TaterTot

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 would not be able to pull such humor off gracefully or with the respect it deserves. Nor do I have any desire to use, or 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.

I mostly just upvote or pass. If someone is adding to the conversation and keeping the Fediverse alive, upvote. Like throwing a thumbs up.

Effin’ A, Cotton, Effin’ A

That’s not all! That’s not all!

I get hit from both in waves.

I’ll spend anywhere from weeks to a couple months on self improvement, but on the tail end it will be all rote and forced until I’m so bored I can’t take it.

Then I’ll do the exact same thing with chilling.

Weird part is, when I’m at the start of either wave, it feels like I’ve discovered the true secret of living a fulfilled life.

Your mamma’s so fat Ben Kenobi said: “That’s no moon… that’s yo mamma!”.

Sure, but I was talking about general complaints. Things like, “the drivers here are so bad”, “the winters are too cold and the summers are too hot”, “the government sure is poorly run”, “the yellow sports car parked out in front of the fast food place I work looks so stupid”, “I hate my boss and his stupid name, like seriously, who is named Methuselah Honeysuckle”, and “If they don’t give me a raise this time, I’m going to start a union, I’m serious, working a Chipotle sucks”.

You know, the kind of stuff that could never be traced back to me.

Well, guess it’s nice to know I’m not giving away my location when I complain.

Couldn’t agree more. The rise of digital surveillance has sparked a necessary counterwave, a deeper reexamination of why we valued privacy in the first place.

And while I’d love to claim credit, it sounds like you and I map have taken a similar deep dive into the topic. I’m really just standing on the shoulders of thinkers who’ve been wrestling with this far longer and more deeply than I have. My response was just an attempt to distill the ideas that resonated most, hopefully with a little clarity.

Glad it landed.

Edit: I wrote a long rebuttal last night. Wasn’t sober. Woke up, read it, and thought: Ain’t nobody got time for that.

So instead, just the core point:

It’s not a stretch to say privacy protects both our legal rights and our willingness to access and share information.

It is a stretch to claim that not recording and uploading everything I do in private will cause a “state of deformity and disease.”

That’s not physics. That’s selling data collection as snake oil. It’s an attempt to justify a world view without examining it’s ramifications.

I agree: knowledge should be free. But that doesn’t mean all information, especially private lives and deeply personal details, should be universally accessible.

People aren’t data packets. The idea that “everyone should know everything about everyone” assumes superhuman recall and universal comfort with exposure, neither of which exist. If we’re talking sci-fi (like the Borg), total transparency works for them because individuality and autonomy is erased. But that doesn’t work for people as we currently exist.

Here’s the key: privacy doesn’t hinder open information, it enables it. Encryption, VPNs, private browsing, these tools protect your ability to seek and share freely, without fear of surveillance or retaliation. Without privacy, power chills dissent. People stop asking questions.

So yes, free knowledge matters. But personal lives aren’t public records.
Privacy isn’t the enemy of openness.
It’s its best defense.

Edit: Reworked this to streamline my point. Some of the phrasing no longer matches the quotes you used in your response, the the general points remain the same.

Privacy is a fundamental right that protects autonomy, personal dignity, and the freedom to engage with society without fear of judgment or control. It acts as a crucial safeguard against authoritarianism. Without it, every choice we make can be monitored, recorded, and scrutinized by those in power. History shows that surveillance is often used not to protect people, but to label harmless behaviors as suspicious or deviant, creating pretexts for further erosion of rights.

But beyond its role in protecting civil liberties, privacy is essential for personal growth and mental well-being. We all need space to be ourselves, to practice new skills without perfection, explore interests that might seem uncool or immature, enjoy “guilty pleasure” media, or simply act silly, without worrying about how it will be perceived or used against us. These moments aren’t trivial. They’re where creativity, healing, and self-discovery happen. Privacy gives us room to evolve, to make mistakes, and to be human

it’s immigrants who brought their culture and then adapted it

Yep, those are American’s.

Lol, you are the embodiment of rational internet discourse.