Ask Lemmy

Easy one. Communism is the future of mankind, prove me wrong

I've been lurking for months before joining and honestly, the voting appears quite random. If you post a comment early in any thread, it'll probably get upvoted even when it's totally silly and inane, as long if it can be construed as being in good faith. Write that same shit a few hours later, it'll go into the abyss.
I'd say it's still better than on That Other Site where you can get a good idea from the headline alone what the hackneyed 'top' comments will be like.

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.

Any truth that upsets the hivemind.

Being right 😂

Ranting about works like the MCU and Zombie Land Saga because I don’t agree with either.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe never ceases to amuse me with how it influences the industry as a whole or how it misrepresents the comics.

Zombie Lan Saga was an anime that subverted zombies in favor of Japanese pop idols that are supposed to be ‘zombies’ but not exactly.

I used to watch those works to begin with and then just stopped because I disagreed with them.

Of course, they’re just my opinions.

At least I’m not criticizing my neighbors, 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....

I got downvoted recently for saying "If you’re friends with someone, wouldn’t you want to know if they’re also friends with someone problematic?" and "I would definitely want to know if my friends were close with people who’d been in prison."