It means it’s boring.
Many questions here are bad faith humor-trolling. I downvote those.
but that’s just your estimation of it. shouldn’t we give a TON of latitude when it comes to deciding that in a sub called “NO STUPID QUESTIONS”? or is your judgement the barometer for stupidity?
It’s not about “stupid” for me but about the amount of loadedness in a question. There are indeed no stupid questions - but there are stupid assumptions.
Even one answer from. OP in it’s often easy to see if they want to generate knowledge of search confrontation.
a ‘loaded’ question doesn’t have to be malicious. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
If someone says that, I assume they intend to use malice and blame it on stupidity so they don’t look malicious.
But those aren’t stupid questions, they are questions very smartly crafted to imply a certain answer or legitimize a problem. Then they are not stupid, but smart. And often evil.
you mean like telling people how ‘you’ disregard some questions in a sub that’s supposed to be open to any and all questions because ‘you’ feel like ‘you’re’ too important to take them seriously?
Well, mods could remove the downvote button if it’s not supposed to be used.
lol!
That is my estimation of it. That’s why I said it. You understand how this works, right?
Well, apparently you don’t understand what “no stupid questions” means. so…
You seem really upset. Maybe you should take a break for a while?
what exactly about my responses illicit the perceived notion that i’m upset? simply because i disagree with your poor ascertaition of what a sub called “no stupid questions” should entertain? perhaps more people should disagree with you so you get used to hearing “no”.
Most not upset people wouldn’t exert such an effort over someone else’s opinion on something so irrelevant as you have.
And it’s incredibly ironic that you should suggest I get used to people disagreeing with me when this entire conversation exists as a result of you having a problem with what I said.
Get your house in order, kid.
What “effort”? has no one EVER expressed dissent with you? do you just surround yourself with people that agree with what you have to say? or do you beat people down around you into agreeing with you? seems like we know which one you are. not everyone bows to tyrants.
If you down a question that is actually made in bad faith, just as you’ve done here, down is completely justified.
Could be a lot of people see it on their feed but don’t know what community it’s from, and they don’t want to see it so they downvote. Especially when people are browsing local or all.
I know lemmynsfw.com had that issue where people would downvote stuff on local that they didn’t like, even though it was a good post for the community it was posted to
Do we have a highthoughts sub for questions like this?
If anything is heavily downvoted on Lemmy, the most likely cause is that people don’t like what it says. On rare occasions downvoting is used to correctly identify wrong information or rule breaking content, but most of the time people use it as an “I agree” or “I like this” button.
So if a question here is heavily downvoted, its probably because people don’t like the question, despite the necessity of such questions.
This is why I stick with kbin. did you downvote me? would be a shame if I literally never find out.
Yes.
Yes.
If an answer was downvoted on NoStupidQuestions, was it too stupid or a serious reply to a joke question?
Or it might just be offensive or a dog whistle.
ive wanted to make an alt account and name it something like dog, and just bark at comments that hurt my ears
Do it
Is Dooku fast?
Fuck it, bark bark bark bark bark bark
What’s a dog whistle?
urban dictionary Dog whistle is a type of strategy of communication that sends a message that the general population will take a certain meaning from, but a certain group that is “in the know” will take away the secret, intended message. Often involves code words.
Republicans say they want to make civil rights for gays a state issue, which is really just a dog whistle strategy for saying that they will refuse to grant equal rights on a federal level.
That’s such a bad example for a good definition
Hmm I wonder why muscilunge said 88 million in this tweet? It could have been any number, right? Why 88?
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1596439328338890752
What do you think, dog?
Just a dog: bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark
Erhm… Could you explain what that means?
In case this is genuine asking, here’s the coded logic dogwhistle:
H is the 8th letter of the alphabet So 88 = HH, which was used in WW2 communications by the Nazis for Heil Hitler.
So people who just so happen to randomly put 88 into a random thought online are signaling to the people in the know that they’re also in the know.
Before you say “but thats stupid and childish, why would anyone go through that much effort to hide their shitty beliefs that way?” that’s exactly the purpose of dogwhistles. It’ high effort enough that normal people wouldn’t expect anyone to put that much childish effort into it, and anyone who points out the dog whistle looks crazy to the normies because of how childish it the dogwhistle is and the dogwhistlers get to feign innocence being attacked by the twitter mob over a number.
I appreciate the actual explanation. I was genuinely asking, although I thought the commenter’s reply was much funnier.
What a world we live in.
Random thought; a twitter nazi decoder ring could be a really funny novelty item
Bark bark bark bark bark bark
Great. Now I’m going to have to name my next dog Half_Built_Pyramids and explain that he barks at dog whistles.
Frequently how it shows up on “No Stupid Questions” is that they’re pushing a bigoted agenda under the guise of “I’m just asking a question and everyone’s attacking me for it.” Like if someone came to No Stupid Questions and asked (and this is just an example, not my position at all) “why is there so much trans propaganda on Lemmy?” or whatever. (And in the thread when people are like “you’re a bigot” they respond with “I didn’t say anything bigoted. I just asked a question.”)
But yeah. Like what Xtallll said, it’s more generally using language/symbols that for the in group is a reference they’ll all get but for everyone else at least retains an air of plausible deniability. Often it’s done by politicians (particularly right-wing politicians) to try to straddle the fence between the extremits and more moderates in their party. If a politician speaks in support of “states’ rights,” they’ll get the vote of the extremists who know that “states’ rights” actually means racist policies and also the moderates who still think or perhaps are still deluding themselves that it means somthing vague but more benign.
An actual dog whistle sounds at a frequency (?) inaudible to humans but is heard by dogs. The “secret phrase” can be said out loud, but like the whistle, only the big dogs hear it - the rest of the humans don’t. Does that make sense? It’s used as an analogy.
It’s a shibboleth, a way of asking a question that people who share your ideology will recognize as pushing it, while those who do not will not. This is like a dog whistle that can be heard by dogs but not by humans.
In question form it’s also often subtle propaganda, asking a question that presupposes something controversial, like “Why are trans players allowed to win so much on sports?” where the simple shibboleth might be “Should trans players be allowed in sports?” Both are confronting the same point, but the former assumes a trend that has not been demonstrated, while the latter simply assumes some reason without making it clear what the reason is.
People have their own reasons for downvoting. NSQ is for questions that could be considered “stupid” by people in more judgmental settings. When I downvote NSQ posts it’s because I suspect soapboxing or an agenda, not an honest question. Or, in some cases, because it seems people take “no stupid questions” as an outright challenge.
Serious answer, the question might be one that broke one of the community rules like Rule 5 (“No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda”) or Rule 6 (No meme or troll questions, except on Fridays) and voters are expressing their displeasure.
Silly answer, the question wasn’t stupid. The name of the community is actually “No, Stupid Questions.” The missing comma is a typo.
That reminds me of the Simpsons “no money down!”
I know, I couldn’t resist the urge to make a Lionel Hutz reference.
Rule 5 (“No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda”)
That has the problem of blocking genuinely stupid questions that could be used to educate away ignorance. Instead the only people willing to answer their questions are nut jobs with an agenda. E.g.
Do black people sun burn?
Would get downvoted for being racist cos everyone must know the answer to this (I don’t)
Where does the ‘Jewish conspiracy’ originate from?
Everyone would assume you’re antisemitic instead of educating you on conspiracies by Nazis and Russian slike The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But you know who does answer? Those conspiracy theorists who are more than happy to give you (wrong) answers!
Do women get horny?
Everyone assumes an ‘incel agenda’ cos it’s OBVIOUS what the answer is. No it’s some poor 13yo kid who’s unsure about things so they asked. But you know who does answer (wrongly) those questions liberally? Andrew Tate is FULL of answers and sends them down a very dangerous rabbit hole.
I can’t help feeling a lot of the modern shift towards alt-right bollocks is an almost elitist attitude that everyone has an agenda and there’s no such thing as ignorance anymore. I’m sure that was QAnons next level goal. Sow distrust in people so they refuse to answer questions (downvote, shutdown, ignore) while providing (wrong) answers to people themselves.
As I’ve gotten older I’ve come to realise Hanlons Razor covers SO much more than people realise.
Stop assuming malicious “agendas” behind everything. At the least don’t downvote things. At best answer people genuinely.
That has the problem of blocking genuinely stupid questions
It sure does. If only people would avoid trying to slip shit under the radar, there’d be no reason to consider genuinely stupid questions with such suspicion.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Every so often, Robert Evans from Behind the Bastards mentions this. I want to know what it is so badly, but also don’t want that shit in my search history
I’ve been on the internet since '98, I’ve had worse in mine so here ya go rofl (mind the wikipedia notations, I wanna inform but I’m also lazy):
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Russian: Протоколы сионских мудрецов), or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion (Протоколы собраний ученых сионских мудрецов), is a fabricated text purporting to detail a Jewish plot for global domination. Largely plagiarized from several earlier sources, it was first published in Imperial Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. It played a key part in popularizing belief in an international Jewish conspiracy.
Beginning in 1933, distillations of the work were assigned by some German teachers, as if they were factual, to be read by German schoolchildren throughout Nazi Germany,[1] although the text had been exposed as fraudulent by the British newspaper The Times in 1921 and by the German newspaper Frankfurter Zeitung in 1924. Today, it remains widely available in numerous languages, in print and on the Internet, and continues to be presented by antisemitic groups as a genuine document. It has been described as “probably the most influential work of antisemitism ever written” since it emerged from Russia shortly before World War I.[2]
Holy shit thank you. I’m always in the car or somewhere where you can’t just casually look something like that up, and by the time I get home I forget. Also the whole feeling awkward about looking it up. It seems like one of those oddly specific things where you kinda have to already know what it is to ask about it (if that makes sense), so it seems suspicious to be asking questions about it
To answer the three bolded questions, yes they sun burn, the birth of Christianity, yes and possibly more often than men do.
People with darker skin do get sunburnt, but it tends to take longer than for people with lighter skin.
It’s important to note that this is for light vs. dark skin, not just “black” vs. “white” people.
Some white people can be darker, and some black people can be lighter. It depends more on how much melanin is in someone’s skin, not necessarily which parts of the world their ancestors came from.
I didn’t say I’d downvote in those situations. I would guess that Rule 5 needs to exist for a reason. Without it the community could get overrun with ragebait posts. Personally I wouldn’t consider any of your examples questions to be ones that violate Rule 5, but I’m not a mod and I don’t make or enforce the rules. I also wouldn’t downvote such a question myself, but I would consider reporting it if it seemed like the OP was consistently trying to pull the conversation into fractious territory. Anyway, if we want to to discuss the rules and downvoting vs. reporting, that should probably go in a meta post.
Simple answer is : yes
The problem is everyone is going their own way with it.
Neither. It’s because the question does not belong in the community for other reasons, such as being off-topic, or encouraging heated responses.
Either option is viable. Depends on the question. Usually things are either downvoted because it’s too stupid to be a legitimate question and it’s clearly just someone being inflammatory, or it’s a question that, while arguably stupid, doesn’t really fit with the idea of the community.
“What are your thoughts on photosynthesis” is a post that’s -2 right now. It’s probably getting downvoted because it’s just a fucking question. It’s kinda stupid, but only in the sense that I have no clue what they’re wanting to hear about photosynthesis. It doesn’t fit the community. Goddamnit I still instinctively type subreddit. It would work better for a general discussion community.
Sometimes there’s a rare question that’s actually incredibly stupid and clearly not someone trolling, but they give zero further information. Like “Could time start moving faster due to climate change?” How do you answer something like that without knowing how the hell they came to that conclusion? “No.” isn’t exactly a satisfying response, but it’s pretty much the only one you’ve got.
Hell, your question isn’t a particularly great example of a ‘no stupid questions’ question. It’s really more of a shower thought.
Yeah, I figured I’d get more relevant answers asking it here rather than !showerthoughts@lemmy.world or anywhere else. It is a bit meta though, might have been better posted on Friday
