when a bunch of nerds (complementary) hate misinformation, lies, and ignorance on the internet enough, they all get together and make a wiki. its a beautiful, natural process. not all nerds will contribute to a wiki, but all of us will have some feelings about it.
Did you mean “complimentary”, or were you saying that the bunch of nerds have distinct areas of expertise which, as a whole, complement each other?
I don’t want to be on my death bed wishing I had argued more, so I’m doing what I can while I’m young and ornery
Laughs in does not read replies
This is me. Currently at 522 unread. We move ever forward we don’t revisit garbage.
You just won $23.437.932. Please reply to let us know where to transfer your winnings.
It is fun arguing with people you disagree with as long as both argues in good faith and has uses good etiquette. Both needs to be open minded to a certain degree.
The goal of a conversation is not to convince, but rather to explore your own and their mind. To grow together. A conversation is not a competition, we should not aim to “win” a conversation.
deleted by creator
You’re never going to win, and that’s not even the point. The point is to provide pushback to people who rarely receive it so that everyone else reading the exchange has a chance to see accurate information.
For example, it’s staggering how many people insist they want socialism when what they’re actually describing is social democracy, yet they have no idea what either term actually means. They’ll argue, foaming at the mouth, that humanity’s only hope is “socialism,” while demonstrating they don’t understand the ideology they’re advocating for.
The same goes for the abundance of anti-American rhetoric. Some criticism of America is absolutely justified—I have plenty of criticisms of my own country. But it’s interesting how many people who endlessly denounce America never mention what country they’re from or hold their own country to the same standard.
So no, the point isn’t to win the argument. The point is to apply enough pressure that the other person starts making obvious mistakes, exposing the weaknesses in their own position. That’s the entertaining part.
We must be on different lemmys because it seems pretty well understood here that the whole point of socialism is that the workers democratically control the means of production, only liberals from the USA act confused about that
So no. This is exactly what I’m talking about.
Socialism is not “democratic ownership of the means of production.” Where did you get that from? What YouTube channels are you watching?
Socialism is social or public ownership of the means of production. Democracy is a method of governance, not an economic system. The two are not synonymous.
In fact, there are companies right here in the United States that are run democratically. They’re called worker cooperatives. The employees collectively own the company, elect management, vote on major decisions, and often have much smaller pay gaps between executives and line workers. They’re successful examples of democratic workplaces operating within a capitalist economy.
Socialism, by contrast, is an economic system in which the means of production are owned socially rather than privately. That ownership can take different forms, including state ownership or worker ownership, depending on the model.
Capitalism is the opposite: the means of production are privately owned, and profits accrue primarily to the owners or shareholders.
And thanks for proving my point. What liberals have to do with any of this, I have no idea. You pulled that completely out of your ass because you heard it on conservative talk radio or somewhere similar.
It’s badly phrased but I think that “workers democratically control the means of production” translates to “workers own the means of production”.
So I think you are ranting over nothing.
As for worker co-ops in capitalist countries I would argue that those are indeed bubbles of socialism within a broader capitalist system. Just like you can have communes inside a capitalist country. Have you heard of socialist market economy or economic democracy?
No, I’m objecting because you’re collapsing multiple distinct concepts into the word “socialism.”
A worker co-op is a company where the employees collectively own that particular business. That does not mean the economy is socialist. It is still operating in a market economy, competing with privately owned firms, buying and selling goods, and responding to prices. That’s capitalism permitting an alternative ownership structure.
Socialism, in the classical sense, is public or social ownership of the means of production across the economy. How that ownership is administered, through the state, municipalities, public trusts, or some other institution, is a separate question. “Workers democratically control the means of production” is one proposed implementation, not the definition itself.
That’s why economic democracy, market socialism, worker co-ops, and socialism are related but distinct concepts. You’re treating them as interchangeable.
Ironically, this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. People hear the word “socialism” and start attaching every form of worker participation, workplace democracy, or cooperative ownership to it, even when those things can and do exist inside capitalist economies.
And the reason I’m ranting is because you are the exact thing I was talking about in my original comment.
This thread is a whole lot of words for “I am full of myself and dumb”.
This is a good bit of projection if I’ve ever seen it.
If this is your takeaway, my confidence in our people has dropped a few more notches.
“Waaahhhhh, this thread is a little too intellectual for my tastes, which must mean you’re all the dumb ones, not me, surely!”
Yes, and if you don’t agree you can debate me!
Is it the 5 minute argument?
Pro tip: Never open your inbox.
Not as powerful as you but I’m working on it
Of course it was.
They were wrong. How are they going to know they are wrong if no one tells them?
Generally speaking, I don’t argue with strangers on the internet with the goal of changing their minds or “educating” them. I mean, I do start with that intention…who doesn’t? But by the time I am finished, I realize that I’m just clarifying my own thoughts and positions in my mind.
I just find it entertaining
Username checks out.
I don’t start with that goal because I assume people won’t change a stance because some online stranger said something. So I just get out my frustrations on idiots this way. Trying to stop, though. My time is worth more.
congratulations.
Other people in this thread have already said it better than I could but in brief: Yes
To be fair, when you try it in person, they’re all “Who are you? How did you get in my house? I’m calling the cops!”, then it’s no fun at all.
I can answer with confidence: sometimes!
yes.
Absolutely. There’s way too many blithering idiots online. We made the web way too accessible to them back in the ‘90’s.
And if idiots don’t get challenged, you run the risk of them thinking they’re actually right. And that’s very, very dangerous.
I will admit the only reason I attempt to verbally correct them is because I don’t have access to a Reaper drone to shove a Flying Ginsu missile up their ass.
I mean, evidence shows that having their ideas challenged online tends to entrench people in their ideas more so than it convinces them that they’re wrong.
So, while I sympathize with your goals, I think your method is having the opposite effect of your intended outcome.
I say this, knowing it’s true, and still doing the arguing online thing anyway.
It’s not about them it’s about the other people that might be influenced by their post.
Online is never an A&B conversation, which is why I usually avoid direct confrontation and just provide well structured, clear information, because I don’t really care whether I can convince someone who has made up their mind.
It’s about deconstructing the argument with clear digestible information for the dozens of lurkers.
Evidence isn’t what bullies and bigots rely on. It’s their feelings of superiority and their justification of violence.
hence why they will never argue with evidence or facts. They will just insult and harass and threaten.
and if you use the evidence of their own words against them… well get ready to get reported to the mods.
I hate saying this, I feel gross saying this, but the internet needs restrictions. I don’t know what the solution is. I hate all the ones that are being tried right now like age verification or needing an ID, because they really seem more focused on surveillance than anything else… But… God damn.
The general public should not have unfettered access to the internet. I think we have shown that this technology is too dangerous for humanity as a whole. There’s just too many idiots and bad actors. Again, I don’t know what the solution is. How do you balance privacy and personal freedom with the dangers that come with giving everyone access to everything? Unfortunately, I don’t see a solution that doesn’t come off as draconian or controlling in some way, shape, or form.
Maybe it’s something like a multi-layer internet, where the first layer anyone can access but is mostly read-only with a few exceptions. If you want to access the second layer which allows you to post, comment, upload, etc., you need a license. The barrier to entry should be small, something on the level of a HAM radio license. A simple class, an easy test, and a small one-time fee and you’re good for 10 years. You can even allow access for anyone at a library, university, or business.
It wouldn’t fix everything, and deep down I know that if anything like this were tried it would be twisted and warped by the powers that be to become just another form of control, but holy shit we need something or society is going to tear itself apart.
yeah, your such a big tough strong guy who is so smart.
so strong that you fantasizing about murdering people who upset you by saying things you don’t like… so brave. so smart. so strong.
All thoughts are not created equal. Something tells me yours are created even less equal than most.
yeah, so superior when you’re go to is insults and threats.
almost like you’re a bully, and a coward.
yeah, so superior when you’re go to is insults and threats.
yeah, your such a big tough strong guy who is so smart.
Before I realized there was no point 99% of the time, I didn’t think it was a waste of time. Now if I’m feeling generous I think, at least on a platform like Lemmy, best you can hope is like 10% of the time you plant a seed for the person with a wrong idea or opinion that will eventually lead them to a better understanding. I certainly know that’s happened to me before when I was wrong. So often, people make the online exchange feel awful though. There’s a prominent attitude in many extremist/wrong viewpoints that not only are they right, everyone who thinks differently is an evil asshole.
It’s not just for the person you reply to, but also for anyone else who may come across this thread. That’s how I see it anyway.
Right, that’s also how I think of it
