the practice of playing devils advocate has never been to foster discussion

Well, it’s what I’ve been using it for and my debate teacher before me, so that’s not a correct statement. You can see here for how it’s considered a valuable tool in a discussion or educational context. It’s also used in a legal context quite frequently.

Presenting flawed arguments as a rhetorical device is generally a waste of your audience’s time at best

The arguments aren’t flawed, they’re often ones that there is no easy answer to, present a different value system, or cover an angle that the initial speaker hadn’t considered. If anything, they’re a way to become more correct by covering based that hadn’t been prior.

Nothing. It’s not a problem. There are a large number of people that would disagree with that statement as it leads to unjust bannings. Kind of the impetus for this thread.

Downvotes filter low quality, irrelevant, and illegal content.

They can do that, yes (although I would say that reporting is a much more appropriate response than just a downvote for illegal posts). It’s not used solely for that in practice however. It also is used to bury community-appropriate content by those ideologically opposed to the content (for example, vegans vs. people in the carnivore diet sub). It could be burying valuable, community-appropriate posts. Downvotes can also be accidental or malicious (in the case of brigading or bot farms). Downvoting something you disagree with also doesn’t make it any of the three things you listed.

If you go to a community formed around a concept and play devils advocate… you deserve what you get. That doesn’t make it an echo chamber. Just makes you captain Ahab.

If you go to a Community and mid-discussion post something factual that a mod doesn’t care for without being malicious, you aren’t playing devil’s advocate, you are simply replying to a thread and using the platform as intended. These are discussion platforms and using them to solely remove any other position is, in fact, the definition of an echo chamber.

The stance of “don’t question anyone on my side for any reason because we’re right” is neither healthy, nor particularly intelligent. If I were a sub based around a controversial idea, I’d build a Steelman FAQ as a stickied thread and direct detractors to it and leave it open for debate. I would also add to the Steelman as more and better arguments flowed in. If my side of an issue were correct, it would be a helluva thing to reference and would allow us to keep controversial discussion to a thread that people could avoid if they wish.

Oh, absolutely. It’s worse on Reddit without a doubt!

I agree that you can do that stuff, but most people don’t have the time or wish to do it. Instead, they just get turned off the Community (or even platform) altogether and just… leave.

Even if they do start their own Community, that’s not even a sure way to stop it. As I described above, I have been banned from other Communities for playing devils advocate in my own Community.

I get that. It’s a solid analogy, but on the other hand you also have some people who run a dozen or more Communities. To borrow your analogy, these people claim whole unrelated neighbourhoods and permanently remove you from all of them for accidentally stepping on their lawn 3 towns over. This absolutely is a problem as I see it. It hurts discussion and discoverability.

Oh, certainly not all Communities should be for debate, but some are explicitly designed to handle it. Plugging your ears and shutting out everyone who doesn’t toe the line can also be incredibly bad. Look at outwardly racist communities for instance. The way to change hearts and minds is inclusion, not exclusion.

I would also hesitate to say that disagreement is hostile. It CAN be, but it depends on how it’s handled on both ends of the discussion. Some people you can discuss with and get nuanced, some people flip out because you don’t value the same things in the same stack order.

Many of these discussions don’t rely on (or require) education, they require a reshuffling of priorities. People tend to ignore that other people value things on a different order and scale than they do and the attempt at education can come across as talking down to them. Doubly so for moral issues.

That’s pretty much this space here. I encourage discussion of controversial topics and we use downvotes for replies that don’t contribute, not ones we disagree with. We fight ideas, not people. It’s in our rules (even though most people don’t read 'em).

Yeah, that’s essentially how I handle it. If it see one-offs, it’s not an issue. If I see DOZENS in a short time from one account with no post history? That’s a problem.

I hadn’t heard of a controversial tag. They have them for threads, so it could be cool to get one for users as well. It would solve a lot of issues for sure if it was implemented well! Though on Lemmy, it may wind up applying to most users as everyone seems to have an opinion or two that’s controversial to like… everyone.

Couple things:

1. Most things are a “waste of time.” This Community is about self-improvement and broadening your mind through discussion. I don’t feel that’s wasteful.
2. We’re on a Canadian instance and many of us are Canadian. There’s not really much we can do considering we’re not even in your country. Having an open-minded and logic-based discussion is about all that realistically can or should be done by us.
3. Canadians didn’t elect the fascist this time. Our elections still work. We’re still pretty Socialist.

I don’t think I understand what the mod was getting at whatsoever.

Are you able to elaborate on this? Why do you feel that they are not somewhat equivalent?

In the real world, could you not just go to a new coffee shop (since both places are commonly found)?

If you are obeying the stated rules, why shouldn’t you have an expectation that you would be able to participate in either?

In the previous thread I linked above, I wrote a mini-guide for my opinion on how to handle downvotes:

1. Bad Faith Actor: Sees a post or a whole Community they don’t like. Goes in and systematically downvotes a bunch of stuff on purpose. Topics, responses… everything. Downvotes because they hate the community and everything it stands for. See 50 downvotes in your Community in one day? That’s these fuckers. Ban them. They are assholes and are vote manipulating. Probably ban them from related Communities for vote manipulation.

2. Normal User: (–> We are here) May or may not comment in YOUR Community, especially if it’s image-based. Sees a single post that they don’t like out of thousands they see daily and downvotes it. Several months later, it may happen again. This is expected behaviour and is how an upvote / downvote system functions. Don’t ban these or you’re the asshole.

3. Brigade Users: A coordinated attack to downvote or spam a Community stemming from some other place. They downvote everything and often post garbage. Ban these people. They are dickheads and are vote manipulating. Probably ban them from related Communities for vote manipulation if not trying to seek an instance ban.

4. Lurker: (The overwhelming majority of users are this) Indistinguishable from a Normal user in votes, but may not comment. May be an alt or bot account. Be wary. Check their post history to see if they’re real people. If real, leave 'em alone. If empty, use your discretion. Don’t ban from related Communities.

5. Other: Downvotes accidentally when scrolling sometimes. These happen. May appear as a Lurker or a Normal User. Don’t ban these or you’re the asshole.

Kinda? I come back and write, but often kill the topics before I finish. It’s still moderated and open if users have submissions.

I think I have a lack of motivation due to many of the aggressive replies / PMs.

Like in Blade 2?

There’s not really a way to “source” this until a scientist decides to create a longitudinal study on how people to refer to themselves. I’ve never seen one, but maybe one exists. I think this one’s going to have to pretty much remain a personal experience kind of thing for now!

I don’t think our two statements are mutually exclusive. There’s certainly a difference between education and being smart.

EDIT: if you disagree, what is someone smart before they get into school? Not smart? In countries where they don’t have formal education systems, is nobody intelligent over there?

Is someone who went to school for 10 years automatically considered smart? That would mean that more school equals more smart. How about somebody who got held back and had to repeat a grade six times? Are they extra smart then? How about those that did so well in school that they skipped a grade? Are they not smart then?

Your logic doesn’t hold up, random disagreeing people. There is absolutely a difference between education and being smart.

“Street smart is what stupid people call themselves when they want to describe themselves as smart.”

• My Name Is Earl

I hope they change it, I’ve not really clicked with the real time FF games.

The best turn based combat system that I personally ever played has been the Mario RPG games because of the button prompt requirements for bonus damage. I haven’t played CO yet though.

It happens towards the mods of a lot of communities. I’ve had it on my Community !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca and we’re just about discussing random topics. I know my buddy that mods a Vegan Community gets it constantly, as well as the one person in this thread that mods a Carnivore diet Community. It’s pretty tragic that people can’'t handle opposing opinions.

I think the activist nature of Lemmy is kind of a self-destructive spiral and people need to learn how to live with each other again. But I guess that’s the issue with modern social media as a whole… Nobody has any idea how to convince anyone else, only to yell at them louder.

No, this is some other user who was in here earlier by another name spouting the same stuff and posting pictures of dog wangs.

This isn’t really my style. I tend to prefer info seeking and conversational English over animal dicks and blind fury.