Maybe you shouldn’t even have had your account on the largest server to begin with?

Some of us made our accounts on lemmy.world within a week(?) of its creation when it was tiny (June 5 for me). Doesn't stop it from belonging on mildly infuriating

hell yeah

It's pretty insane the amount of work they did for free. I never even thought about the effort that went into a sub like that. Good for them

I don't have an answer to your actual question other than self-hosting. But, I doubt you'd ever get a "firehose of trash" on your main feed. Mainly because the trashy instances aren't that populous, so I doubt their posts would be active or hot enough to float to the top. But I could be wrong.

You could always go directly to the instance you want to read and lurk. Unless you make an account you won't be able to comment, but you'll be able to get your firehose of trash

Edit: Just be mindful of how much you consume, you'd be surprised how easily hate can invade your mind. To this day I still have to self-censor every now and then thanks to the hateful rhetoric I grew up around, even though I'm long past it

I'd just log off lol

lemmy.world rule 1:

No illegal content, including sharing copyrighted material

c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com rule 3:

Don’t request or link to specific pirated titles

So c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com doesn't even break that rule. It's for discussion. Unless you take a very broad reading of not allowing the sharing of resources that could be used to pirate copyrighted material, but that's not an issue anywhere else

witty commentary on current issues

Am I the only one who doesn't enjoy the twitter-takes? Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with most of the takes. It's just that it all feels like they're trying to one-up each other with the cleverest gotcha and it makes me roll my eyes. Maybe I'm just not the target audience for a twitter/mastodon style community

Yeah after getting used to the not-totally-assholes community of lemmy I'm not going back to reddit. The community there kinda sucks

Thank you for the detailed explanation!

Tankies [1] don’t usually believe that Stalin or Mao “did nothing wrong,” although many do use that phrase for effect (this is the internet, remember)

Fair enough. Though I do disagree that they don't usually deny their shortcomings but both sides of that claim are pretty hard to prove so I concede.

We believe that Stalin and Mao were committed socialists who, despite their mistakes, did much more for humanity than most of the bourgeois politicians who are typically put forward as role models (Washington? Jefferson? JFK? Jimmy Carter?), and that they haven’t been judged according to the same standard as those bourgeois politicians.

Ok you can make that argument

People call this “whataboutism”

"Tankies" do often use whataboutism, that's irrefutable. Is this specific claim whataboutism? I'd say borderline, but I can see why it's still a point worth bringing up.

but the claim “Stalin was a monster” is implicitly a comparative claim

No, it's not - or at least not in the way he's implying. The claim is overly vague (how do we define a monster?) but it's not comparative. Whether Churchill committed atrocities (he did) and whether Stalin committed atrocities (he did) have no bearing on one another. All we have to do is define a monster - then we can measure whether a given leader was a monster. The only comparison needed is between the leader and the definition.

If people are going to make veiled comparisons, us tankies have the right to answer with open ones.

Sure, that's true. Except like I said that "Stalin was a monster" is not comparative. If someone says "Stalin was worse than Churchill" than Churchill is relevant. But if someone says "Stalin committed atrocities" then it is whataboutism to answer "So did Churchill." Churchill's atrocities bear no relevance to Stalin's.

A tankie is a leftist who doesn’t agree with mainstream geopolitical opinions

This is a stretch. Leftism, by and large, doesn't agree with "mainstream geopolitical opinions" so this doesn't properly distinguish them from other Leftists.

A tankie is a leftist who... shows any interest in nuance

Laughable. Tankies originate from Leftists walking the party line so claiming that all non-tankies lack "nuance" is a very... interesting accusation.

The change was so evident, even for someone like me who (used to) not keep up with reddit drama and inner workings. AMAs used to be so fun, they'd always end up on the front page. I can't remember the last one (other than Rick Astley's) that wasn't a bore

How is this fire related to climate change? Genuine question because I don't understand the connection

I think you have a point except for the fact that the meme is about unrealistic body standards, not objectification. So it's kinda like bringing up pancakes in a conversation about waffles

I feel like people would drink themselves to death more, or at least pass out. Been a few times years ago that sleep was my reason to stop drinking

Interesting day to see this on... been a really bad one

No illegal content, including sharing copyrighted material without the explicit permission of the owner(s).

The problem is this is still pretty vague. The communities that were blocked weren't sharing copyrighted material, but resources for finding and sharing said material. You might think this is being overly literal but I'm pretty sure it's the same loophole that allows reddit to host r/piracy without getting into legal trouble.

On the other hand, if we take this rule at face value it could be interpreted as not allowing the sharing of any kind of content without the express permission of the creators.

So it's not an issue of people being lazy or ignorant, but overly broad/vague rules

I mean regardless of the devs' opinions they are forwarding the democratization of information by working on this project

To be fair to the /s we do live in a world with flat-earthers and antivaxxers. These days it can be exceedingly difficult to tell between the smartasses and dumbasses

How about you use the most basic social etiquette available and be at least not a total asshole.

And how about I take this chance to remind everyone that we can all block the users we don't want to interact with. And that maintaining a block list is a great way to ensure a decent online experience

Yeah try googling questions and you'll see the results of the blackout. I've already had at least 3 questions that would've been answered by reddit, but when I clicked the link I couldn't read it because the community was private

This is the curve of history. Movements arise, they grow, and once they hit a mass large enough to capitalize off of they're co-opted. This has always been the way. It will continue for a long time. We keep our chins up and our eyes forward. Yes, it's frustrating. But we keep on keeping on. We do the right thing because it's the right thing - not because it's easy.

Have heart, lemming

No doubt there were plenty of gay men back then but were they widely accepted?

The curious ones will eventually settle down and even redistribute into smaller instances

Absolutely. I migrated from lemmy.ml when that was having too many sign-ups, and I'm not opposed to migrating from lemmy.world to help with their load. I'm sure I'm one of many

Tbf you can be ogled and not objectified. The difference is that Thor absolutely is portrayed as a complex character with his own agency, or subjectivity. The whole movie is about him learning to step out of the role of warmonger and into a more mature, nurturing role of a king. That gives him a lot of subjectivity - the opposite of objectivity

Edit: So to clarify, yes Thor is part of a series of unrealistic body standards for men. But he's not objectified

In social philosophy, objectification is the act of treating a person as an object or a thing. It is part of dehumanization, the act of disavowing the humanity of others. Sexual objectification, the act of treating a person as a mere object of sexual desire, is a subset of objectification,

Emphasis mine. Where in "Thor" is Thor dehumanized? Do the creators of the movie dehumanize him? No, if anything he exhibits more humanity as the movie goes on. Does Jane Foster dehumanize him? No, she's clearly sexually attracted to him and some scenes do focus on his body, but that's not enough to dehumanize someone. He is not a "mere object of sexual desire" because those scenes exist amid an entire movie that treats Thor with respect as a character, including Jane who gets to know him and love him. The only character who dehumanizes him could be Loki but he's clearly portrayed as being wrong

That's fine but it needs to happen in the appropriate place. c/reddit is the best place for it. c/lemmy.world is for discussing this instance

Hoping that one makes the transition myself. I would also love to see r/AcademicBiblical make the move. It was a great collection of resources and academic-level discussion of ancient judeo-christian religion. I mod three communities right now, and c/BiblicalStudies at !biblicalstudies@lemmy.world is the only one I made with the hopes of one day handing it off completely to someone with more expertise than me. Doesn't have to be the reddit mods (I disagree with that idea), just someone better suited for that rigorous of a community

At least lemmy has lots of mirrored communities so if one starts to suck you can go to a smaller one with the same topic

Thank you, I appreciate it!

I could tolerate almost every redditism if it weren't for the belittling, argumentative, and self-righteous tones that permeated every front page discussion

You lost a remnant of someone you cared about, so it makes sense even though it was bad for you in the long run

Hell yeah, bröthur, congratulations on the start of your journey

Nothing better than looking for some good NSFW content, going to the top of all time, and seeing nothing but net neutrality posts

I'm glad those were there but they did lead to some funny situations

Change your sort options. Your lemmy experience will change drastically depending on whether you're sorting by hot, active, top, etc.

Absolutely agree, got a big crush on Cap so I like to imagine he's too tuned into the purest version of the 🇺🇸American spirit🇺🇸 to hate. But it is funny to suspend that and think about what if he was just a grumpy old man

Yeah talk about a depressing thought

Some communities aren't updating on lemmy.world

Specifically, I moderate /c/worldbuilding@lemmy.ml and I noticed that lemmy.world's side is not updating. No new posts from lemmy.ml's side, and their side shows 300+ subscribers while mine shows ~80

But what I disliked about reddit was when trolls from some subreddits would spam CP to get other subreddits closed

What is this about? I never heard about this

I agree with this. Not only are most redditors and internet goers just lurking for entertainment - the fediverse is also currently a clunker of a project being held together with duct tape and WD40. Until it matures (which I believe it will) it just won't be attractive to most casual users.

Currently, we (people in the fediverse) are probably mostly people driven by curiosity or passion. We really shouldn't expect the masses to follow quite yet

It's not really to do with whether they're the protagonist, it's how they're treated as a character (and by extension the actor). Off the top of my head the best example is Carly from Transformers 3. She's incredibly 2-dimensional. What do we know about her, her motivations, what drives her? Well, not a lot. At best you could argue she has a good job and is responsible for getting Megatron to help OP. But when we look at the movie overall it's not great. She's consistently needing saved by Sam, the film goes to lengths to focus on her borderline inappropriate relationship with her male boss, and she just doesn't do a lot for the plot that doesn't serve some male. In fact, her introduction, arguably the most important scene for establishing her character, is a camera shot of her ass. That's objectification because the character exists amid a web of weak characterization and conformity to gender roles that treat her more like a trophy than a proper character

In agreement with your broader point but a different approach: to say that we should die out as a species due to climate change is over-simplifying, imo. Yes, there are hardships ahead and we truly need to look at ourselves as a species and ask what needs to change for the sake of ethics and others. However, we have been in dire situations before, albeit with less foreknowledge. Would someone living in, say, 1840 have wished that humanity had died out in the bronze age collapse, when the near-entirety of known civilization collapsed due to climate change?

When considering the entire species we can't take such a short term view. Yes, hard times are ahead. Yes, we will get through it. I say if one is inclined not to have kids, he should not have kids. But if one is inclined to do so, he should do so