeper comment chains on more neutral instances can be weird, but that's probably small sample bias because few people will dig down that deep.
AI isn't stealing your art. Text to image stable diffusion literally can't output a copy of your work.
And if you post your art online for free, you have no expectation of anyone not using your work to the extent that fair use allows. AI looking at your work for training is the same as a human looking at your work for inspiration.
I thought we saw instances recently of AI outputting verbatim snippets of its text input? It's not impossible, I mean the well-known problem of overfitting is a simple example of how it can happen.
That's true, but I was only talking about art and stable diffusion. I know it's more of a problem with LLMs but AFAIK every time someone finds a way to get it to quote something copyrighted verbatim, it'll just cease to function. The most I've ever been able to get it to do are things they've already been pretty much agreed to be fair use, like summaries and criticisms.
And yeah over fitting is a problem in some models, but the ones taking your money like Dall-E have systems in place to mitigate it. I think it's only considered theft as much as when a comedian hears a joke way in the past and forgets that it was already used in someone else's routine. It's not really a problem until the entire routine is just someone else's routine.
Wrong politics. Too dry of satire. Too absurd of memes. Pictures of Charles III.
EDIT: Oh, and cigar posts. Some small handful of shit pieces downvote me everytime I post in the Cigar/Tobacco community.
I can't imagine going out of your way to downvote people like that. I don't have an interest in cigars so I just ignore those communities. If I went around downvoting post in communities I have a problem with, I'd be doing that all day.
Right? If you don't like the subject matter, just block the community. No point in pissing on every post in a very small, niche, mostly harmless community.
Should see my blocked communities list. Granted 80% is extremely niche porn or non-English speaking, it's still very easy to not care and tap three dots, tap Block Community. A really big part of Reddit actually being good was curating the feed and Lemmy is no different. Why wouldn't someone want to see only stuff they care about when going on Lemmy? Way more effort to downvote lol
I wish Lemmy had a "reduce posts from this community" option. We have scaled sort at least.
Asking for support with questions that others think are really easy to solve. Was a big problem on reddit as well.
Anything mentioning furry. Which is a shame, because I hoped the internet had outgrown such immaturity.
Although, looking through my history, apparently anything that criticizes Windows or AI, which is odd considering the demographics here.
That would be weird, I would think you'd be downvoted for, on the contrary, liking Windows. But the AI thing I have seen, even if I don't understand it.
I actually expressed my views on AI in another comment.
Haven't had many experiences like here, most people seem either positive or indifferent (both furry stuff and femboy/gnc). It doesn't come up as much here though so it's possible I just missed it.
When I reply to a comment with a laugh or what have you. I like them too know I laughed but since I'm not adding to the conversation I guess I'm getting voted down. I do it anyway.
I wish either in addition to or in place of votes, we could tag a post or comment with a small fixed selection of emojis. To signify it was funny, cool, thoughtful, etc.
And then maybe even filter or sort posts based upon the metrics that arise from the above.
You go back to Facebook damn you. ;)
I'd be down with that for sure!
Deviating from the group narrative is the major one.
The content of your post doesn't really matter if you're making the right sounding noises. As long as you somehow indicate that you're "one of us" then you're probably safe. If you talk shit about Facebook/AI/Elon Musk/Capitalism/Police etc. it doesn't really matter if what you're saying is literally true. If you're speaking to the right audience you're going to get pats on the back nevertheless. Conversely when someone like me then comes and points out that no, Elon Musk actually did not turn off Starlink in Crimea to prevent the Ukrainian attack I'm guranteed to get downvoted for it despite the fact that I'm correct.
I'm guessing the two mains reasons people downvote comments like that are cognitive dissonance; refusal to accept new information that goes against your prior beliefs and alternatively the false assumption that if someone is in any way defending an unpopular person/idea they then must be one of the "other" and thus we can dissmiss what they say without even considering it.
I hate this so much.
OmiGod yes, I've had this a few times. Pointing out facts, supported with a bunch of links to studies. Or even just pointing out the patently obvious - if it goes against the groupthink in a particular thread or community, it'll get downvoted, here and on reddit too
Most downvotes I've had here was for pointing out that shoplifting results in increased prices for the paying customers
Whenever I say that America is a continent instead of a country, and similar things.
Fun fact: as I discovered, "continents" are defined differently depending on which country you're in, they are not the same worldwide. In Europe, America is a big continent and includes both north and south, and the continent including Australia is called "Oceania". In "America" (USA), there's North and South America as separate continents, and the continent including Australia is called .. Australia... and yes, the USA is just America, because, yeah.
Yes, "continent" is a cultural category, and as such, definitions will vary across cultures. So if Europe considers America, north and south, to be one big continent, though they are connected by only a narrow strip of land, how is it that Europe and Asia are different continents, and nobody can quite agree where one becomes the other? They're not even on different tectonic plates, like North and South America are!
I've never heard people in an online forum go "I'm European" only to have someone argue back "Well ackchyually it's Afro-Eurasia!" And yet this pedantic argument is constantly made for the Americas.
What is it about these particular words that frazzles people's brains and makes them forget that homonyms exist? The two continents are collectively called "America", and "United States of America" gets shortened to "America". Like all other homonyms in human language, these two pronouns are distinguished by context.
It must really confuse the hell out of people that the America's Cup isn't named after the Americas, or the United States of America. The America's Cup is named after a racing yacht, which was named after the nickname for the United States of America, which was named for its location. So, I say America is not a continent, or a country. It's a boat.
Seriously, though, I'm guessing the downvotes for saying that are for pedantry.
Thank you for being a voice of reason here. I've never understood this argument, yes the same word can refer to two different things and both sides can simultaneously be right (and wrong) about the usage of the word.
It's like no one has ever met two people who share the same name, most reasonable people don't argue with random people "You can't be Joe! My friend is named Joe and you aren't him!".
And to compound the fact I've noticed that people's native languages and place of birth tend to determine where they fall on the argument. You guys realize that words can sound and be spelled similar and mean something different things in different languages and cultures, right?
Saying something positive about the United States, or something negative about CCP.
Oh yeah. I'm pretty new to all of this but just mentioning the fact that the CCP is doing raunchy stuff got me downvoted to hell. Even when those replies were provided with links to articles and facts I am being called racist.
That’s just lemmy.ml. Most other users on Lemmy are not like that. I would strongly consider changing instances of you are not too invested in your current one.
It's not going to work if the instances determine what behaviour is acceptable on Lemmy.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this but there are many different instances with many different rules. I’m sure you can find one that is close to your viewpoints.
Personally I don’t think it’s important to be exactly in line with your instance but I do find a subset of Lemmy.ml users noxious enough that I try to minimize my interactions with their instance.
"Racist" is over used so much now that it's losing its impact, which is horrible, since it needs to remain an ugly word.
Enjoying Apple products.
It’s ridiculous. You don’t even have to enjoy them. You can claim that Apple is a scumbag company doing scumbag things but feature X is kind of nice, and people get so mad. Like even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Some of the other comments mentioned "nuance" as a thing that gets you downvoted, and I think that is related to your comment.
People get up in arms about it because
Superiority complex
Supporting Apple hurts all tech consumers
To further elaborate on number 2, apple is very anti-consumer. They hike prices, overprice upgrades, lock down hardware, prevent repair etc. This spills over to android phones as everybody rushes to copy Apple. People get pretty pissed that their own devices are becoming enshittified due to Apple's success. They then blame and attack apple consumers.
It's not justified at all, but I hope people understand it now. People are pro-consumer, Apple isn't.
Lately, basically saying that hamas did a big mistake and Gaza would be in a better situation now if they (hamas) were smarter human beings.
Opinions. People seem to hate opinions, whether they're provided with an explanation or not. Facts are also downvoted on a regular base.
Well, see that's just your opinion, man
Yeah.
Anything about issues men have.
According to Lemmy unless you are trans or gay no man has ever had any issue and it's absolutely never the fault of women. But now you bring up that issue let me downvote and tell you about the issues women have from men.
In my experience, this has been more of a Reddit thing than a Lemmy thing.
I'll just piggy back onto this and say that downvotes come when people have generalized views and assume these are facts.
And downvotes my way are usually because I don't care about people's feelings on the internet.
Can I be honest? Religion. Anything related to it, somehow will get someone downvote me. Even if I just mention "God" or something. I get that I should "separate the church from the state" or I should be secular here or whatevs, and I respect that. It's not like every time I mention I force it down to everyone's throat!
Tbh I wanted to make a post that greet everyone on Lemmy that are doing Ramadhan fasting at first, but now I don't even feel like doing that. There's no point of posting it, I guess, if it got downvoted and no one wants to see it.
I guess this means that Lemmy isn't much different from Reddit...
Well I would like to wish you and anyone else who's celebrating a Happy Ramadan.
Thank you, sorry for being negative.
Happy Ramadhan for those who celebrate it!!
I don't hate you for being a Muslim, I feel sorry for you. You can't choose what you believe, and your natural personality combined with your experiences and upbringing made you a Muslim. You are negatively impacted by Islam's restrictions - such as Ramadan, for example.
But I also feel sorry for all the non religious people religion harms, and more so.
Lemmy really isn't that different from reddit at all, its just got more Linux memes. All the problems that exist on reddit outside of the IPO exist on lemmy in a smaller fashion, and sometimes not so smaller.
Yeah, mentioning anything Christian, or saying something was taken out of context when someone quotes the Bible, instantly turns into a debate and how I'm pro slavery. It just goes off the rails.
When tankies are on about nuking the west or genociding "white libruls" they tend to dogpile you for calling them fascist pigfuckers.
Can't tell if they like the attention or not because they always share a pic of a pig shitting on its own balls.
Is it an initiation right? a call to arms? is it a sexual advance?! We may never know.
It's like a secret handshake; If you accept and fuck the pig, they know you're one of them.
Speaking out against communism/tankie propaganda.
I do that every time; usually the ml's hit the downvote for a while until the sane people show up.
IDGAF, I despise these hypocrites. Downvote away, their boos don't bother me, I've seen what makes them cheer.
Well said!
Love that phrase "seen what makes them cheer"
Mentioning downvotes. Or upvotes. The first rule of vote club is...
No smoking?
Have fun and be yourself :)
downvote liberally?
No cuts no buts no coconuts
Defending Imperial units to people who prefer metric.
Calling US customary units "Imperial"
They're Imperial units in Britain, though most of us know that they're a bit silly
They're different quantities there, too.
You're right, my bad. Freedom Units, or Irony Units, if you're feeling saucy.
Posting pro-continuation of human existence when everybody else celebrating human extinction.
Based on what I seen on Lemmy. Being an Conservative. Don't believe me. Go to a Conservative community and look at all the downvoted bombed posts.
EDIT "Based on what I seen on Lemmy". I'm talking about World and .ml.
.ml is literally a Marxist Leninist instance saying that right wing PoV gets down voted there is akin to observing that bears indeed shit in the woods
being a shit ass 😔
You be you.
When I talk about driving my Tesla, while playing on my iPhone, and chugging Starbucks out of my custom Stanley. With my Windows laptop on the passenger side.
At least it's not an Apple laptop, or I'd be annoyed.
I'd take an Apple over a chromebook any day.
(Yes I know you can load Linux on the Chromebook, but if I had to daily one or the other OS, apple > chrome)
If someone was giving me it for free? Yeah I'd have the Macbook too, the hardware is lovely (the software not so much).
To buy myself? Chromebooks can be a great deal, and they're ideal for a non-tech-savvy relative who needs a basic computer but that you don't want to be on-call for tech support!
I guess the Apple is more capable? Very much a lesser of two evils situation you've posited, though.
Pretty much, I can use more than a web browser and run all kinds programs.
YOU SON OF A BITCH! WE USE THINKPAD IN THIS INSTANCE!
Don't you mean playing with your iPhone while your Tesla drives itself?
Shit even more reason to downvote me.
Links to reddit
I can understand that, we want to get away from that site, not be constantly linking to it. If there's something interesting someone said there, say it yourself here.
No one seems to know or care that "begging the question" means using circular logic and not that something has led to an event where people are begging to ask a question.
An example of properly begging the question could be, "does your mom know you're gay?" It's a yes or no question, but you can't answer it properly if you are straight. That's begging the question.
Whenever I point this out, I get down voted, which leads to the question: why y'all prefer being wrong?
I’m sure my wife is sick of me saying “raises the question” whenever a video or podcast we’re listening to says that most damnable I-want-to-sound-smart phrase “which begs the question.”
wHiCh BeGs ThE qUeStIoN
Slagging China, pointing out hydrogen vehicles are a stupid idea, lots of snide responses
Are hydrogen vehicles a stupid idea?
Here's my reasons:
And while BEVs have heavy, hard to recycle batteries, they also have possibly the simplest drivetrain available. Everything is solid state, except for a few motor bearings, there's no fancy metals and there's very few components to the whole system.
Good points, this probably explains why I've not heard much about hydrogen fuel cell cars since modern electric cars picked up. Ultimately the hydrogen cars seem no worse than conventional ICEs, but given that EVs are developing pretty well now there's not that much need for the hydrogen ones anymore.
Yeah now I want to hear about it
I answered above your comment
Thx, good points
Point out tankies' abundant similarities to the pigs in Animal Farm.
🇬🇴🇴🇩 🇹🇮🇲🇪🇸
Pointing out casual misogyny/sexism, it's extremely common on Lemmy (not surprising when the platform mostly only appealed to nerdy young dudes up until recently)
I don't like meta, Twitter looks like a dumpster fire, and reddit started to feel real toxic. Some days on Lemmy I feel like ditching social media all together or braving Twitter sorry x. People are just too extreme at times on Lemmy and a lot of communities are one sided echo chambers.
Disagreeing with the consensus of the post and the comments. When the post has an agenda or a viewpoint that every comment so far heartily agrees with, I just move on and let the little echo chamber echo.
Calling out IDF trolls.
Then they amass, obfuscate the thread with a billion replies, manufacturing "outrage" and then mass report the whole thing and bam I'm banned from world news.
Literally didn't utter a single insult. But since I was adamant and making the IDF troll feel uncomfortable with the evidence that Israel is willfully slaughtering children, I was "being disrespectful" and they banned me.
And Americans get very triggered when you note that there is literally no evidence against the notion that gun control works. They just jump in with shitty NRA perpetuated fallacies. Never a lick of data to support their bullshit. And there's a mountain of studies proving gun control works. It works as surely as antibiotics.
Easy one. Communism is the future of mankind, prove me wrong
You'd go straight to the top of several communities
why does it seem like basically all the past communist leaders were also evil and cruel? can't we get some chill ones?
Because anyone trying anything remotely close to communism becomes a big target for bourgeouisie capitalist interests. But hey, it is much better to be a chill communist who gets strung up in the streets by fascists while accomplishing nothing, am I right?
In the seventies and eighties the communist leaders of Hungary, when talking about the realities of the time introduced some terms to explain the difference of the real world from the ideals.
"Socialism that exists"
"Socialism that works"
The jokes immediately started coming, pointing out that the socialism that exists does not work, while the socialism that works does not exist.
I have no idea because I use browser tools to hide the element that shows vote scores. If people don't like what I have to say and want me to know about it they can take the time to write a response.
that was the most wasted up vote I ever gave.
When you wrestle a pig you get covered in mud and the pig enjoys it.
Siding with the police
I've gotten downvoted for saying that full remote may not be the best for employers.
I had to resist the urge to downvote you right now.
Thank you.
And you are right. Even some employees might benefit from office days. I am quite a fan of „meeting days“, like one of the workdays is exclusively for meetings. And one of those in the month is onside.
Of course certain jobs cannot function remote or fully remote. Like if you have clients visiting you etc.
I got down voted and flamed because my career as a commercial wireman (construction) relies on offices being occupied. So much relies on employees being in these high rises people can't grasp the chain of economical collapses of these buildings being empty.
It's weird, everyone was rightly outraged at companies that forced employees to return to office, but that has somehow turned into any working in the office being evil. If you can work fully remote then that's great; some teams get a lot more done face-to-face. It's not a fucking conspiracy by the people who invested in office space rentals!
If someone is downvoted, someone else comments and gets upvoted, and you reply to the upvoted comment to defend the downvoted comment, you will get downvoted. Probably 95% of the time. It doesn't matter how right they are, or how mistaken the upvoted one is.
Especially getting into an argument with the upvoted one and hanging onto the downvoted one's side.
Also, being downvoted is likely to get you downvoted more. That contributes to the above effect.
Without pre-existing up/downvotes, the best way to get downvoted is to be needlessly aggressive without being funny.
To get a downvote from me, just try to use "of" as a verb. (E.g., "would of")!
You shoulda included "woulda" in your phrase list
Honestly, "woulda" is fine. It's like gotta', it's a typed out version of how something we actually say would sound. It doesn't look like it's trying to be a real word.
"Would of" is not something that anyone says. It's like mixing up "your" and "you're", except worse imo because it's like "of" is being used as an adverb/verb/auxiliary verb or something.
Ranting about works like the MCU and Zombie Land Saga because I don’t agree with either.
The Marvel Cinematic Universe never ceases to amuse me with how it influences the industry as a whole or how it misrepresents the comics.
Zombie Lan Saga was an anime that subverted zombies in favor of Japanese pop idols that are supposed to be ‘zombies’ but not exactly.
I used to watch those works to begin with and then just stopped because I disagreed with them.
Of course, they’re just my opinions.
At least I’m not criticizing my neighbors, right?
Lemmy is more usable than kbin so when I moved, I found myself posting and commenting more. I think I've received at least one downvote every time I've done anything. 😆
I don't mind. If it can improve some poor sad shlub's day slightly, smack my downvote.
I'm broadly leftist, generally anti-authoritarian, and pro-civil rights and liberties.
...Including the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms of their choosing.
It does bother me the US blocks polar bear arms (and the rest of the bear) from coming across the border since the late 2000's. Needed a special permit before but now they just sieze and destroy.
Yeah, that's mostly it for me too
Any truth that upsets the hivemind.
I've learned that people who refer to communities as "hiveminds" sometimes just don't understand what they're doing wrong. Other times the community really is that bad.
Gaming communities are a great example of both
I tend to come off as an absolute asshole in all debates and arguments even when I am agreeing with people or praising them regardless of if I am right/wrong or winning/losing because I'm probably mildly on the spectrum.
I feel this in my bones (except I know I am in the spectrum).
Jup, I'm a high functioning autist and especially in written discussions I tend to get misinterpreted. I doesn't help that English is my 4th language either.
Also an Autist and english is my first language, don't blame your language skills too much, they will find a way to misinterpret you anyway, you can trust me on this.
Even before you mentioned the spectrum your self description reminded me of a friend of mine whos also on the spectrum. I am as well and let me tell you, I feel like on reddit and here we get downvotes if we drop the mask too far. Everyones looking for hidden meanings in all of our words and no one simply responds to what we say, they respond to what they think we mean and it's infuriating.
Posting links to the Epic Games store. Not praising it, not telling people to spend money on it, just posting links to their free game giveaways in a community specifically for free game giveaways, compete with a
[Epic]tag that they can filter out if they don't want to see it.Obviously the downvotes are a minority, but it's still a bit weird.
How do you filter out tags ? I have never really gotten them to work, both here and on Reddit. Ones in a while I have managed to click on them to only show posts with that tag, bit never anything else.
I've been lurking for months before joining and honestly, the voting appears quite random. If you post a comment early in any thread, it'll probably get upvoted even when it's totally silly and inane, as long if it can be construed as being in good faith. Write that same shit a few hours later, it'll go into the abyss.
I'd say it's still better than on That Other Site where you can get a good idea from the headline alone what the hackneyed 'top' comments will be like.
NTA - Your house, your rulez!1!!!1!1!
Anything that doesn't suck the dick of the gun lobby. Easily that. Second place isn't even close. Even just asking "how?" when they claim their guns are the solutions will get you downvoted. They'll ask questions and then downvote you for answering.
And of course, it's only in threads on gun violence (when they're doing damage control) or about marginalized groups (when they're drumming up sales). Make the same comments under a post they haven't thought to brigade and they won't be even slightly unpopular.
There are pro-gun people on Lemmy!?
Yep. When someone inevitably looks through the voting history on these kinds of comments, I won't be shocked if they find its 4 people and 50 sock puppets.
I would be shocked if the gun lobby weren't astroturfing though. They oppose red flag laws, take money from Russia and give tens of millions of dollars to the most revolting, far-right Republicans in the country. They're hardly going to draw the line at lying on social media.
I'm trying to change the way we refer to gun owners. I'm not settled on an actual name yet, but for the moment I'm referring to them as "shitebag cowards afraid of their own shadows"
It needs work, I admit
Not every gun owner is a POS like you say they are. A decent chunk of gun owners would be willing to give up their weapons if it legitimately helped society substantially. There's also legitimate reasons to have a gun if you have a home in a high-crime area or are otherwise a target. Why would you lump those groups in with NRA lobbyists?
Those are not the views of the people who represent them, nor does it routinely turn up in dicussions about gun control.
If guns actually delivered on this promise, America wouldn't have "high crime areas" in the first place. It would be the safest country in the world by a huge margin.
Instead, the crime rate in the USA is functionally identical to other wealthy countries, only with a layer of gun violence on top that the rest of the world simply doesn't have.
Americas gun laws help far more criminals than they dissuade. Even in the rare cases where a criminal can't just buy a gun from any store that sells them, "responsible gun owners" arm hundreds of thousands of criminals every year with their poorly secured firearms.
If they don't like being lumped in with lobbyists, reactionaries and idiots, they can take it up with them because I'm not going to include a 5 page "not all gun owners" disclaimer at the top of every post so that nobody gets their feelings hurt. This shit is killing people for fucks sake.
By that logic, regardless of what I do, say, or believe, because my president represents me, I support the conflict in Gaza. Furthermore, since my governor actively takes part in NRA conventions, I wholeheartedly support the NRA. Considering that individual people don't get to freely choose their representatives or especially the leaders of lobbying groups, this point is unfair.
I'm strictly talking about someone's right to use a gun to stop a criminal in or around their home, which isn't a population-scale thing. 1 responsible gun owner in a neighborhood of 50 houses doesn't protect all 50 houses. Also, many of these high-crime places make it incredibly difficult for responsible people to get a gun legally while other US states make it too easy for irresponsible/malicious people to get them.
If we're talking about the US as a whole, I definitely agree. I'd however argue that those who don't lock up their firearms properly aren't responsible owners, even if they have good intentions. In my ideal world, guns should be easy to get once in a while for people who pass rigorous training. Engineers and medical professionals need their licenses to be maintained because they are often making decisions that make the difference between life and death. Gun ownership needs to be treated similarly.
Reasoning like this is why I freaking hate modern discourse. Treating all gun owners like this isn't effective messaging because it's such a binary way of viewing peoples' beliefs. It's essentially like an elementary school teacher punishing the entire class because one student was misbehaving. If your goal is to root out the bad apples, you need to convince the good ones to get rid of the bad ones and work with you. Saying "if you own a gun, you have blood on your hands" is much different from saying "look, I get your concerns, so let's both get what we want." The latter is what led to small policy changes in the federal government. The former more binary way of thinking is what causes gridlock in Congress and what caused Uvalde.
Like I said, take it up with them. I've got no interest in getting to know every single gun owner and every one of their tedious, bullshit opinions and I'm definitely not going to be shamed into giving them a free pass until I've kissed every one of them on the mouth.
Edit: I just noticed that the end of your comment genuinely asserts that "not being nice enough to gun owners caused Ulvade" and I think it's important to tell you to go fuck yourself and don't stop until you bleed out.
The Ulvade shooter was a legal gun owner, in a state the pro-gun community claims a utopia. He had a history of death and rape threats but the pro-gun community staunchly opposed any kind of red flag laws. After the shooting, the pro-gun community was adamant that no laws should be changed, essentially saying "we were fine with this gun sale and we'll be fine with the next".
All those words claiming "I'm not like other
girlsgun owners" and it turns out you're exactly like them -- a self absorbed, manipulative scumbag trying to pretend it's part of some noble cause.Dude, I'm saying the insane polarization and treating people's opinions as binary is what's causing gridlock on the federal level and dumb laws on the state level. I am calling Texas' "constitutional carry" law dumb and the reason for the 2 or 3 major shootings that we've had.
It's also great how you chose to not at least skim through my argument and instead decided to cherry-pick a sentence or 2 to respond to out of context. You didn't read the part where I made a distinction between legal and responsible ownership. You illustrated my last point perfectly because you're so completely blinded by hatred and ignorance of people you're not even willing to learn about.
P.S. I've never owned a gun and probably never will, so it's really funny to see you attack me for that.
They hate when you refer to the legal gun owners who do mass shootings and execute their partners as "former responsible gun owners".
Not enough to stop selling domestic abusers guns or anything, but boy do they get pissy.
Saying something that is insufficiently negative about Elon Musk. Or Mark Zuckerberg, he's another one on the "villain" list.
Anyone with money doing public good is a recipe for a fun thread
Most fun I can recall recently was pointing out how Meta is actually one of the main driving forces behind the availability and development of open-source large language models. Meta's pytorch framework is one of the foundation pieces of many LLMs industry-wide. Meta has released a bunch of major open-source libraries and frameworks. Their open LLaMA model weights are the starting point for many fine-tuned models floating around out there.
But no, Mark Zuckerberg is an evil lizard man, so can't mention anything nice he might be responsible for.
Doesn't help that AI is a hot-button topic in its own right.
Suggesting to stockbros that viewing money as both debt but also, specifically, debt that doesn't have to be paid back and isn't owed to anyone or anything anyway (thus making it, by definition, not debt) is, at best, problematic.
Tbf, most of them still think that federal banks create most of the money in circulation and, just to be clear, that is not true. The vast, vast majority of money in circulation is created by private banks when they issue loans.
Edit: sorry, I should add, money is debt. If its not debt, it's not money. A bank note is a fancy I.O.U.
Pointing out that the replies to this thread are loaded with centrists and conservatives who are big amgy that they aren't praised for their genius when they take their right wing and centrist PoV opinions to known leftist and tanky instances instead of neutral discussion spaces.
Hey look, it's working!
I got downvoted recently for saying "If you’re friends with someone, wouldn’t you want to know if they’re also friends with someone problematic?" and "I would definitely want to know if my friends were close with people who’d been in prison."
I would most definitely want to know if my friends were close with people who’d been in prison! My previous experience with people like that were..... not great
Defending violence from the bland corporate talking points of non-violent resistance.
People will say the dumbest "violence is never the answer" and then get upset when you point out they clearly don't believe that.
Violence is a tool, and it should be used when necessary
This statement is an immediate bannable offense in many places, but the 2nd amendment allows for firearm ownership. Many states have stand your ground or home defense laws supporting lethal home defense. In America, our founding is justified by the need for violent resistance against tyrannical governments.
I know these aren't directly contradictory things, but it feels like doublespeak, the way the topics are viewed.
Any comment in regards to better personal budgeting gets down votes and the typical "avocado toast" response.
Anytime I mention something vaguely positive about religion. I'm a former religious studies scholar who studied comparative religions. I have two degrees in the subject. I don't think I'm saying anything controversial: the main thing I usually write is that you cannot usually say that a religion is a monolith - they are pretty complex phenomenon with many variations within them. You can say that Salafis are the totality of Islam. You can't say that evangelicals are the totality of Christianity. You can't say 969 in Burma is the totality of Buddhism. You can't say Hindutva is Hinduism. You can't say that the Settlers on the West Bank are the totality of Judaism. Religions without any variation or complexity usually die after a generation or two. I don't just have these arguments online, I am used to have them with students and with friends. But nuance has few safe harbors on the internet....
I've simply said that while I don't consider myself particularly religious, I enjoy my church because of the wonderful friendships, the genuinely welcoming environment to all, and the sense of community it brings me, and all the boring atheists come out of the woodwork to herp at me. Like what do you care that I enjoy something? I'm not inviting you.
trashing OS'es that I hate namely Windows and IOS so far. I get that it comes off as elitism and fine with getting downvoted. If I am expressing myself like this, than other users express themselves by downvoting. Nothing wrong here.
ok like 90% of Lemmy uses Linux. We know we all use linux, so when someone comes along and says something like "Windoze sucks, you should install Linux and free the penguin", 90% of your downvotes are coming from those Linux users who are facepalming at the futility.
It's like walking into a bar and yelling at the top of your lungs that everyone there should try alcohol, that it's way better than water.
Taking a dump on Systemd apparently
It embarrasses the "ooh, shiny" crowd with your talk of standards and wunderkinder egos.
No idea. I don't keep track
Most recently? Pointing out that the Soviet Union were serious contenders in the space race.
I cannot speak for my downvoters, but if one were to go by what people say, it boils down to my hypergraphia/vocabulary, my opinions/conclusions on certain topics, and often what seems like hate for me that spans multiple places and leaks over to wherever I am.
Tried to follow the link but it's not working.
Really? It's a Lemmy one.
Controversial stuff of course, but people here seem less likely to take the context of the post or comment into consideration than they did on reddit. The instance or community something is posted in doesn’t seem to make a difference. On lemmy you get a ton of public gut reactions like you would on twitter. This is opposed to a forum-style where posts only face ‘real’ public scrutiny if they become popular in their respective communities to the point where they hit the front page. Perhaps with more users this effect will diminish, although if mastadon grows substantially our posts will be viewed by a large number of people twitter-style which would substantially impact interaction quality imo.
Apparently posting a very old meme that is funny because it's not funny. Also making a reference to something not many people know about, moaning about learning to use new software being waste of time (I don't understand what was the issue. Maybe I was off-topic), and having an opinion that Apple is any good.
Pretty much anything anti-American or pointing out hypocrisy of the West. And just like Reddit, it gets removed and silenced often. Or just downvoted to oblivion and then name calling.
Lemmy is very much like Reddit in the sense that it is "one of us... One of us.... One of us"
What part of lemmy gets you downvoted for being Anti-american? I've pointed out dumb US shit plenty of times without getting downvoted.
To be honest I see wayyyyyyy more anti-US posts and comments rather than pro-US.
Pot, meet kettle.
You make vague points, refuse to elaborate, insult people, then come and whine and cry in another thread about being downvoted for it?
Well yeah... where did you think most of the community came from?
no idea. never check.
Just mention you're vegan in passing on social media (as in 'this is something I don't eat anymore as I became vegan', for example) is a fine way to have some mouthbreather slurping at you about bacon and down voting your posts.
There are a lot of people who still think nuclear power is the answer to all our problems. It really doesn't matter if I produce facts and evidence to show renewables are way cheaper and quicker to build, these people continue to reflexively downvote.
Not arguing either way, but I'd love to see the stats! Are you a proponent of nuclear energy as a piece of the solution, or would you rather see renewables used entirely instead?
I don't see a use case for new nuclear but existing plants should be kept running as long as it makes financial sense to do so.
Solar PV + Storage, Utility Scale = $46 - $102
Wind + Storage, Onshore = $42 - $114
Nuclear = $141 - $221
https://www.lazard.com/media/nltb551p/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf
Thanks for posting! Should be enough to follow the thread and look into it at least.
You’re correct about renewables being cheaper… but faster is a more nuanced discussion.
In the Canadian province I live in we generate 70% of our electricity with natural gas fired power plants. Roughly 20 TWh annually.
To replace that 20 TWh/yr with solar power, we’d need to build ~150 more solar farms the same size as the largest solar farm in Canada. Plus enough storage to cover the grid at night or when the weather is cloudy.
To replace that with nuclear power, we’d need 2 plants the same size as the smallest nuclear power plant in Ontario.
The nuclear plants are significantly more expensive than the solar, that much is certain.
But there are logistical limitations on how many new sources we can interconnect on the power grid in a given year. We simply can’t connect that much new renewables quickly.
It doesn’t need to be a choice, we can do both renewables and nuclear. But if we want to get off of fossil fuels in the next decade, nuclear will get us there sooner.
This is what I'm talking about.
Some comparables for new nuclear in the West:
"But throughout its decade of construction, the project has also been plagued by cascading delays and climbing costs. The first reactor was scheduled to come online in 2016; it’s hitting that milestone seven years later. The total price tag has more than doubled — to more than $30 billion."
https://grist.org/energy/first-us-nuclear-reactor-40-years-online-georgia/
It took more than 10 years and was massively over budget.
"The plant in Somerset, which has been under construction since 2016, is now expected to be finished by 2031 and cost up to £35bn, France’s EDF said. However, the cost will be far higher once inflation is taken into account, because EDF is using 2015 prices."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/hinkley-point-c-could-be-delayed-to-2031-and-cost-up-to-35bn-says-edf#:~:text=1%20month%20old-,Hinkley%20Point%20C%20could%20be%20delayed%20to%202031%20and,to%20£35bn%2C%20says%20EDF&text=The%20owner%20of%20Hinkley%20Point,cost%20£2.3bn%20more.
So current estimates are at least 15 years and also massively over budget.
Please tell me again how new nuclear will get us there sooner if we want to get off fossil fuels in the next decade.
I think you may have misunderstood friend. You’re not wrong and I’m not arguing against any of your points.
A wind or solar farm is indeed much faster and cheaper to build than a nuclear power plant. Wind and solar farms take 8-18 months on average. Recent nuclear power plants have been taking 7-10 years.
The nuance isn’t the time required for a single project, it’s the sheer number of renewable projects required that is the issue.
I live in Canada, a single digit number of nuclear power plants here could replace all of the fossil fuel based electricity generation in our grid. That’s something that could be built within 10 years.
We’d need ~1000 new wind and solar farms (not to mention storage) to do the same. We can’t make that happen within 10 years due to supply chain and grid interconnection bottlenecks limiting the number of concurrent projects we can do.
I would ecstatically overjoyed to be proven wrong about this. But we need to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and we can’t do that quickly with renewables alone.
Frankly we’re fucked either way, but we’re less fucked if we build nuclear power in addition to as much renewable power as we possibly can make happen.
Fair point, I get a little snippy on this subject due to the overwhelming amount of bullshit I encounter.
What do you think about this?
"Connecting solar and wind capacity levels needed to reach net-zero grids by 2035 could require as much as $25-50 billion in transmission investments. This includes spending on new interconnection facilities, network upgrades to existing transmission infrastructure, new high voltage lines to connect renewable rich areas and upgrades to inter-regional transmission capacity.'
https://economics.td.com/ca-interconnection-challenges
It sounds like it's mostly down to a lack of investment in the grid which is completely solvable pretty quickly. Given this, I'm still not seeing a case for new nuclear. Do you have any sources to support your argument that it's still needed?
Misreading something. I have dyslexia and there have been times I misread a topic and then got super confused by the respond. Recently there was an article where Kamala Harris said to speed up Marijuana reclassification and my dyslexic brain read that as speed up research for marijuana. So I said that’s not how research works you can’t just speed it up and was so confused by everyone responding to me. Wasn’t til the next day I saw the post and read it properly. So usually my own foolishness.
Anything critical about Biden on /politics is big bad. Only on /politics though.
That's because they're trying to push a Trump loss more than they care about adhering to downvote rules. I mean, fair enough tbh.
CLEAN IT UP FUCK FUCK COPE FLOYD FUCK HOT POCKETS FOR FREE SEETHE SNEED'S SEED JANNY I CAN'T FUCK CITY SLICKER FUCK COPE CITY SLICKER FLOYD JANNIES HOT POCKETS I CAN'T SNEED SEED ON LEMMY JANNY JANNIES ON LEMMY CHUCK CLEAN IT UP DILATE SUCK FUCK CLEAN IT UP CLEAN IT UP SEETHE HOT POCKETS JANNIES SNEED I CAN'T COPE COPE COPE I CAN'T COPE SEETHE DILATE SEED FLOYD ON LEMMY
Telling a joke that takes just a little bit of thinking to get and isn't immediately obvious.
Especially satire/sarcasm without denoting it with an "/s."
That's not a thinking problem that's a "there's not enough information in your post to tell" problem
I want people to represent themselves really well, through their writing. I forget to consider their feels.
AND CHUCK CLEAN IT UP FLOYD I CAN'T CHUCK'S CITY SLICKER GUCCI LOAFERS I CAN'T JANNIES FOR FREE FOR FREE I CAN'T SEETHE ON LEMMY CITY SLICKER SNEED'S DILATE JANNIES FUCK ON LEMMY SEETHE CHUCK I CAN'T AND CHUCK'S CHUCK'S ON LEMMY PARK AVENUE MANICURE GUCCI LOAFERS SUCK SNEED FEED CHUCK'S PARK AVENUE MANICURE JANNY FLOYD ON LEMMY COPE HOT POCKETS SNEED CHUCK'S CHUCK PARK AVENUE MANICURE JANNIES FUCK SUCK CHUCK'S PARK AVENUE MANICURE CHUCK'S
The truth.
What truth?
My truth. Everyone else's truth is obviously wrong.
CLEAN IT UP FOR FREE JANNY FOR FREE AND DILATE PARK AVENUE MANICURE JANNIES AND ON LEMMY CHUCK'S HOT POCKETS SUCK CHUCK FEED DILATE SNEED'S FANCY GERMAN CAR FLOYD FUCK FUCK PARK AVENUE MANICURE DILATE AND SEETHE SNEED'S JANNY FANCY GERMAN CAR FLOYD CHUCK'S PARK AVENUE MANICURE I CAN'T SEETHE I CAN'T I CAN'T FANCY GERMAN CAR SUCK CHUCK AND SEED COPE CHUCK'S JANNY GUCCI LOAFERS SEED CLEAN IT UP I CAN'T DILATE GUCCI LOAFERS FEED
GUCCI LOAFERS PARK AVENUE MANICURE PARK AVENUE MANICURE I CAN'T CHUCK HOT POCKETS FEED I CAN'T ON LEMMY FOR FREE SEETHE HOT POCKETS FLOYD FUCK FANCY GERMAN CAR CHUCK'S FANCY GERMAN CAR JANNIES AND SNEED'S HOT POCKETS FLOYD SEETHE AND ON LEMMY COPE ON LEMMY FUCK PARK AVENUE MANICURE CHUCK'S JANNY DILATE I CAN'T SEED I CAN'T FLOYD SEETHE SUCK FEED HOT POCKETS JANNIES ON LEMMY SEED I CAN'T CHUCK HOT POCKETS CLEAN IT UP SEETHE SNEED'S FLOYD
AND FLOYD CHUCK'S FUCK CLEAN IT UP SEETHE AND JANNIES GUCCI LOAFERS FANCY GERMAN CAR FOR FREE DILATE FOR FREE CHUCK'S JANNIES ON LEMMY FOR FREE CITY SLICKER SEED COPE SNEED COPE COPE ON LEMMY FLOYD FLOYD CITY SLICKER JANNIES CHUCK'S ON LEMMY AND JANNY SUCK PARK AVENUE MANICURE SNEED HOT POCKETS CITY SLICKER CHUCK'S CITY SLICKER SUCK CLEAN IT UP ON LEMMY SNEED'S ON LEMMY FLOYD FLOYD FUCK ON LEMMY COPE COPE
JANNY AND DILATE CITY SLICKER CITY SLICKER FANCY GERMAN CAR SNEED'S SEETHE SEETHE DILATE CLEAN IT UP HOT POCKETS AND HOT POCKETS SEETHE JANNIES CHUCK ON LEMMY HOT POCKETS AND CHUCK'S JANNIES JANNIES I CAN'T ON LEMMY SUCK SEED COPE CITY SLICKER CHUCK'S I CAN'T GUCCI LOAFERS SEED JANNIES FUCK HOT POCKETS SNEED'S DILATE ON LEMMY CITY SLICKER SNEED FOR FREE JANNY FLOYD SNEED FEED ON LEMMY FUCK ON LEMMY CLEAN IT UP
CHUCK'S FANCY GERMAN CAR ON LEMMY FLOYD FOR FREE PARK AVENUE MANICURE FANCY GERMAN CAR HOT POCKETS DILATE CLEAN IT UP JANNY SNEED GUCCI LOAFERS CHUCK HOT POCKETS I CAN'T ON LEMMY JANNIES CLEAN IT UP FANCY GERMAN CAR JANNY COPE AND JANNIES ON LEMMY FEED CLEAN IT UP JANNIES FEED I CAN'T CLEAN IT UP HOT POCKETS SEETHE FUCK FOR FREE SNEED SNEED'S FANCY GERMAN CAR FLOYD SNEED SNEED'S SNEED'S SEED SEETHE ON LEMMY GUCCI LOAFERS CHUCK'S GUCCI LOAFERS AND FANCY GERMAN CAR
JANNY CITY SLICKER SEED SEED AND SEED FANCY GERMAN CAR I CAN'T JANNY FANCY GERMAN CAR FANCY GERMAN CAR SNEED I CAN'T CHUCK'S AND COPE CLEAN IT UP JANNY PARK AVENUE MANICURE PARK AVENUE MANICURE JANNY I CAN'T ON LEMMY PARK AVENUE MANICURE CHUCK DILATE CHUCK CHUCK COPE JANNY FEED CHUCK'S SNEED DILATE FLOYD CITY SLICKER JANNIES JANNY SUCK FANCY GERMAN CAR GUCCI LOAFERS FEED FANCY GERMAN CAR JANNIES COPE HOT POCKETS DILATE I CAN'T SUCK AND
My most downvoted one should be about Nintendo and Yuzu, I think. I don't agree with some of their overly aggressive methods, but I argueed against emulation of the current gen and don't think it is wrong for them to try and stop it (which of course didn't work, that's a different topic). Sucks for Citra and Pizza though.
SNEED FEED SEETHE FUCK DILATE FOR FREE HOT POCKETS CHUCK CHUCK'S CHUCK JANNY I CAN'T DILATE SEED HOT POCKETS JANNIES DILATE FANCY GERMAN CAR JANNY PARK AVENUE MANICURE PARK AVENUE MANICURE HOT POCKETS JANNIES FEED CHUCK JANNIES CITY SLICKER JANNY DILATE CHUCK FANCY GERMAN CAR DILATE HOT POCKETS CITY SLICKER SNEED'S SNEED'S CHUCK'S SNEED FANCY GERMAN CAR GUCCI LOAFERS ON LEMMY FLOYD AND CHUCK'S FUCK FANCY GERMAN CAR I CAN'T FLOYD HOT POCKETS AND
FUCK AND SNEED'S DILATE HOT POCKETS SUCK JANNY DILATE COPE SEED CITY SLICKER FUCK CHUCK'S CHUCK'S FANCY GERMAN CAR SEETHE SEETHE PARK AVENUE MANICURE CHUCK FOR FREE CHUCK'S SNEED SUCK SEETHE SUCK SEETHE SNEED FUCK CHUCK GUCCI LOAFERS FUCK JANNIES FANCY GERMAN CAR COPE AND CLEAN IT UP GUCCI LOAFERS CHUCK CHUCK'S I CAN'T FEED COPE SUCK SUCK COPE HOT POCKETS FANCY GERMAN CAR PARK AVENUE MANICURE SUCK FOR FREE
FOR FREE COPE SEED CHUCK FANCY GERMAN CAR FANCY GERMAN CAR HOT POCKETS CHUCK'S CITY SLICKER DILATE CHUCK'S CHUCK SEED FEED FOR FREE SUCK SNEED CHUCK'S HOT POCKETS SEED CITY SLICKER AND SNEED FEED I CAN'T FEED CHUCK SUCK DILATE ON LEMMY SEED FEED I CAN'T CHUCK'S AND JANNY FLOYD CHUCK'S GUCCI LOAFERS HOT POCKETS FOR FREE FOR FREE FEED CITY SLICKER CLEAN IT UP AND CHUCK HOT POCKETS CHUCK'S FOR FREE
SUCK CHUCK'S CLEAN IT UP CHUCK FANCY GERMAN CAR HOT POCKETS FUCK CLEAN IT UP SEED ON LEMMY JANNIES SEED PARK AVENUE MANICURE FEED SEED ON LEMMY JANNY JANNY FOR FREE CLEAN IT UP CHUCK I CAN'T DILATE FANCY GERMAN CAR CITY SLICKER PARK AVENUE MANICURE SNEED'S SNEED COPE FEED COPE ON LEMMY SNEED'S AND ON LEMMY COPE SEED COPE I CAN'T SUCK PARK AVENUE MANICURE PARK AVENUE MANICURE COPE HOT POCKETS I CAN'T COPE SUCK I CAN'T COPE SNEED
SUCK SNEED COPE CITY SLICKER DILATE FOR FREE DILATE CITY SLICKER CITY SLICKER JANNY FOR FREE SEED PARK AVENUE MANICURE CHUCK'S HOT POCKETS SNEED SEED SEED PARK AVENUE MANICURE JANNY GUCCI LOAFERS CLEAN IT UP DILATE CHUCK'S CLEAN IT UP SNEED'S COPE PARK AVENUE MANICURE FOR FREE AND CHUCK FEED AND FANCY GERMAN CAR SEETHE SNEED SNEED CHUCK ON LEMMY HOT POCKETS DILATE FLOYD SEED SNEED JANNIES JANNY I CAN'T SNEED'S CHUCK'S AND
CITY SLICKER JANNIES FUCK PARK AVENUE MANICURE HOT POCKETS SUCK FUCK JANNIES I CAN'T CHUCK SNEED JANNIES SNEED'S SUCK SNEED'S CHUCK'S FLOYD FUCK FLOYD DILATE SUCK FEED DILATE SEED PARK AVENUE MANICURE SNEED'S AND JANNY CHUCK'S SUCK DILATE CLEAN IT UP FLOYD CHUCK HOT POCKETS CHUCK'S HOT POCKETS FEED DILATE SEED CHUCK'S PARK AVENUE MANICURE GUCCI LOAFERS DILATE DILATE SUCK ON LEMMY GUCCI LOAFERS FLOYD FLOYD
SEETHE FOR FREE COPE SEED JANNIES JANNY FANCY GERMAN CAR DILATE FLOYD FANCY GERMAN CAR HOT POCKETS GUCCI LOAFERS CHUCK COPE CLEAN IT UP CHUCK'S FOR FREE SEED GUCCI LOAFERS FEED JANNIES HOT POCKETS SEETHE GUCCI LOAFERS FOR FREE SEETHE CHUCK SEED AND FLOYD FUCK SUCK FANCY GERMAN CAR GUCCI LOAFERS FUCK SUCK SEETHE SNEED SNEED'S SEED FOR FREE SNEED PARK AVENUE MANICURE SNEED'S CLEAN IT UP CLEAN IT UP SUCK FANCY GERMAN CAR FEED I CAN'T
CHUCK'S CLEAN IT UP FUCK CLEAN IT UP SEETHE FUCK CLEAN IT UP SUCK SNEED'S I CAN'T HOT POCKETS FUCK FUCK I CAN'T FLOYD SEETHE DILATE JANNIES FANCY GERMAN CAR ON LEMMY CITY SLICKER FUCK PARK AVENUE MANICURE PARK AVENUE MANICURE GUCCI LOAFERS ON LEMMY CLEAN IT UP CLEAN IT UP DILATE FOR FREE CHUCK'S FUCK PARK AVENUE MANICURE COPE I CAN'T CLEAN IT UP AND CHUCK PARK AVENUE MANICURE SEETHE COPE CITY SLICKER CITY SLICKER CITY SLICKER JANNY HOT POCKETS JANNY SNEED FANCY GERMAN CAR CITY SLICKER
JANNY CLEAN IT UP I CAN'T CITY SLICKER AND SEED JANNY FANCY GERMAN CAR CLEAN IT UP ON LEMMY SNEED'S CLEAN IT UP GUCCI LOAFERS SUCK FOR FREE FANCY GERMAN CAR I CAN'T DILATE GUCCI LOAFERS SNEED'S JANNY FEED CHUCK AND CLEAN IT UP JANNY SNEED'S FANCY GERMAN CAR FOR FREE SNEED FLOYD ON LEMMY DILATE HOT POCKETS JANNY GUCCI LOAFERS CHUCK'S CHUCK'S DILATE SNEED'S AND CHUCK'S FANCY GERMAN CAR CITY SLICKER AND I CAN'T SNEED SNEED COPE SNEED
FANCY GERMAN CAR HOT POCKETS SUCK FOR FREE CHUCK SEETHE COPE HOT POCKETS FEED GUCCI LOAFERS FEED SNEED I CAN'T I CAN'T CITY SLICKER HOT POCKETS CLEAN IT UP JANNIES FANCY GERMAN CAR CHUCK'S JANNIES JANNIES FOR FREE AND CHUCK SEETHE FEED FEED FANCY GERMAN CAR CITY SLICKER FOR FREE DILATE SNEED'S CHUCK GUCCI LOAFERS SNEED'S HOT POCKETS JANNIES CHUCK'S FLOYD PARK AVENUE MANICURE CHUCK'S CITY SLICKER FLOYD ON LEMMY FEED PARK AVENUE MANICURE SNEED'S COPE COPE
AND SEETHE FEED CITY SLICKER SNEED'S GUCCI LOAFERS I CAN'T CLEAN IT UP CITY SLICKER FEED JANNY I CAN'T FEED AND PARK AVENUE MANICURE HOT POCKETS GUCCI LOAFERS ON LEMMY I CAN'T CITY SLICKER DILATE FOR FREE COPE AND CLEAN IT UP GUCCI LOAFERS CITY SLICKER ON LEMMY CLEAN IT UP CHUCK FLOYD FANCY GERMAN CAR CLEAN IT UP HOT POCKETS DILATE CHUCK FEED DILATE FANCY GERMAN CAR CLEAN IT UP SEED FLOYD DILATE AND COPE CHUCK JANNY JANNIES SUCK ON LEMMY
SUCK AND DILATE CHUCK'S GUCCI LOAFERS CHUCK GUCCI LOAFERS FOR FREE JANNIES I CAN'T FEED CHUCK DILATE FUCK SUCK I CAN'T SEETHE HOT POCKETS SEETHE ON LEMMY FANCY GERMAN CAR SEED PARK AVENUE MANICURE DILATE SEED HOT POCKETS HOT POCKETS FANCY GERMAN CAR FUCK SNEED SUCK JANNIES DILATE CHUCK I CAN'T CHUCK PARK AVENUE MANICURE GUCCI LOAFERS DILATE JANNY JANNIES CHUCK'S I CAN'T CLEAN IT UP CLEAN IT UP JANNY FOR FREE CITY SLICKER GUCCI LOAFERS PARK AVENUE MANICURE