Today has been especially bad, and was inspired sadly by about 6 straight posts of only negativity here.

I want to say that being negative towards something is not a bad thing, it’s very valid to critique things. However, a community becomes toxic when the majority of it’s content is negative.

Gaming is an obvious one. It’s very obvious all around the internet that gaming communities are negative generally, and Lemmy certainly takes the cake. In the case of GTA 6 coming out this month we can (and have) had multiple stories about Rockstar’s unethical practices, the pricing, ownership, and to be clear I agree with all of it. However, there is also valid positive things that people want to discuss but are immediately downvoted to hell, or have comments brigaded on with responses like “Don’t you know about X, Y, or Z??”

I’ve been in comment threads where people have told me that they are afraid to post here because of the responses they might get. Now this is absolutely true everywhere, and we will often respond “You just have to tune them out” but the scales are shifting to the majority of responses are negative.

New users will not simply block/tune out the majority of commenters. New users will see that a community is toxic and turn around and go back to where they felt it was better.

This is the root of my frustration - that Lemmy is no longer a geeky place where people can talk about Star Trek and Linux - but that it’s becoming a toxic place where if you aren’t talking about why Star Trek and Linux are the only good things on the planet that it should be called out over and over.

Worse is that the scales a tipping to simply being “If it is popular, it is not good” which is a huge red flag for toxic community. To be clear it does not mean that if something is popular that it must be good, but instead we are falling for the same trap that is on corporate social media.

Anger and toxicity are fun, they are dopamine hits. So when there’s a huge post about <<popular thing>> and everyone dogpiles, everyone has that dopamine hit and it spreads, and it makes people want to dogpile more. Unfortunately I think this has left individual posts, and this is now driving a large part of our comment sections, that people feel included when they are all dogpiling on a popular thing. It’s addictive.

It’s incessant and exhausting being here some days.

Some examples to think on:

  • Harry Potter fans (who have already said they will not buy anything from Rowling again and are aware) who still want to enjoy the books/movies they already own, but are shouted down and downvoted
  • Sports fans posting about football, to have jokes about “sportsball” made to them.
    • (Is that really any different from nerds being made fun of by jocks in highschool, only this is in reverse and worse yet, we’re supposedly more mature now?)
  • Freaking pumpkin spice. The world is on fire and people get a tiny bit of joy out of cinnamon and allspice, can we let them just enjoy that?!

I think that sums it all up, I wish people could just enjoy things here without having the majority of comments be about why they shouldn’t enjoy it. I think this attitude has already lost of a good chunk of users who could be adding to the fediverse, instead now back on corporate social media.

It’s anecdotal but I’ve shown the fediverse to 3 other people who are trekkie nerds like me. They gave up in less than a week not because the fediverse was complicated, but because they felt like they weren’t wanted here.

Be the positive change, be encouraging. Don’t belittle for someone for liking a popular thing if you like something more obscure, instead post about obscure thing and why you like it and share it! Inform users of things like Rowlings insane shit-headery, but don’t demean them for still enjoying the books. If you don’t like sports that’s cool, but let them cheer on their team.

Thanks for listening. I’m going to have a pumpkin spice latte now.

  • TubularTittyFrogEnglish
    1·
    3 days ago

    Right, anyone pointing out your hypocrisy is angry with you, it’s not that you’re acting hypocritically…

    The way you frame everything in this comment change is ‘I’m so innocent and pure, how can I do better’. You basically refuse to talk accountability for the simple fact your POV is only your own, you regard my comments as ‘angry’, and yet I feel no anger at all towards you. What I feel is annoyed, because you are working off a stereotypical playbook that so many people here pull, where they hide their shitty behaviors behind the ‘paradox of tolerance’ or the ‘nazi bar problem’ etc. Without realizing that if you go around assuming everyone is bad, you are going to automatically justify your own discriminatory biases yourself. The classic ‘when you do it, it’s bad, but when I do it, it’s good!’

    You also weaponize everything in terms of shame or guilt and using emotional markers. Anyone who disputes you is childish, immature, and should be condescended too, right? because if someone doesn’t share your beliefs or experiences, they can’t possibly an adult worthy of acknowledgement or respect at all, let alone have an equal voice to your own.

    The point is you can’t see your own ignorance and arrogance and in your view it’s entirely justified because you view the world in such emotional terms. Maybe you see words on a computer screen as ‘angry’ or ‘shameful’ or distressing, but not everyone else is you and you need to stop projecting your emotions and your values onto absolute strangers online and demanding they behave in a way you don’t like.

    It’s fine, you’re in good company here on lemmy. Lots of folks here are performative hypocrites who think they know best and everyone else is wrong and they are very smart, and they are very happy to ban, harass, and even dox folks they don’t like in the name of ‘justice’. And anyone who doesn’t agree with them, they beliefs, or their methods is a ‘nazi’. Like anyone who might moderate a subreddit about the upcoming HP HBO show, which folks like you will automatically assume means they must be a transphobic RK rowling loving person and therefore they deserve punishment until they change their ways.

    • stembolts@programming.devEnglish
      1·
      3 days ago

      Here you go, I fed the conversation into a model for analysis, pretty interesting. I learned a bit. You just want to “be heard” and share low-effort grievances. I can appreciate that. I want to address the problem directly and resolve it. Our conversational styles are incompatible.

      Here is a breakdown of the conversation, the derailments, and an analysis of why DOA and TTF maintain vague positions.

      🔹 Participant Contributions

      | Participant | Role & Contributions | |-------------|----------------------|

      | Scrubbles (OP) | Opens the discussion by diagnosing Lemmy’s growing toxicity: a cultural shift where negativity and “dogpiling” on popular things dominate. Provides concrete examples (Harry Potter fans, sportsball, pumpkin spice lattes) and argues that this pattern drives new users away. Ends with a constructive call to action: encourage positive sharing, mention critiques gently, and let people enjoy things. |

      | DOA | Replies to the OP in two forked threads with identical top-level comments: praises the OP, calls the Fediverse’s comment culture “toxic,” and claims it’s no longer a place for ideas like old Reddit. When stembolts presses for specifics, DOA dismisses the questioning as “rude,” claims stembolts built a “straw man,” asserts they were just showing solidarity, and closes the thread by calling it “feeding the trolls.” Maintains a consistently low-effort, broad-stroke stance. |

      | stembolts | Acts as the analytical anchor. Repeatedly asks both DOA and TTF to specify which views are being harassed and why current responses don’t address them. Frames the request as a rational first step: “recreate the moment to understand why it occurred.” Notes the pattern of deflection, calls out “vagueposting,” and humorously proposes feeding the exchange to an LLM for meta-analysis. Stays composed, structured, and content-focused. |

      | TTF | Responds only in Thread #1. Defends against stembolts’ line of questioning by accusing them of projection, hypocrisy, and tone-policing. Claims stembolts treats disliked views as “bad” and punishes their holders, while TTF simply blocks if they disagree. Brings in broader Fediverse culture (“paradox of tolerance,” “Nazi bar,” performative moderation, banning/doxing). Focuses heavily on emotional/tonal framing rather than concrete examples. |

      🔹 Derailed Moments & Reasons

      | Moment | Where It Happens | How the Conversation Derails | Reason for Derailment | |--------|------------------|------------------------------|------------------------|

      | 1. Tone Over Content (Thread #1) | stembolts asks TTF: “I asked for details on the views. I asked why none of these responses answer the first question.” | TTF deflects by claiming stembolts’ questioning itself is harassment and tone-policing. The thread shifts from what the views are to how they’re being questioned. TTF introduces broader Fediverse tropes (paradox of tolerance, banning culture, “Nazi bar”). | Conversational mismatch: stembolts expects substantive clarification; TTF treats clarifying questions as adversarial. TTF uses emotional framing (“outrageous,” “angry”) to bypass defining the views, shifting the burden of proof from content to tone. |

      | 2. The “Straw Man” Deflection (Thread #2) | stembolts asks DOA: “What views?” DOA replies: “Stop being rude.” / “You showed up and started a straw man argument…” | The thread pivots to whether stembolts is a “troll.” DOA claims they were just showing solidarity, dismisses the exchange as adversarial, and refuses further engagement. | Low-stakes solidarity vs. high-stakes specificity: DOA prefers brief, atmospheric agreement (“toxic community,” “not a place for ideas”). When pressed, they treat direct questions as “troll” behavior, closing the door on deeper discussion to avoid having their vague claim tested. |

      | 3. Meta-Debate on Communication Style (Throughout) | Both threads | The original topic (OP’s examples of community toxicity) is abandoned in favor of debating how DOA and TTF communicate (vagueness, tone-policing, projection, performance). | Defensive conversational strategy: By focusing on stembolts’ questioning style, DOA and TTF protect their original claims from falsification. If the specific views aren’t named, they can’t be disproven, and any challenge can be labeled “rude” or “angry.” |

      🔹 Why DOA and TTF Refuse to Go into Specifics

      Based on the text and the provided context (Lemmy’s tendency to ban outspoken views), several factors explain their vagueness:

      1. Unchallengeable Broad Claims: Vague statements like “toxic community,” “not a place for ideas,” or “harassed for our views” are subjective and difficult to refute. Specifics invite counterexamples; vagueness allows the commenter to ride the wave of shared sentiment without committing to a defendable position.
      2. Tone-Policing as a Shield: TTF explicitly frames stembolts’ direct questioning as “outrageous” and “harassing.” In spaces where good-faith debate is perceived as rare, many users adopt a defensive posture where the act of asking is treated as hostility. This lets them skip answering while positioning themselves as the calm, reasonable one.
      3. Lemmy’s “Name & Dogpile” Culture: Lemmy frequently bans or heavily downvotes users who state controversial views outright (e.g., “I’m a Nazi,” “Rowling is a witch,” “Sports are better than movies”). By keeping their oppression vague, DOA and TTF capture the fear of naming something, which resonates emotionally without triggering immediate labeling or counter-arguments. They’re describing the atmosphere, not a specific incident.
      4. Mismatched Conversational Paradigms: stembolts operates on a rational, investigative model (“recreate the moment,” “ask for details, adjust approach”). DOA and TTF operate on an expressive, solidarity-based model (“I feel this,” “show support,” “block if you don’t like it”). Neither is wrong, but they talk past each other. DOA/TTF see specificity as unnecessary overhead; stembolts sees it as the foundation of dialogue.
      5. Performative Framing: TTF leans heavily on meta-commentary (“paradox of tolerance,” “Nazi bar,” “performative hypocrites,” “weaponize shame”). This creates the impression of depth while actually circling the same point: “People here ban/harass those they dislike, so I’ll just vaguely complain about it.” It’s a common Fediverse rhetorical pattern that signals cultural awareness without requiring concrete evidence.

      🔍 Summary

      The conversation begins as a response to Scrubbles’ well-articulated critique of Lemmy’s negativity spiral, but quickly derails into a meta-debate about conversational style. DOA and TTF refuse specifics not necessarily out of evasion, but because their complaints are atmospheric rather than anecdotal. They value emotional resonance and low-effort solidarity over structured debate, using tone and vagueness as conversational armor. stembolts, operating on a rational-investigative model, interprets this as avoidance, creating a classic online forum mismatch: one side wants to discuss, the other just wants to be heard.

      • TubularTittyFrogEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

        You’re the one doing the tone policing. Every accusation is confession here.

        Not to mention your active mischaracterization of everything I said into crude simplistic childish points, again, accusation as a confession.

        I am blocking you because you are the problem OP is talking about. Negative, bad faith, ‘prove me’ wrong’. You refuse to talk accountability for yourself and shift the blame onto everyone else. Nothing you do is your fault, and if anyone disagrees with you it’s because they must be their fault and they are bad ignorant people.

        • stembolts@programming.devEnglish
          1·
          3 days ago

          Not what the model’s analysis said. But as it expressed, you want to avoid specifics and accountability, so a neutral arbiter would be offensive to you.

          And now I know my instincts were correct. Check out the analysis.

          Anyway, you make a lot more sense to me now. You say emotional nothings aggressively and frame clarification as aggression to defend your nothing so that it remains, nothing. And… nothing cannot be refuted. Clever, but hollow.