I disagree

I disagree.

Here’s my hypothesis - Sleeping with someone would solve this issue. You know, cuz both could hold each other accountable.

Now you see, the above hypothesis is testable. If we don’t test this, then we won’t know for sure.

So uhm… Can we please… Test this? 🥺👉👈

People smh. Who drinks bean juice and throws the beans away? You really are allergic to FIBER, aren’t you???

Real men don’t throw away the healthy coffee beans. We EAT THEM LIKE WE’RE SUPPOSED TO. It cures cancer.

/s

Funny meme, but fuck “Sadh Guru”. He’s a Hindutva scammer, so let’s please not promote him here.

Haha yeah ofc ofc. It’s just uk… a fantasy…

Basically, I have a crush on this fellow from a comic I really like.

Might happen if you loosen the hair colour or tatoos criteria.

Really? I always figured that throuples were very rare (where all partners love each other equally without there being a “main couple” dynamic). Like… How do you even go around dating for a “throuple”?

Sigh… Another thing I really doubt I’ll ever get- a throuple of myself, a femboy and a tattooed anarchist punk with green hair, who’s just rlly cooooool.

🙄

Enemas suck. They ruin your gut microbiome and are just unnecessary.

Just clean your colon. Dicks aren’t 3 metres in length.

W dad

I think disabling downvotes totally for the user’s content by default would be a bad idea, because it is important for a user to know if what they are saying is unpopular.

Here’s an approach I have taken for my app (for all posts and comments).

• If downvotes are <= 5, downvotes show as 0.
• If downvotes <= 5%, downvotes show as 0.

Remember, the reasoning for this is a mere hypothesis and not results obtained from an experiment.

The 5 percent rule aims to prevent fringe opinions from downvoting. This solves issues like, “why do I have 3 downvotes on a picture of my cute puppy?”.

The 5 downvotes rule prevents downvoting bias. I have observed this happening on Reddit a lot. If a comment has 3 upvotes and 2 downvotes, people tend to downvote more (just because of the downvote counts and not the content itself). 2 downvotes in a 5 total votes sample size is too small to make any decision about the quality of content.

In my opinion, cases like these are where the downvotes serve more as a mental health destroyer rather than decentralised content moderation.

So to answer your question, I think having the current as default would be better, I.e., option “Show”. However, if you’re open to refine this even further, I would suggest the 5-5% idea.

I agree a little with the post tbh. So I generally hold pro AI views (where I admire the tech, believe it can make the future a lot better, while being against it being owned by oligarchs and for profit corpos).

When I started using Lemmy in 2023, everybody here was ABSOLUTELY AGAINST AI. Any post/comment mentioning AI in a slightly positive tone was downvoted to oblivion.

It was really depressing to see stuff like this, because the concept of downvoting on Lemmy and irl works very differently I suppose. No one irl just randomly shows up, shows you a thumbs down and leaves, right? Most conversations like these offline tend to be a lot more developed than a “thumbs down”. In my experience, people offline are also a lot less meaner compared to online, as they are talking to a real human being rather than a profile picture.

I suppose this platform makes you a little thick skinned too. Sometimes you have to say, “I am right, even if this large group of people thinks I am wrong” and accept that sometimes the majority does not share your opinion, no matter how correct you think it is.

Now about disabling downvotes for your own post- I’m not sure if that’s a good idea. Doing so prevents getting feedback from others. There are times where I have been a dick (mostly unintentionally). The amount of downvotes told me that what I said was wrong, and I needed to do better. If downvotes were disabled, then I wouldn’t have access to this feedback.

What’s ❄️

Why am I getting 14459? What does it mean?

Nah not that deep. I was approaching it from the gay angle. (I’m gay). So it was the ironic “girls no kiss, boys kiss kiss kiss”. Just a shitpost comment lol

Also, female = cute, but not kiss. Boy = cute, kiss kiss kiss

Ok, this Jesus guy looks really likeable, huh.

(Except for the part where he caresses the Pope’s bald head for some reason).

Ur pfp looks like a dick pic

The existence of religions itself is harmful to me. Religions make public manipulation very easy. This leads to power accumulation, which is very dangerous for me (unless I’m the one doing the manipulation). Hence, it is in my interest to stamp out all religions.

However, the methods used by the CCP and the USSR failed to stamp out religion. Repression makes religion stronger. In my opinion, societal indoctrination of the laws of logic would stand a better chance at eradicating religion. In other words, good education that revolves around the workings of logic, logical fallacies, etc. would stand a bigger chance at this

I hate God.

1. The concept

• God is an outdated hypothesis presented to explain reality at a time when the scientific method didn’t exist.
• Testable variations of this hypothesis have never succeeded at proving the existence of God. Untestable variations are useless.
• Different communities of people have weaponized the concept of God to somehow prove their moral frameworks as objective reality to impose them on others.
• The ruling class has weaponized God to accumulate more power.

2. The character

• If God indeed exists, God is an asshole. If they are indeed the creator of this reality, pain and suffering exist because of them. Assuming they are all powerful, they can eliminate pain and suffering while still achieving their terminal goal behind the creation of this reality. Unless the terminal goal is causing pain and suffering itself. Both explanations point to God being an asshole.
• Another branch of this argument can be that “God cannot eliminate pain and suffering to achieve the terminal goal, which is NOT to cause pain and suffering”. This means that there are certain rules that apply to God too. Meaning, that God is not all powerful. God is just someone MORE powerful than us. We are at the mercy of God. To achieve the terminal goal, God is willing to put us through pain and suffering. God is evil. As God is bound by certain rules, and is not all powerful, a possibility exists of couping God. God must be couped.

Awww thanks <333