“Virtue signaling”

Hmmm that’s telling language.

What does "telling language" means, in this context? I've never heard that. Not a native speaker.

If you are implying that I'm defending "unpopular" stuff such as racism, sexism, or any kind of right-wing "free speech", you're plainly wrong. I'm talking about much less sensitive topics (technology, for instance). As an example, I've been attacked for saying that I profoundly dislike Mozilla and that I don't care if the disappeared (they should, actually).

Give your imagination a rest.

Here's the thing.

The last 10 years have proven that organized online hostility is VERY EFFECTIVE at dictating public opinion.

That's how we got the new fascist movements. Trump and the like. Because right wing hostility and bigotry went not only unchecked institutionally but unchallenged socially.

No solution has emerged for that from an institutional level.

So yeah, my socialist ass is fighting back. I'll be damned if I'm going to spend the rest of my life under these fucking wastes of flesh and their bullshit antiquated opinions. I'm done taking it and I'm done tolerating it. Fuck every last republican and homophobe and transphobe and complicit liberal. All of them. And wouldn't you know it, little by little they're backing down when we stand up to them like the cowards they are.

Yes, I am deliberately far more hostile online, because it WORKS. And clearly nobody with institutional control cares enough to try anything else.

The only problem is that you guys call everyone a transphone or homophobe or liberal or whatever, all the time. Its actually a bit funny because you dont see the forest for the trees. Everyone has to think exactly the same or they are THE ENEMY and need to be keyboard warriored into compliance with right-think

With age comes a bit more wisdom (ok maybe not for Trump). If you have calm discussions and listen, you will absolutely 100% see that most people are actually quite alright. Even if they dont like trans people, they will eventuelly get there, by having discussions and chats and seeing them in the real world.

I remember how this worked in Sweden where I live. At first, everyone was super racist. We had like 3 black people in school and they were of course bullied and thought of as very strange.

Now, decades later, its seen as strange if you dont have black people at a job, or see them everywhere. Because its normal.

The same thing will happen with trans people but you dont have to sit and hate people online to get there. It will happen as more trans people come out and join everyone else at work and in the cities, just normally.

I have seen it. So just relax guys. Dont hate.

Conformity of thought, belief, or action isn't the problem. The oroblem is treating some people or groups as less than human and not deserving of equal rights and opportunities.

Some people deliberately come to social media for fighting. I probably used to. Maybe on occasion when I'm feeling cranky I will be less diplomatic than I really want to be.

But I find two things actually help:

1. I'm not friends/following anyone I know in real life. That helps with anonymity in case I do run afoul of someone who bears a grudge, but also when someone posts aggravating bullshit, it's not someone I care about. Which leads to...
2. I'm merciless about blocking anyone and anything that I can't engage with fruitfully. Attention is a limited resource and I don't want to spend it all on negativity. I'm happy to hold genial conversations with folks I disagree with, but if interacting with them becomes tedious, stressful, or annoying I just bin them. Hell, if someone is a big enough prick to someone else I block them. If someone is in every thread harping on some agenda, gone.

Bluesky has a feature to mute keywords for a set period. If I need a break from news about Gaza, Trump, some trending drama, sports (like the World Cup), or just want to avoid spoilers, I mute the topic for a while.

Together, these tools make social media much less negative for me. It usually keeps me from doom scrolling or taking the rage bait.

And when I’m emotionally charged or unclear, I sometimes draft my comments elsewhere before posting. I let it sit for a bit, and if I can’t say what I mean with the tone and clarity I want, I just don’t post. Maybe 30% of my comments get binned—some after spending an hour or more working on them.

In short, I heavily curate my social interactions—both incoming and outgoing—to reduce stress and negativity. As a result, social media today is far more pleasant than it was ten years ago.

Fuck you!

Misclicked

I have. I honestly try not to be. There's just so many uncaring shits online. It makes me sick to think of how fucked up these trolls are to relish causing others distress. Then I become a dick

I'm trying to be better

There’s just so many uncaring shits online.

I wonder how much "hate" on the internet is this... but the reality is that is how you "see" them in your head rather than what they're actually saying/believe. A lot of negative responses to some of the things I say is a strawman of what I actually believe/said.

Yeah see, I don't buy that. I can say things in a less than PC way, but it takes tow to argue. If I don't make an effort to be understood, I can't be pissed when I'm not

And since I can't force others do that, I can only do what I can

We are all responsible for what we say , good and bad

But thank you for sharing, sincerely

but it takes tow to argue

Eh... It really doesn't though does it? One side can be sincerely stating points of fact/logic and others often can and do often ascribe that as "you're a terrible person for saying that!".

We are all responsible for what we say , good and bad

Good and bad are subjective though. There is often no black and white. I often cite and source things to show that I'm not stating anything as a matter of opinion... and out of the blue some rando comes out and tries ascribing some sense of moral straw-man claiming that I must believe something or another. Here's an example from literally last night...

I made no statement that could even be construed as putting words in other people's mouths... yet someone straw-manned me by definition (and didn't even know the word for it) by Smee there trying to make some grand point that nobody was even making at that point but they thought I was.

Edit: Actually you don't even need to look at an entirely different thread... Just look at the other response to me. Someone who wasn't even in the conversation comes out of the blue and ascribes something I never said nor could ever have been construed as and took it to some straw-man end game nonsense.

Theres so much pedophilia, wanton violence, racism, misogyny, homophobia, ableism, transphobia... fuck all these people. May they never find peace or happiness. We owe no one politeness.

Someone hacked a roomba last year to yell the N word at people on a mic.

The WORLD has become more hateful, it is not simply perception.

Okay? I never said "ALL HATE on the internet is bullshit"... I said "I wonder how much is just people constructing shit in their own head."

This is exactly my point. You chose to interpret my words in a way that I clearly would have never intended if you actually spent time to read the words and understand them for what they were rather than some magical interpretation that clearly was never said.

Edit: Thanks for the downvote too! Proves the point further.

I think you're actually doing here what you are accusing me of re: misinterpretting. My last comment was mild af.

The world has become more hateful. It's not just online or in people's heads. We have evidence that massive online warfare happens, literal psychological warfare and soldiers paid to post hate online all day every day. One independent journalist estimated at least a trillion dollars spent for various election/political meddling in 2024 and 2025, with protests in Romania, Georgia, Serbia, Slovakia, South Korea, Germany, Poland, etc etc etc.

So yeah, you got a downvote, grow up about it. You're wrong and didn't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation. This isn't even "hate," this is simple disagreement that you are too thin-skinned to handle.

Hate is stuff like: ableism, misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia. Eg a roomba yelling the N word at people. It is not disagreeing with you and downvoting you, lol. For fucks sake.

Edit for your E2: The massive online armies are using online hate to conduct genocides and kill people more efficiently. With massive networks of countries with camps and slavery including Assad's knowledge of death camps.

Jonathan Haidt recently wrote in The Atlantic:

Ok but fr tho fuck Jonathan Haidt.

Haidt was JAQing off about trans people in the exact way that the Onion called out and satirized hours after their article was published. He's a "centrist" who seems to exclusively punch left, and he's just whining about getting called out with legitimate criticism.

He also got deez nuts'd iirc lol.

Edit: Shit, I had him confused with another Atlantic writer, Jonathan Chait. My bad. Haidt is also a left-punching transphobic "centrist" tho.

Jesus christ, it's like you read the headline and desperately wanted to provide supporting evidence.

Next time? Just for like 1 second?

Imagine that other people don't give a shit about you blasting your toxicity at the world. Maybe the world would actually be a better place if assholes like you shut up some times.

BTW, this has absolutely nothing to do with trans rights, this is just you personally acting like every other .ml out there.

You’re wrong and didn’t contribute anything meaningful to the conversation.

So you think that out of all the hate on the internet... NONE of it is constructed shit in people's own head?(keep in the mind that the article itself talks about personality disorders and DSM-5, literally talking about things like schizophrenia and ADHD... mental disorders that affect how we think are in that book). That this number is so infallibly 0% that my thought doesn't contribute ANY meaningful value to discuss at all? You sure that it contributed nothing to the conversation and that's why you downvoted? Cause it would appear to me that you've just chosen to ignore the words, ascribe your own meaning to stuff that wasn't there and then downvoted because you didn't like it.

It's clear that this is happening on the internet in many cases. In saner parts of the internet (sometimes even here on lemmy) you'll see two people arguing, a misconception clear up, and magically all the "hate" dissolved away and both parties walk away amicably.

Hate is stuff like: ableism, misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

Hate definition: . See examples of HATE used in a sentence.

Dictionary.com (www.dictionary.com)

It only means that as an adjective, or under pretense where it's clear that we're talking about a class of people, if that's the case it wasn't clear to me and I just took it as a general overall "the world seems more hateful". Which it wasn't used any other way in the comments up to this point this way nor the article itself. So now you've constructed some other thing that nobody has referenced just so you can argue some other point that nobody else was apparently making. Keep in mind that the whole thread started with "Hostile" from the article, and not "hate". The article doesn't reference anything about any specific classes of people, and even talks about personality disorders (so medical perspective) rather than " ableism, misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia" and other... uh... character flaws(? might not be the correct phrase to use but maybe the point comes across) that shitty people have.

Jesus christ, it’s like you read the headline and desperately wanted to provide supporting evidence.

Well, yes. First off because it's funny. Several other people in the thread thought so and made the same joke.

But also, yes, because I despise civility fetishism, and I also despise Haidt for being a transphobic shitlib. And obviously, the two are connected, the reason Haidt is whining about civility is that he got bullied on Twitter for his transphobia and he wants to be able to shit on trans people without suffering any kind of social reprecussions.

It's funny how you baselessly assert "this has absolutely nothing to do with trans rights" as if just saying it somehow makes it true, like some kind of magic spell. I wonder, would you say the same thing if it was a more prominent transphobe like JK Rowling calling out hostility in internet discourse? What if it was someone like, say, Charlie Kirk, or even Richard Spencer? Are you a true civility fetishist who takes issue with bullying bigots, or is it that you're only ok with bigotry when it's directed towards trans people? Idk, seems worth investigating.

But, you know, maybe civility fetishism isn't so bad. Maybe it's me who's wrong, I'm just a crazy radical, and I need to be more like MLK.

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Huh, kinda seems like he saw tension disrupting the peace as being necessary towards pushing towards justice in equality in an unjust status quo. But maybe MLK is too radical too. You know who I need to be more like? Jesus. That's right, I'm turning over a new leaf and I've decided to be more Christlike.

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

Huh. Kinda seems like even Jesus agreed that social change necessarily involved creating conflict, or bringing conflicts to the forefront, in order to address injustice.

But ok, let's ignore them (maybe the world would just be a better place if assholes like them would shut up some times and stop blasting their toxicity all over the world) and look at the actual, present day reality. When exactly was internet discourse supposedly more civil? Let's compare to, say, 10 years ago, 2015. Before #MeToo so you don't have to worry about women calling people out for sexual assault and causing division, but it's also in the middle of Gamergate, so you know, really not a great time to be a woman on the internet, but I guess if you were a cishet white man, things were pretty peaceful and harmonious. You also didn't have a bunch of people calling out the bombs going to the Middle East, of course, we were still bombing civilians en masse, but I guess if you were a cishet white man, things were pretty peaceful and harmonious.

You know when discourse was really at it's peak? The 1950's. Before all these radicals started calling for civil rights or spreading division against things like bombing Vietnam or Korea, just an all around wonderful time, a Leave it to Beaver paradise, you know, just so long as you're a cishet white man.

At some point, obviously, you have to draw the line. And I've simply drawn it a little bit further than you have.