Sadly true. Even if we don't have aspirations of being on the lib to left pipeline, we definitely scare people off by being overzealous with dogpiling.

I think people should be more patient with those who have lib-smelling inquiries, but I'm all in favor of bullying the bad-faith posters incapable of questioning their assumptions. I see more of the latter than the former, which is why I think so many here are quick to start roasting.

I find it amusing when there are threads with half the responses are giant walls of text trying to explain things and the other half pictures of a pig shitting on its testicles.

Makes me wish Lemmy supported having both federated & unfederated comms or per-comm federation lists, so we could have federated 101-type spaces where dunks are explicitly removed, and unfederated shitposting free from intrusion.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I totally agree bad faith arguments deserve all the shit they get. I just think the comment "shitting on" good faith arguments do more harm than good. There are a ton of bad faith arguments. I, personally, just tend to ignore or rebut their claims so it doesn't hurt anything. The hexbear version of dunking on them doesn't promote anything good and at best turns the single person posting on it away. The ideal is to convince other viewers of alternatives.

[–] sharedburdens@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

If someone's posting bad faith arguments I would rather not waste anyones time interacting with them, they're certainly not there to be educated.

Chasing them off with mockery seems like the least bad option, if the other options are giving it credibility by trying to respond or ignoring it.

The problem is discerning the difference between the two can be inconsistent, leading to some users effort posting while others mock.