Ask Lemmy

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.

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.

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.

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.

Any truth that upsets the hivemind.

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.

Being 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.

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....