No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!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:
Rules (interactive)
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.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Totally agree with you. During the issue , there were some people that had a backhanded way of asking what i meant when I said that Russia had no reason to invade Ukraine. So I said that Putin was trying to get his glorious USSR back. I wasn't being literal, but the past 20 years shows that he has been trying to annex states that were previously under the USSR or at the very least keeping extremely close, controllable ties with them. I got ridiculed and belittled without further request of clarification. And I think it's because they aren't interested or they are under the Russian propaganda machine.
He also pretty much said as much during his initial ramblings during the invasion- that ukraine and other former Soviet states are rightfully a part of Russia.
But in their eyes, I'm the crazy, illiterate, stupid lib
And yaknow, I wouldn’t even mind being viewed that way. It’s the shitty moderation style I will mock endlessly.
Agreed
You can't deliver garbage writing to communists and expect positive results. The standard of semantics and nuance are set by socio-economic authors predominantly from the mid-to-late nineteenth century. Prerequisite to even speaking is a comprehensive understanding of at least The Conquest of Bread. One is expected to have the ability to segregate content from presentation and ideology from means of implementation. It's as if you walked into university dynamics and poorly presented an algebra-based approach to a single body problem.
In certain forums, unless I'm very well-informed about a topic, I've learned to shut the fuck up unless asking questions, and to ask them with humility. In communist forums, which always stress education, I consistently receive high quality answers.
This is a core principle in Communist organization. "No investigation, no right to speak." As a consequence, discussion tends to be better-informed in my experience.
Yes.
If I invest effort into figuring it out for myself and demonstrate that effort in the quality of my questions then nearly every teacher will at least match my investment. In the US teachers are so starved for good students that one-on-one education is free, from philosophy professors to diesel mechanics. I don't even need be past the "nonsense" stage, only recognize my status and ask what pieces of the puzzle I'm missing.
edit: fixed a change from first to third person for clarity
It seems to me you're under the belief that they can say and believe whatever they want without criticism, and they shouldn't be allowed to be criticized. Also, I see you have used the phrase "neolib," so your beliefs are probably more in line with theirs than mine are. Of course, you're not going to be criticized. However, I do have the right to critique the approach with their criticism. The short-and-skinny of what I observed is that they can dish it out, but can't take it. It's irrational and a very closed off way if thinking. If they want to be talked to and about in a certain way, then they themselves need to do the same
You delivered nonsense without even considering semantic. You felt entitled to others figuring it out for you. And, you were rejected due to your lack of effort.
I'll now reject you for gaslighting me about your comments, which I've read, and the follow up strawman.
It's simply not good enough. I don't care why. But, I know you've nothing to contribute but practice material for identifying logical fallacy.
Well thank you letting me live rent free in your head. You wasted your mental energy by coming here and saying that. And you have proved nothing besides exactly what I said. You didn't come here to get an understanding of me, you came here to try and call me out.
So do you feel better about yourself? You holding your head up higher now?
My guy, this is a wild attempt a retort, given this entire thread was so you could come call Hexbears out, not to get any understanding.
My friend, I don't give a shit
Jerking communist doctrine while ignoring historic facts is indeed their with "what about capitalism" MO tiring.
Yeah the west sucks but they are winning the battle for now. Pretending like communist Revolution is the better route over structural reforms is also unstated theme.
Which leads me to believe that they are bad faith actors.
Communist revolution because capitalism has failed as predicted is the primary and public point of community unification for hexbear. Your assertions are laughable.
It is definitely failing lol but idea that some strong man is going to come to save us from the current strong men is laughable ;)
Also, foundational text only ID'ed the problem, it never provided a solution. Tankie larping leninst or Maoist is straight up bad faith actor from perspective of the doctrine since it has proven to be ineffective as executed by their respective "thinkers"
When you've definitely read theory
I'm not convinced you've read or have a basic understanding of any foundational text, based on your assertions here.
Do you have any evidence of Putin wishing to reinstate the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Why is Putin moving in a Capitalist direction, rather than Socialist? Why is the conflict specifically centered around regions of Ukraine, not the entirety, and why Ukraine specifically? Do you believe history to be decided by Great Men, or by Material Conditions?
This person is saying Putin wants the territory back, not the government system. They even say the statement was hyperbolic.
Now they say that. They also lied and said that they weren't asked any clarifying questions, when the linked comment proves that they very clearly were. They're just trying to backtrack their unreasonable claims after the fact to make the response they got seem more disproportionate.
Or is clarifying further after being asked a question about it. That seems to be the most natural result, no?