Yeah, if we were into each other. How they present and their AGAB matching my own preferences would be a factor.
But at the end of the day, my “straightness” is just a convenient label. If someone gets voted in by the Tribunal (Heart, Mind, and Cock), all labels are ultimately superfluous.
Aww fuck, thanks for this post. I was in a doom spiral after too much scrolling and this gave it all a nice break.
Awww… they didn’t need vapes to do that
You ever read a post before checking the title? I was this close to asking “For real? Can I see?”, before I checked…
But for real though… can I see?
I feel like a key difference between Google’s search Monopoly and Valve’s is the fact that Google paid off the competition to be the default on basically every browser.
Valve’s de facto monopoly is very real, or at least they absolutely dominate the PC game market (IANAL, no clue if Valve’s monopoly passes the legal bar). But outside of the SteamDeck and a couple gaming focused laptop’s, Steam doesn’t get forced on any user as the default. They personally install it.
“Holy Generalizations Batman! That guy just yucked our yums! Doesn’t he know fictional worlds allow writers unprecedented freedom to explore the human condition!?”
“No time for that now Robin! The Joker just broke out of Arkham again, and he’s practicing unlicensed dentistry!”
If there’s a Churu on the other side
I’ve tried to explain the same thing about cats, but fools never learn.
I enjoy it when I find out I was wrong. That moment of “oh shit!?” is awesome.
I also really enjoy arguing pedantically over fictional worlds.
He absolutely did!
Everyone loves to pick the most extreme circumstances to define a person’s character.
I rather feel it’s the opposite. You never truly know someone until you’ve seen how they deal with the mundanity of life for a few years.
Given the shape of it, it would have been rude not to.
I swear on Char Aznabel’s big red Zaku, if they take the yaoi and politics out of my big ass robot shows, I’m going to drop a space colony on Australia!
Damn. That was, apropos to your themes, an excellent read. I’ve seen several comments here reference the shifted Overton window and how it offers a diversity distinct from larger, more mainstream platforms. But you really did a great job writing about the value a discerning eye can glean.
I do have one gripe with your comment, however:
People are still making ten course meals of real content, but most readers are still hanging out at the food trucks.
I will not stand for this food truck slander! Food trucks are to the world of food what Lemmy is to the landscape of social media. They present an alternative starting point from which to derive ideas contrary to established conventions. I implore you: don’t pass them off as the culinary equivalent of doomscroll slop. Instead, recognize that a discerning connoisseur can find flavors driven by passion, unbound from convention!
Okay, enough melodrama. Seriously though, I think your comment was the best-considered take on OP’s question.
That’s a fair point. I could have used less definitive language. The concept of objective vs. relative truth, or even whether such a thing exists, is a philosophical discussion I didn’t mean to broach. And I certainly did not mean to imply there was a single correct opinion on all topics.
I simply meant to summarize my concerns with equating diverse opinions with inherently healthy discourse. While some topics can, as you noted, have a plethora of valid opinions based on perspective, others can have opinions simply meant to “poison the well,” as it were (or simply be wrong regardless of perspective). Climate change deniers being given equal time and weight on the news, for example.
Perhaps it would have been better phrased: “Diversity of opinions has no direct correlation with accuracy, sincerity, factuality, or value.”
Using slurs or tackling sensitive topics in dark humor is a high-difficulty craft. It requires a deep understanding of the subject, your audience, and enough cultural context to frame the joke appropriately. When done well, it can break through prejudice, fear, and cultural boundaries, leaving the audience with a deeper understanding of the human condition. The Boondocks and South Park come to mind as examples (then again, even those sometimes miss the mark). This is true not only in comedy, but most all forms of art.
However, as many people here have already pointed out, those who evangelize “dark humor” are often just using it as a shield to hide bigotry and normalize prejudice. Or otherwise are attempting to use shock, at the expense of others, to derive a cheap laugh. In all of these cases, the harm caused runs in direct opposition to the value of comedy, and should be treated with the same disdain it shows for its victims.
So to answer your question: yes, I’m okay with all forms of humor meant to bring people together and lift each other up, including dark humor. But knowing myself, my audience, and how my background affects how my jokes are perceived, I have no desire to attempt dark humor, with or without slurs. Nor do I see any personal value or utility in using slurs in any context. Instead, I use humor I can pull off to make those around me feel safe, comfortable, and able to laugh together. Which again, should be the goal imho.
Agreed. Though upon re-reading my point, I regret specifying “here”, as it might give the impression I think it is unique or more prevalent here than elsewhere.
I think this is simply a common human trait that is found in all communities. Even surprisingly in debate and philosophy communities. I’ve been guilty of it without even noticing.
It’s not terribly surprising to find a lack of diversity in opinions here. The Fediverse, in general, is a fringe alternative to the big social media platforms. Using it is, in and of itself, an opinionated decision that we all more or less share.
When people use Reddit, TikTok, or similar platforms, they go there to find their subset of culture. That’s the benefit of their scale. When you use Lemmy, the platform itself is your subset of culture.
It’s very fair, and smart, to be skeptical of a one-sided consensus of opinions without adequate research. You will often see strawmen and a lack of understanding toward groups that disagree with the prevailing thoughts here. Never use only one source, and never trust a social media platform to give you the full picture.
However, you also want to beware of the False Balance and Golden Mean fallacies. Diversity of opinions has no direct correlation with truth. If a topic is worth forming an opinion on, it’s worth doing real research on. Reading internet arguments will only reinforce bias.
Eh, not worried about it. It is what it is.