!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Because it's a bit of an echo chamber and people get too involved in stuff with anonymity. You will find this sort of social behaviour all over the internet and from any "camp". It's just bad people.
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
-Gandalf the Grey / J R R Tolkein
Tolkien ftfy
This is a great quote and one I often remember, but I would also add this:
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death or to let live in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
Live and let live works, but only if the other also does so. When one does not allow you to live as you want, because what they do harms you, then that ends there.
We've been transitioning from a dignity culture to a victimhood/outrage culture for most of my adult life. The relevant one here is the outrage culture, where people are trying their damnedest to be the most outraged. Nothing shows that you are more are outraged by something than suggesting that someone should die for being in disagreement with you.
As someone older than the public internet, these people and positions always existed. The difference in my opinion is that the 24-hour news cycle and online echo chambers combined with less in-person meeting, particularly with others in the community different to oneself has just further isolated and polarized people. There's also an argument that heavily-biased cable "news" (which is oftentimes more "opinions" and sometimes "outright lies") going unchecked has further polarized and divided people.
I've found that people on the internet generally have low empathy. If it's not animal or child abuse, the responses are all over the place.
The internet is just a bunch of grown-ups and children arguing "as equals".
I've once read somewhere that the human brain is only REALLY able to include about 100 people at any time in the list of "people one truly cares about", that we are neurologically unprepared for the level of exposure to other people and their problems that we get nowadays.
But I never bothered checking the veracity of that statement. It might be complete bullshit. A lot of stuff online is. Either way it's irrelevant because if it IS indeed a problem, then "overexposure to someone else's problems" is a concept at least as old as the printing press. What the internet adds to the mix is... Well...
.... It's far easier to act like a psychotic jerk to someone that exists as a few paragraphs of glowy text on a slab of silicon and glass. You aren't forced to look another human being in the eye while you talk about all the horrid shit you wish upon them.
Remembering from my social psychology classes in undergrad, I believe number is 150. But yes, that's a good point. It's one of the reasons people in major urban areas like NYC are capable of moving on with their lives when terrible things happen to those around them. We biologically can't care about people once we reach our 150 limit. Btw, I think the authors of that theory argued that that number is one of the major differences between us and other social species.
It's a lot easier to feel like you're not involved when you're behind a screen hundreds of miles away.
A lot of perceived suffering in this world can make a person feel as though a lot of people do on fact deserve to die.
Most people are led by emotions rather than cold and analytical reasoning. I believe everyone has the capability to think objectively but that capability gets clouded when ever they're taken capture by strong emotions. That's why they can reasonably consider an abstract but difficult trolley problem but then lose their minds when Elon says something stupid on Twitter.
I want to believe that the majority of people around me would infact not want to cast death sentences haphazardly like that but rather they're just expressing how they feel. It's a way to signal to the group. "Elon is a nazi and deserves to die" roughly tanslates to "boo Elon"
He who is without sin can cast the first stone.
I think you are right. I wanted to add that often times people will have a strong sense of justice or revenge and want to see something bad happen to a person who did bad things.
Other times when people call for someone's death, it's because they don't believe that there is any other way to stop the harm that person is causing. This tends to be the case when political figures start violating the civil and human rights of their constituents.
Why do conservatives believe gay, trans, black, brown, Liberals, and the disabled deserve to die?
~~Why~~ do conservatives believe gay, trans, black, brown, Liberals, and the disabled deserve to die?
Yes, yes they do. Just watch Fox or peruse any Right Wing website.
Fuck Putin, by the way.
Fuck Putin, by the way.
Captain, we're being scanned!
Did that sound funny in your head? Anyway, you do you.
Tankie or not, i giggled
yeah
Trump literally said “disabled people should just die”
It sounds like you were on the end of the chain in a game of telephone.
When Fred Trump III asked his uncle Donald Trump for money to help with his disabled son's medical care, he says the former U.S. president suggested letting the young man die instead.
I could see how politicized media could morph that into "disabled people should just die" for clicks, though.
We have an extreme aversion to people who use manipulation tactics and want to be rid of them in the world.
Screw this bullshit, stop trying to normalize the deadly atrocious behavior from these right wing zealots
Yeah. The right wing zealot behaviour of killing anyone you don’t like.
Oh no, won’t someone think of the people speed running the destruction of our planet and causing suffering to so many innocent people.
Yeah I’m all for killing the few politicians and billionaires doing that, if they don’t stop with warning. Because they are the root of the problem.
But killing the many working class people who may have little choice and not have the education necessary to know they are contributing to bad is counterproductive and difficult to justify.
The people who get them into power, who vote and support them, who harass those speaking out against them, are not innocent victims.
There is no little choice, they have all the choice they can get, they choose to be pieces of shit.
Imagine acting as if millions and millions of grown adults are completely hapless little things forced into a life of right wing bullshit because they never bothered to look outside their bubble.
This is human nature. It's the same reason you had 20 year olds sucker punching 70 year old asian women during lockdown. Cowardice and a need to lash out.
No. It may be the nature of some subset of people. Those people should die.
People say whatever on the internet and anonymous areas. Often for shock or the extremist idealism as if something was dead things would be different
Your examples. Both of these are extreme differences in people's views and principles. The logger is killing and ruining someone's country for profit. Yes the individual guy needs money but he put the principal of doing something wrong aside to make money. The logger could do something else or he doesn't care. He has no empathy towards future generations or the health of species of animals. Why should someone have empathy for them.
Nazi example is easy while I am sure some people were ignorant or born into being a child of a nazi one should be resisting the horridness if you reap the benefits of your nation's success at the downfall of others of course they are going to wish you dead. To put you into a perspective of nazi haters why should they get to live a peaceful life or be forgiven or left alone even if they saw the error of their ways or to desperate to fight back when people lost their future and families because of their group.
As for the drug dealer people see the worst that comes out in people as a druggie and blame the person who keeps enabling. If the druggie could be cut off then someone's life wouldn't be ruined.
In every example you gave someone was ruining someone else's life or future. Of course people personally affect by similar circumstances aren't going to have as much empathy for these people it takes a lot of compassion, self reflection, love, and forgiveness to be able to be kind to someone who hurt you and your family. Not everyone is in that place.
Every day or year we have unbalanced people entering huge amounts of hormones causing their feelings to be imbalanced and every a new person is getting hurt leading to a life where kindness is locked off for awhile maybe forever.
Our culture is about retribution many people don't see proper steps to make things right or see people continue to do bad things. The easy solution is having things not exist anymore so you don't get hurt again. If you trust bad people they may hurt you. Every decision has a consequence and rarely is it fully made whole even in forgiveness. You can't give someone back their family, you can't give someone back an extinct species, you can't give back the world a stable climate. Of course people will hold hatred
I don't know about others, but I don't think anybody deserves to die necessarily. It is faaaaar too merciful a fate for horrible people. I believe the worst of humanity - rapists, murderers, child abusers, etc. - deserve to live long, painful, oh so horrible lives.
My choice would be to put them inside of a 3 meter cube of steel, welded shut, with only a hamster bottle for water, a hole in the bottom for waste, and a nutrient paste dispensing chute. When the prisoner eventually dies, it is bury the whole thing out in the desert to be their unmarked tomb.
Very edgy.
have you been to the mid east? don't.. if you're gay or not a muslim. they don't give two shits about human life. almost anywhere you go you can see it.
Why do so many people post on this community and other “asks” about stuff that I have literally never encountered at all yet purport it to be a rampant trend?
Hiding behind keyboard is easy.
Why should people be nice online when there are no tangible consequences to them being evil?
It's the result of the "bombastic" mix of false dichotomy, assumptions, and social media dynamics.
False dichotomy prevents you from noticing nuances, complexities, third sides, or gradations. Under a false dichotomy, there's no such thing as "Alice and Bob are bad, but Alice is worse than Bob"; no, either they're equally bad (thus both deserve to die), or one of them is good.
In the meantime, assumptions prevent you from handling uncertainties, as the person "fills the blanks" of the missing info with whatever crap supports their conclusion. For example you don't know if Bob kills puppies or not, but you do know that he jaywalks, right? So you assume that he kills puppies too, thus deserving death.
I'm from the firm belief that people who consistent and egregiously engage in discourse showing both things are muppets causing harm to society, and deserve to be treated as such. (Note: "consistent and egregiously" are key words here. A brainfart or two is fine, as long as there's at least the attempt of handling additional bits of info and/or complexity.)
Then there are the social media dynamics. I feel like a lot of users here already addressed them really well, but to keep it short: social media gives undue exposure to idiots doing the above due to anonymity, detachment from the situation, self-reinforcing loops ("circlejerks"), so goes on.
Life is cheap on the internet, because people feel far removed (and/or "above it"). Social media "engagement" algorithms divide and isolate people from each other.
(I think as far as Lemmy is concerned, it's just spillover / remnant behaviors from that stuff. There's no engagement algorithm here other than what we bring in ourselves.)
Here are a some studies on it from people a lot smarter than me. (Note these are more about general toxicity and hate speech and not zeroed in on your exact question, but they may be helpful).
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.744614/full
https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/11547/10076
https://scholars.org/contribution/countering-online-toxicity-and-hate-speech
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-021-00787-4
This one looks at the "why" question from a political POV:
https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/2/11/pgad382/7405434?login=false
I've seen this one before, but the alt text had me in a (silent) laughing fit anyways.
