New Communities
A place to post new communities all over Lemmy for discovery and promotion.
Rules
The rules for behavior are a straight carry over of Mastodon.World's rules. You can click the link but we've reposted them here in brief, as a guideline. We will continue to use the Mastodon.World rules as the master list. Over all, be nice to each other and remember this isn't a community built around debate. For the rules about formatting your posts, scroll down to number 2.
1. Follow the rules of Mastodon.world, which can be found here.
A. Provide an inclusive and supportive environment. This means if it isn't rulebreaking and we can't be supportive to them then we probably shouldn't engage.
B. No illegal content.
C. Use content warnings where appropriate. This means mark your submissions NSFW if need be.
D. No uncivil behavior. This includes, but is not limited to: Name Calling; Bullying; Trolling; Disruptive Commenting; or Personal Criticisms.
E. No Harrassment. As an example in relation to Transgender people this includes, deadnaming, misgendering, and promotion of conversion therapy. Similarly Misogyny, Misandry, and Racism are also banned here.
2. Include a community or instance title and description in your post title. - A following example of this would be New Communities - A place to post new communities or instances all over Lemmy for discovery and promotion.
3. Follow the formatting. - The formatting as included below is important for people getting universal links across Lemmy as easily as possible.
Formatting
Please include this following format in your post:
[link text](/c/community@instance.com)
This provides a link that should work across instances, but in some cases it won't
You should also include either:
or instance.com/c/community
FAQ:
Q: Why do I get a 404?
A: At least one user in an instance needs to search for a community before it gets fetched. Searching for the community will bring it into the instance and it will fetch a few of the most recent posts without comments. If a user is subscribed to a community, then all of the future posts and interactions are now in-sync.
Q: When I try to create a post, the circle just spins forever. Why is that?
A: This is a current known issue with large communities. Sometimes it does get posted, but just continues spinning, but sometimes it doesn't get posted and continues spinning. If it doesn't actually get posted, the best thing to do is try later. However, only some people seem to be having this problem at the moment.
Image Attribution:
Fahmi, CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons>>
view the rest of the comments
I think the key part is whether it's being done in good faith or bad faith. Sometimes I ask a stupid question on Lemmy, but because I am honestly curious and not trying to get into a fight, and I usually accept the reply to me and don't take it as an invite to get into a debate, I think people can tell I'm not sealioning.
If I replied "source?" for your comment right now, I'd be trolling. I almost certainly know that it is a bad idea to discourage sourcing information, and that should not be something I need a cited source for. That would probably be sealioning. Someone asking for a source on a meme I posted is probably genuinely curious and not sealioning.
And as per usual, judging intent can be difficult, especially when people (including me) come into a forum with my own sets of biases, pieces of knowledge I have that I incorrectly assume that everyone else knows, and absence of knowledge that others incorrectly assume everyone else knows. So people who are not sealioning might get mistaken for it just because they want a source on something they do not know that most people do. I see where you are coming from.
How can you tell good faith from bad faith?
For instance, can you tell if this question is asked in good faith or not? These things seem very hard know.
It’s tricky. Often, you can only go by tone and context. Experience helps a lot. Even still, I’ll get it wrong sometimes.
That's probably the best way of dealing with it.
And that's exactly the ambiguity I was trying to get at with my last paragraph.
I'm kind of surprised I got downvoted while contrarian "source?" comments got lots of upvotes. In all honesty, it feels bad. I am not sure how I said anything anywhere near offensive that deserves disapproval, but being contrarian seems a lot more purposely meant to piss off and still meets lots of peoples' approval.
But even still, I have gone and assumed bad faith or at best, an attempt to be funny and make people laugh through what is still in the end just contrarianism. I do not think it is possible they are genuinely asking for a source because I think we're making claims based on general observation of the world, things that do not need to be cited, like "the sky is blue" or "things fall when you drop them". Just look up and see (or trust the wealth of statements talking about the sky's blueness if you are (color)blind). Perhaps I'm incorrectly assuming bad faith here based off of a trend of seeing contrarianism, and I'm incorrectly extrapolating that trend here. It is very ambiguous. I really do not think I am wrong, but given that we're literally talking about the difficulty of determining good vs. bad faith engagement it feels a little arrogant to not acknowledge the possibility that I might be wrong.
That's one of the issues, isn't it? I recently found someone who only responded to comments about Margaret Thatcher, challenging negative comments about her. This person's history went back years and ALL of the comments (thousands!) only challenged negative ones about her. It could have been a bot, of course, but if real, it was a pretty weird way of engaging online. That goes beyond contrarianism, it's some sort of "distributed sealioning" maybe?
You usually only find out after repeatedly explaining, yet the interlocutor remaining unconvinced to a point where someone with good faith would've had enough information to work with.
That's the thing, it takes time and Gish gallops you into proving ever more reduced assertions.
It's very childish in nature, yet devis as it takes on the guide of scientific rational discourse.
It's a hard one, though. I've found myself challenging someone who then avoids answering and making other similarly unsupported points... eventually you learn that it's a waste of time. Equally, you don't want to leave their comments out there unchallenged.
Yeah it's hard, but that's why you, my friend, are a light in the darkness;)
Good faith is extremely important. And even though it's much harder to read this online than in real life, there people being disingenuous in real life.
It's the reason why online debate is hard and escalates quickly. You see people getting angry with people they agree with, even though they are arguing the same point, but they don't share their level of anger with the opposing side.
I think remaining calm and level headed and generous through even that is important as people will pick up on genuine emotion over spam and anger, eventually. And if we all do it it makes a better community.
Yeah context is definitely important