Stuff like memes from people you think are wrong politically, cartoons you don’t find funny, etc etc. Why help the things you hate spread?
Years ago, a coworker told me about someone famous who had died that morning. I don’t remember who, only that it was someone who I had heard good things about, was well liked, and seemed like a nice person.
I was actually sad to hear about it. I probably would have gone weeks without hearing about their death otherwise, and it wouldn’t have bothered me as much. Instead, my morning was ruined by someone who just wanted to be the first to tell people, and treated the news like it was merely another piece of trivia.
I decided right then and there not to share bad news without a reason. Sometimes people need to hear unpleasant things, of course, and I don’t dodge that responsibility. There’s no reason to pointlessly spread negativity, though, especially when the information isn’t particularly essential to anyone.
I don’t know why I typed that. It’s basically the exact opposite of what you asked. Uh… sorry!
I dont see as the opposite, but the opposite, it is a very insteresting story and a way to see this kind of situation that OP is talking about. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks, I need to spend time thinking about this. I’m drawn to discussing contentious topics because it’s interesting. I worry that without discussing these things which interest me that I won’t have a lot to say.
This made me think of that Curb episode where Larry’s mom (I think) dies and his dad just didn’t tell him because he didn’t want to ruin his trip to New York.
This mostly relates to stuff you disagree with (politically, etc):
It’s really easy on the Internet to live in a bubble, surrounded by others and material you like and agree with. This is especially true when it comes to the political right or left. Posting/viewing material from the “other side” serves three purposes: 1) it’s different from what your Internet crowd posts and therefore novel and interesting, 2) it’s something to gawk at, and 3) it keeps your crowd up to date on what the opposition is doing and thinking, which is important if you want to debate/defeat/win them over.
Example: you’re on the left and a “look what the right is memeing” sub/community starts posting a lot of trad-wife material. You have now been 1) introduced to a new concept (and thereby upgraded your Internet cred with new slang), 2) provided with novel material to yourselves meme about and make fun of (in this example, Ben Shapiro’s sister’s oversized titties), and 3) inoculated to the concept so when your 19-year-old cousin starts whining at Thanksgiving about how all the women at college are sluts and why can’t he find himself a good traditional wife you can give his manosphere-brainwashed ass a thorough smackdown thanks to some sweet rhetoric you picked up from the snarky comments section of aforementioned posts, instead of weakly stammering something about equal partnerships (or worse yet, not understanding the nuance behind wanting a “traditional wife” and thinking this is a perfectly normal expectation for dating in the 21st century that totally won’t lead down the path of inceldom).
There is another, 4th reason: self-reflection. Sometimes, during a blue super-moon lunar eclipse, you see content that’s from the other side that makes you wonder, “are we the baddies?” Or perhaps, “okay maybe they have a point there.” Or at the very least, “yeah I can see where maybe we’re not at our absolute best on this particular aspect of this specific issue.” At least, it would be nice if that ever happened, right?
I recently found an interviewer who is clearly more left leaning but he does interviews with very conservative/right wing people (mostly students) and just like, not to argue or anything, he just asks a question and they answer and he goes “okay thanks” then posts it without any added comment on the socials. It really interested me cause like, I can see why they might think the things they think. Doesn’t mean I agree with them, but at least it’s a way to listen and kind of see the humanness in people who you might otherwise instinctively villainize.
How am I supposed to form an angry mob if nobody else is angry?
People love outrage.
deleted by creator
Shortsighted validation.
@Skullgrid I don’t really know why they do that but my best guess is that joining others to express anger at a third thing is a form of social bonding.
I used to have several neighbours who would watch a weekly television program on animal abuse. As far as I can see, the experience of gathering next to the letterbox and denouncing the animal abusers gave them a sense of community.
It may also fulfil the dual function of reassuring them that the world has plenty of people who also don’t support the hated object.
deleted by creator
I’m not aware of communities like that on Lemmy, but Reddit’s got r/terriblefacebookmemes, a bunch of subs with the format r/shit____say(s), r/therightcantmeme, etc. They’re unambiguously posting the content because they don’t like it and want everyone to hate on it with them.
deleted by creator
Well, laughing at something in the way you described is kind of just a different way of hating on it, is it not? Even the way you phrased, “…calling out the stupidity of shit other people say,” suggests a strong dislike of the statements showcased on those subs.
To chime in, there’s many things I think are stupid without hating them. But then again; I’m an adult and can differentiate between the two.
For instance:
Anime. I think it’s dumb. But I have no hate for it whatsoever. Hate is an emotion. I don’t reserve emotional states for things I think are dumb.
Yes, but you also probably don’t repost screenshots of cringeworthy anime-centric posts other people have made so that you can make fun of them with other people. There’s a difference between seeing something, going, “lol that’s dumb,” and moving on VS seeing something, going, “lol so fucking stupid,” taking a screenshot, and posting it somewhere else so you and a bunch of other people can spend time making fun of it and tearing it apart in the comments.
I suppose the logic is that rage clicks are still clicks.
Karma/subreddit systems incentivize posting inflammatory things for their insular communities to circle-jerk over. Nothing fuels the upvotes like righteous indignation. Spreading positivity doesn’t give the short-term endorphin release that internet points give you.
I could ask the same question about people who post bad-faith leading questions on asklemmy with the sole intent of ranting about something that annoys them.
Got to crack a few eggs to make an omelet I guess. But really, only way to find out is to ask and talk about things.
And what omelet is that exactly? I bet you 48 hours from now there won’t be a single answer from someone to whom OP directed their question. Nothing can be gained by simply ranting in the interrogative.
1h in, we’ve got a few possible answers. I guess you lost the bet?
Omelet would be the answer to this threads question, with such a quizical response I figured you’d know the answer already.
you seem to care how the omelet _tastes _ more than making it.
I’ll ask an equally self-evident question…What do you want the omelet to taste like?
There’s a user on a Francophone community that keeps posting articles from a website called frustrationmagazine. Literally
so people can tee off it, because shitty bad viewpoints are easy to argue against, and the more people that see the rebuttals, the better
Accountability.
Because if people don’t, then evil wins. Even GI Joe taught us: Knowing is half the battle.
