this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
69 points (72.8% liked)
Asklemmy
44152 readers
921 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sounds like every popular community on Lemmy. The only difference is the "agreed perspective".
Not really.
In most communities you can at least entice some robust discussion, hexbear just seems sp aggressively intolerant of alternative views.
Love how at the very idea of somebody disagreeing with you, you start throwing up all sorts of topics you know are hot buttons just so you can preemptively slam anyone who has a different perspective than you. Rather than taking a second to teach a single thing about the topics you claim to care about you just flash them like political merit badges to prove you're in the in-group, and anybody who doesn't know exactly what one of those things are, or what you think is the truth about it, is worth dismissing out of hand. It's just a secret handshake that if people don't parrot it back to you they're not worth debating. You were never here for healthy debate though. You don't care about convincing anyone or advancing your causes or ideas. You're here for the badges.
@[email protected] your assessment of @TheAnоnymоuseJо[email protected] is spot-on, highlighting behaviors indicative of a fragile ego and a need for superiority. This individual frequently deflects from central topics, especially when their views are challenged, revealing an inability to handle opposing viewpoints. It’s normal to have differences in opinion, but for TheAnоnymоuseJоker this seems to be an act of war, a mindset that is immature and counterproductive for meaningful online interactions.
Psychologically, it's a common fallacy for some individuals to oversimplify complex social interactions, reducing them to mere players in the game of their subjective perception. This viewpoint often ignores the nuanced realities of human behavior and interaction.
Recognizing these behaviors — deflecting, causing dismay, dismissing, denying, deceiving — is essential in understanding the underlying motivations and responding appropriately to maintain the integrity of the discussion.
Analyzing me psychologically? That's an interesting deflection, TheAnonymouseJoker. You claim I'm engaging in deflective and ignorant behavior, yet here you are, quickly labeling and dismissing my points without addressing their substance. It's quite telling that instead of engaging with the critique, you resort to calling out my account's age and my supposed affiliations. This tactic of yours, focusing on personal attacks rather than the discussion at hand, really highlights the earlier point about your tendency to dismiss and belittle differing opinions. It seems like any perspective that doesn't align with yours is automatically considered 'contextless liberal rants and libel.' Isn't that, in itself, a form of intellectual compromise? Let's stick to the actual content of the discussion, shall we?
See, this is why people have problems with ML and hexbears. How will you ever bring the revolution when you can't stop screeching? Nobody wants that. Nobody wants to be around it. You'll be a revolution of one because nobody can take being around such an abrasive asshole long enough to even listen to their points, much less realize they might be right.
Imagine somebody walking down the street. They see a poster on the wall of the store they pass. It's a Starbucks. "Looks tasty, I'm cold" they say. Suddenly, you're there, shrieking about labor rights and fair trade. You are without a doubt correct, but you've scared the person and now they're annoyed. One of those drones inside with the green hats comes out and sees the situation. They ask the customer to come inside where they're safe from you, and now they're buying overpriced drinks from exploited workers produced by exploited farmers etc.
All because instead of talking to someone like a human, you had to be edgy and witty. You treat real humans the way tv characters talk to each other. On TV the wittiest oneo-liner wins. In real life you have to show a little human compassion, even if you're faking it or else you alienate who you're talking to and are left in an echo chamber, alone, or in the case of our imagined scenario the employees may call security or police (agents of oppression, and they'll probably buy coffee too) on a person harassing potential customers.
His tendency to dismiss and belittle differing opinions aligns with the behavior of making jokes at someone else’s expense, a red flag of his intention to demean rather than engage. This approach not only stifles productive discourse but also exposes their inability to appreciate the nuances in complex issues. The mark of a first-rate intelligence is holding two opposed ideas while still functioning, *a capacity *TheAnоnymоuseJоker seems to lack. He demonstrates an inability to see a world where an idea can be both right and wrong, as seen in his black-and-white arguments.
Ironically, and I quote him:
Furthermore, the consistent denial and projection of his biases onto others underscore his low self-esteem and desire to control and influence the narrative. This manipulation, characterized by deceiving and creating misleading narratives, aligns with the observation that the most argumentative people rarely persuade anyone. Persuasion is an art that requires observation, listening, and inquiry, not blunt force.
The only way leftist will win any political ground is by winning allies
Screaming down every person who you have a disagreement with politically will only solidify their dislike for the people you claim to represent
It's funny to me seeing you claim that the other people lack awareness and empathy when you seemingly fail to grasp that people don't enjoy the way you are portraying your political views
You know what we call it when you take an ethnic group and act like all its members are the same?
What's stopping them from redrawing their borders at the negotiating table?
You're honestly hilarious.
That's a very mature response
It’s also crucial to consider the source of advice or criticism. TheAnоnymоuseJоker's attacks are reminiscent of those who criticize yet have never built anything themselves. Their actions seems more about garnering attention than offering constructive criticism. One cannot be offended by someone they do not respect. It's important to take advice from those you respect and who contribute positively, not from those who seek to destroy. TheAnоnymоuseJоker should address the need for maturity and constructive engagement rather than dismissive or sarcastic remarks.
It's vital to approach such an individual with compassion.
You're are likely trapped in a cycle of negative thoughts and might not see the error in your ways. Holding grudges only leads to bitterness, so it's noble to leave the door open for forgiveness and change.
Sent by... Mate, that's delusional paranoia at this point...
Observing TheAnonymouseJoker's behavior, one might note a certain irony in the psychological dynamics at play. Typically, he is the epicenter of tumultuous online interactions, engaging in continuous provocative posting, ostensibly for amusement. Yet, when the dynamic shifts and he finds himself the as the so called "target" (when in reality he's playing the victim card), there is a palpable transition in his behavioral response. This shift is akin to an individual transitioning from a position of instigating disorder to fervently adhering to self-made structured guidelines and regulations.
It's a fascinating psychological phenomenon, reminiscent of cognitive dissonance, where one's actions and reactions are incongruent. His behavior exemplifies a marked discrepancy between his usual role as an agent of chaos and your sudden embrace of strict rule adherence when faced with similar treatment. This dichotomy prompts reflection on the human propensity for selective resilience and vulnerability, particularly in the context of social interactions and perceived threats to self-concept. The disparity in his responses underlines a broader psychological principle: individuals often demonstrate a tolerance for initiating certain behaviors but display a contrasting intolerance when those same behaviors are directed towards them.
The observation you've made about the age of my account and the focus of my comments is quite astute. However, it's essential to recognize the inherent nature of online platforms where every account has its beginning. At some point, even your account, 'TheAnonymouseJoker,' was newly created, and your initial comments, presumably, were directed towards specific discussions or individuals.
This early focus does not inherently imply ill intent or duplicity, just as it didn't in your case. To suggest otherwise might reflect a double standard, where one's own historical actions are exempt from the judgment being applied to others. It's a common psychological defense mechanism to project one's behavior or motivations onto others, especially when facing scrutiny or criticism.
Moreover, focusing on the age of my account and directing attention to it can be seen as a tactical deflection from the primary topic of our discussion. It's an intriguing example of shifting the narrative to avoid addressing the substantive issues at hand, possibly indicative of a discomfort with the content of the conversation or an attempt to distract from one's own character traits that might be under examination.
In a broader academic sense, this is an interesting demonstration of psychological operations - a strategic move to influence or alter the perception of the discussion. Your capabilities in this regard seem more aligned with the aspirations of an amateur hobbyist, perhaps daydreaming about professional-level risk management engagements. It's a scenario more befitting a red team exercise in theory rather than in practice, suggesting a gap between ambition and actual skill. But let's remember, the key to any meaningful and productive dialogue is to stick to the topic and engage with the arguments presented, rather than veering off into personal attributions or conjectures about motivations. Shall we redirect our focus back to the central issue?
TheAnonymouseJoker, you seem to exhibit a significant emotional trigger, leading to a deviation from the topic at hand. The extensive narrative and the ensuing accusations against various individuals indicate a tendency towards off-topic drifting, a common behavioral response observed in individuals under psychological stress. This kind of verbose divergence from the central discussion is often seen as a form of gaslighting, where the intention is to shift the focus and disorient the conversation.
Moreover, the language used, particularly the phrase 'If you used 2 brain cells,' towards @[email protected] comment, is an evident sign of emotional reactivity coupled with a defensive posture. Such reactions are not uncommon in individuals exhibiting traits associated with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), where there is a tendency to deflect and insult when feeling threatened or criticized. It's an instinctive mechanism to protect one's self-image and divert attention from personal vulnerabilities or accountability.
Let's try to steer this back on track. Diving into these off-topic narratives, while it might feel instinctual to you, really muddies the waters of our actual discussion. It's an interesting pattern, and addressing it could be a constructive step in your own personal development. Focusing on the topic at hand is not just about keeping this conversation productive; it's also a kind of exercise, isn't it? A way to practice self-awareness and control in how you engage. So, how about we stick to the relevant points? It'll be more effective for our dialogue and, who knows, it might even be a good habit for you to develop.
Focusing on the age of my account and concocting theories about who sent me? That's a classic move, TheAnonymouseJoker. Rather than addressing the points raised, you're choosing to spin a narrative about conspiracies and smear campaigns. It's a neat way to sidestep the actual discussion, but it doesn't really hold up. Accusing someone of manufacturing 'unsubstantiated drivel' without engaging with the substance of their comments? That's avoiding the real conversation. Let's get back to the geopolitics discussion and deal with the actual topics at hand, instead of getting sidetracked by who's saying what.
ref.1
Sorry I don't side with imperialism.
Ukraine wants to not be invaded by it's neighbor, and Russia did so to conquer it in direct contradiction to a treaty it signed when Ukraine gave it's nukes to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. On multiple occasions.
Did Russia not invade Ukraine's sovereign territory?
That's a pretty big rock you've been living under to miss that.
If Ukraine wasn't offered vast assistance they would have likely been swallowed by Russia by now.
Russia invaded. Russia was the aggressor, with some eye rolling cliché reasoning to boot.
Do you actually believe these things or do you just say them to try to get a rise out of people because I've never been able to work that one
It's evident that the your not interested in a genuine exchange of ideas or healthy debate. By rapidly switching topics and using them as shields rather than points of discussion, you're clearly employing tactics like deflecting and deceiving. These types of methods serve to derail the conversation and assert dominance rather than contribute meaningfully.
Classic case of using hot-button issues not to educate or enlighten but to create an 'in-group' and outcast those who question or differ. This approach isn't just unproductive; it's an attempt to manipulate the discourse for personal gratification rather than collective understanding.
Recognizing these tactics is the first step in not falling victim to them and maintaining the integrity of the discussion
TheAnonymouseJoker, your quick attempt to diagnose me with "a sign of" narcissistic personality disorder is intriguing yet notably speculative, especially given the absence of clinical credentials. Your use of the term NPD, while it carries a semblance of authority, comes off as more titular than substantively medical. It's a bit tautological to emphasize 'NPD' so explicitly, as it seems redundant in this context.
In the realm of professional psychology, NPD is far from being a mere collection of observable behaviors. It's a complex condition that involves a deep-seated pattern of grandiosity, a sustained need for admiration, and a notable lack of empathy. This encompasses traits like exaggerated self-importance, fantasies of extraordinary success and power, a belief in one's uniqueness, an unquenchable desire for admiration, and an exploitative approach in interpersonal relations. These are not surface-level traits but ingrained patterns evident across various contexts.
Your confident stance in assigning such a diagnosis without professional backing seems to reflect the very characteristics of NPD – a sense of overinflated authority and a propensity to exploit diagnostic terms for personal gain in an argument, especially in a discussion that’s meant to be about geopolitics. This approach of using psychological analysis as a tool to discredit others doesn't contribute to the topic at hand. Ironically, this behavior mirrors some of the core symptoms of NPD itself, leading to a reflective moment where one must consider if this projection is not an unconscious self-reflection of one's own potential disorder.
ref.1 ref.2