Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Due process. Freaking due process. Or the scientific method or whatever you want to call it.
What do I mean to be implied by saying this? Suppose you encounter a situation where accusations are thrown around. Normally this starts by asking what the claim is before talking further about what is wrong with the action in question plus what separates it from hearsay. You might consult testimony/proofs/cross-examination for this, with some of this being more defining/damning than others. Things like you'd see in 12 Angry Men, like "you just said X when you're now saying Y", "what makes this indication of what happened, inarguable enough to not be found within reasonable doubt", and "you have all this testimony on one hand and the physical remnants telling us another thing".
In short, it's supposed to be instinctual that what people want to do is to mark the truth via scrutiny when it would otherwise blend in with everything else.
Alright, so you might be asking what I mean when I say this as my answer. The pen being mightier than the sword is not an idiom that anyone should have to say, but seldom has someone here ever had any issue randomly walking up to a crowd and making damning remarks about someone they don't like and instantly denting another individual in ways that should matter. Relatedly, someone might have what they insist is solid indication of something but isn't for the very fact that it's arguable and leaves room for doubt.
I've seen an individual in particular do this, they go up to people and say "this person is a pedo", they then go up to another crowd, same thing, they say "this person is a pedo". Usually it has some super long elaboration too, complete with a mixture of things without solid indicators, things with no indicators, and actions which were already compensated for years ago. People in charge typically know better, but the common people have this idea in their mind that "this is a damning claim, logically it wouldn't exist for no reason", like have you ever seen a spiteful ex before? I myself am an arguable victim of this, chronically on numerous occasions, in all spheres of life, being unable to do so much as engage in hobbies without the paparazzi wannabe we know as the human populace chiming in. Sometimes they'll even pull the "well then prove the rumors are false" card which requires that you can prove a negative (which would make it not a negative in the first place). The social equivalent of chopping down trees so that I have to walk over them while walking on a path, hoping one day maybe a branch will jab me or something.
One day a few of us asked about this and the response every time was "it's human nature to forego due process if someone can sense due process would be dishonorable", and that was one of the last straws that led to my misanthropy and the fact that, in a profound way, I detest the very essence of humanity, and why I often contrast neurodivergence with human nature, because it's often those of us who are neurodivergent who are considered as having the lesser states of mind. I beg to differ, we're not the ones who are showing how profoundly self-defeating we are. One might say I've even self-reflected months at a time just to contemplate if maybe I was the asshole. I'm sure I am the asshole sometimes, but that doesn't mean a learned person cannot see the holes. And people wonder why I feel sorry for the ultra stigmatized.
You might find it fascinating to watch The Alt Right Playbook by Innuendo Studios on YouTube. It just might change your life. It's not fully about politics so much as, much more importantly, the method of discourse that has somehow become popular in the Western world, as many right-wing groups worldwide have started to use it and it has permeated our entire culture.
Does all that come with instructions on what if the other side starts spinning it and making the case that you're operating by this MO?
I believe it does:-).
Where?
One is The Reverse Gish Gallop and another is The Card Says Moops, though the latter is a significantly longer journey.
If you haven't watched (or its been a minute since), I would start from the first one in the series bc it builds so nicely and foundationally:-).