this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
1194 points (99.2% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

33820 readers
3609 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 101 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Also: unstable and not fit for public release

[–] Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 29 points 3 days ago

Weird how that attracts a certain crowd

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Counterpoint:

Humans in a civilized (meaning urbanized) society... are domesticated, are basically in captivity, from the comparative framework of wild animals.

CounterCounterpoint:

Using studies on captive wolves as a fundamental basis for how human societies do or should work...

... Is maybe really stupid compared to, I don't know, using Sociology as a basis to understand human societies.

Sociology being the field that focuses on the social dynamics of uh, humans, which are markedly different from wolves, and other distinct, largely non sapient animals.

Its uh, kinda in our name, homo sapiens sapiens.

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You have to use parables to teach moral concepts to most people. Sociology is very valuable as a science, but if you come at the general public with unvarnished findings you are going to have a bad time, few will listen to you.

The old alpha male trope is a parable that serves some narrow interests. The newer counter parables about how that is BS are based in observations from sociology, later generations of more rigorous animal behavior studies and related fields.

You are correct that good scientific work is the source of what we need. The equally difficult truth is that those findings will only make their way into general consciousness through parables.

This one weird fact drives nerds crazy, but for newer, better ideas to take hold in society they have to be translated into simple stories.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

You have to use parables to teach moral concepts to most people.

This one weird fact drives nerds crazy, but for newer, better ideas to take hold in society they have to be translated into simple stories.

As a person with a career in data analytics...

You are completely correct.

When talking to non nerds, non autists, non data wonks...

Yep, 100% you absolutely must be able to present your data as a narrative of some kind if you want to have any hope of most people having any reaction other than confusion or their eyes glossing over.

I have learned this the hard way in my own life, and its why people like Sagan and Nye and Tyson were/are science communicators, which is a different skillset from being an actual scientist in whatever field.

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

One of the most discouraging moments in my training was when I was looking into the literature around Decision Support Systems, in the context of Geographic Information Systems as a tool for supporting complex efforts.

Over and over, no matter the specific focus of a study, the authors would reiterate that no matter the quality of the information produced by the decision support system, decision makers were more likely to go with solutions supported by people the decision makers considered to be peers, even when the hard data showed that the opposite course was more justified.

In short, CEOs and similar almost always care more about the opinions of other CEOs than being true to the scientific ideal.

So to go back to the name of our species, ‘homo sapiens’ as a name is aspirational, not reflective of fact.

Perhaps ‘homo recumbens’ would be more appropriate as a descriptor, but I prefer we keep the current name so as to at least give us something to strive for.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Over and over, no matter the specific focus of a study, the authors would reiterate that no matter the quality of the information produced by the decision support system, decision makers were more likely to go with solutions supported by people the decision makers considered to be peers, even when the hard data showed that the opposite course was more justified.

In short, CEOs and similar almost always care more about the opinions of other CEOs than being true to the scientific ideal.

Extremely ironically, what this means is that the actual prime candidate for a job to replace with AI...

Is CEOs, C Suite.

They are the most expensive employees, after all.

Maybe not replace them with LLMs as we currently have them, beyond possibly being used to generate a narrative, human readable explanation of their decision making process and policies...

Where the actual decision making and policy determinations would themselves be decided by basically a much more specialized algorithm, that is made out of code a human can actually read.

Like, we've already got Zoom entirely seriously trying to get AI-LLMs that train themselves on your work emails and chats, then make an avatar emulation of 'you', then send that to digital meetings, then output the chat log 'results' of this 'meeting'.

So, there you go.

C Suite doesn't really do anything beyond networking and corpo politics, this can simulate that, minus the off the record corruption, which shouldn't be a problem, right?

... Its always been about power and social status.

If otherwise, they'd all be developing something along the lines of what I just described, putting themselves out of a job, and retiring on their already massive wealth.

No, they don't do that.

They are addicted to being superior, to being able to ruin people.

They're dangerous petty narcissistic sociopaths.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago

The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens ('wise man'). In any case it's an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.

Terry Pratchett

[–] LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

People of science understand, without the parables, because they have the working and "book" knowledge to interpret the relative meaning of the presented data. To communicate the meaning relative data, without the background knowledge, and without taking the time to learn (or even package for small, focused learning) it is easier to understand, if put into a relative comparable, with similar, relative distance, or changes. Especially when people are already overloaded with *gestures towards everything. The way to eat an elephant, small bites. It's an elephant to people without all that back knowledge or ability to interpret the science, so you gotta break it into small bites for them, using your understanding.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

Humans in a civilized (meaning urbanized) society… are domesticated, are basically in captivity, from the comparative framework of wild animals.

What about urban existence resembles captivity? You aren't constrained geographically or denied personal autonomy. In fact, you have significantly more freedom and autonomy precisely because you're at the hub of a large, well-developed collection of infrastructure and accumulated resources.

I would not consider a human in a city any more "in captivity" than a duck in a lake.

Its uh, kinda in our name, homo sapiens sapiens.

So nice they named us twice

load more comments (8 replies)

It's just nonsense for people who are too asocial and alien to the human experience to make sense of the world and feel better about themselves by having some sort of binary 'strict goals'. You're supposed to be somewhere 'in the middle' for best results: kind but not a doormat, confident but not arrogant, engaging but not domineering, etc etc.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Hey hey hey!

We're Werewolves, not Swearwolves

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 7 points 1 day ago

TIL I am an alpha male after all...

[–] RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Among dogs there is certainly the one dog that has the respect of the other dogs. The other dogs will happily wag their tail and show their belly. The ones that challange it will be chased away. I think each sex in the community has a 'leader' of their own.

I think the equivalent in humans are charismatic individuals that command respect over their surrounding.

People who self-proclaim 'alpha' usually lack charisma, are agressive, dysfunctional individuals that live in a fantasy. Noone respects them. They may see them as crazy and hence fear them.

[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

You're probably talking about literally the same: random dogs thrown spacially together where they naturally would avoid each other if they could. Which, in the modern days, they can't. Especially not when leached.

load more comments (2 replies)

i mean we've got that one cat that beats up all the other cats and dogs in the neighborhood and everyone knows to keep their distance. pecking order I think it's called.

[–] Matriks404@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I think "alpha" males appear naturally in some species, but not in wolves and definitely not in hominids, lol.

[–] haungack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I find it fascinating how oblivious people pretend to be about what our natural social hierarchies are, making fringe speculations ranging from proto-capitalism, over alpha male fantasies, to proto-communism.

Maybe it's too obvious, or too boring, but it's families. Incidentally, happens to be the same for actual, natural packs of wolves.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

I find it most fascinating how they take (supposed) observations from entirely different animals to justify what's happening with humans.

For a mantis it's natural to eat her partner right after sex. For mussels it's natural to never meet their sexual partner. Obviously what's natural for a mantis is not natural for mussels and vice versa. With that established, why would any of that have an influence on how humans behave?

And to take that further, wolves, different kinds of primates and all sorts of other animals that people draw comparisons from are also wildly different animals from humans and what's normal for them is not normal for us and vice-versa.

And not only that, but even what's "natural" for primitive humans has nothing to do with what we are doing. It's "natural" for humans to live in small packs/clans in the semi-wildernis, not to live in a perfectly safe, air conditioned building, driving to work in a fast, safe, air-conditioned vehicle and then sit motionless in front of a screen in an air-conditioned building for 8-10h.

Nothing of how we live is natural, and finding justifications on how we as humans work in "natural" states is misguided at best.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Silverback gorilla has entered the chat

Apparently there's some disagreement about whether any of the other modern great apes should be included in the "hominid" definition, though.

No there isn't, they are. Says right there in hominidae.

You might be thinking of hominin.

load more comments
view more: next ›