Zonetrooper

Yes, unfortunately. Or at least seems to.

This person was an eye-opener for me in terms of how deep political groupthink and unquestioning belief can go. He's an intelligent person in a highly technical position that requires plenty of reasoning and thought, but if the right political commentator says something, it is absolute truth.

The overwhelming thing I remember is a sense of "Huh, I guess this is it."

There was a possum in the middle of a busy road, acting oddly. Walking in slow circles, pausing to stare, wandering back and forth.... just generally acting odd. I was concerned it might be rabid, and nobody else had called 911 yet, so I did. Gave them the info, they connected me with the local dispatcher, and that was that. Didn't stick around to see what happened.

When I got home I found out that Possums are almost never rabid. Poor thing had probably been hit by a car. Animal control probably would've been a better option, but when I'd called I was actually worried for anyone else who stumbled into it.

Bonus points if it's, "He's childish because he's so emotional."

And then we wonder why men are closed off emotionally.

Huh. Today I learned. Neat!

Depends on the magnitude of what is being warned of.

"Warning, graphic gore"? Absolutely appreciated. "Contains scenes of actual combat, those with PTSD may wish to leave the room"? Yeah totally reasonable. "This book contains vivid descriptions of sexual abuse"? I can see why people would be squicked out by that.

But then we get into the absurd side of it. A film about the Holocaust, needing to warn its viewers that some contents may be distressing? Wow. You don't say. A memoir about a tragic death, needing to put a warning that... someone dies? "This politics discussion may discuss slavery, racism, and oppression"? Oh no, we have to think about upsetting things that happened!

And before someone suggests those are unrealistic hyperbole, those are all things I've seen. I don't feel those are helpful.

All you are saying here is ‘anything i declared bigoted shouldn’t be tolerated’.

Yep. Basically this. And to bring it back around to OP's question:

[Opinions] you mention without a caveat immediately makes people jump to conclusions or even attack you?

...well, it feels like this is a great example. Suggest that the fediverse has a bit of a bigotry problem, and you immediately get hit with an implication that no, everything is fine, if you're not happy then you must actually be the bigot!

That Lemmy can be just as bigoted, hostile, and close-minded as the sites it set out to replace; it drives out views which aren't in line with the gestalt majority. This thread, then, mostly gets answers which are on the mildest end because those who actually hold opinions out of step with the majority know damn well not to speak up, or, well... be immediately othered.

Yes, for one particular reason: I've always favored longer, slower posting - structured responses to earlier posts with multiple paragraphs to propose a point, explain, and support it. Including the ability to quote / link back to multiple different posts in a thread if needed. The... for lack of a better way to put it, "Reddit-esque" style of branched comments to a post (which includes Lemmy) is nice because it allows multiple parallel discussions rather than one dominating one, but it also seems to discourage longer, more in-depth responses. It also means that interesting ongoing discussions which I'd love to get into can get buried down later in the comments.

Like OP, I recognize that there's nothing actually stopping me from doing this on Lemmy. There's chat and sort-by-new, and of course I can link as many other comments as I want. But the overwhelming trend is towards shorter, snappier answers before you move on to the next comment chain or post; discussions rarely last more than a few hours, whereas forum threads used to be able to keep them going for days.

It's frustrating for me as well. I'd sometimes like to go back and look at a conversation I had once before - so I don't have to manually unearth whatever point or evidence I had in that post - only to find I'm actually unable to.

What really frustrates me is that if a post is removed or - it seems like - the parent of comment of a conversational thread, I become unable to view any discussion in that post's comments or conversational thread. I get that people might want to remove their own posts, and that's just fine - but one person removing my ability to view anything else in the comments doesn't seem great.

Combination of:

• People whose only exposure is clips from Portal and think he's just a goof who rants about combustible lemons, not a deeply disturbed person who subjected people to horrific experimentation.
• People who can't distinguish between other fans saying "I like this person as an interesting, well-portrayed, flawed character" and "I like this person directly as an individual".

And matte paintings. Never forget the legendary artists who turned paintings into scenery, or the camera workers who managed to blend in the actors to them.

• That first legendary pan-down to Tattooine, which the Tantive IV and Star Destroyer then fly past? Matte painting.
• The sterile hangars and seemingly-bottomless pits of the Death Star? Matte painting.
• The busy Rebel hangar on Yavin IV? Also a matte painting. I seem to remember reading that some of the hangar floor markings - besides making it look like an actual hangar - served to help align the matte with the set shots and coordinate extras so they wouldn't accidentally walk out of the filmed segment and behind a matte portion.

Generative AI was vaguely funny when it created trippy, acid hallucination images and incoherent druggy ramblings of text. I know an author who fed their own content into an early LLM (small language model?) and the bizarre, yet undeniably "his" stuff it produced was worth a laugh. I wouldn't say I "liked" it, but it was kind of amusingly quirky.

What was depressing is how quickly people began to claim AI content was "theirs". As someone who ran a fiction-creating community, people were so eager to latch on to what AI would spit out that they began to create convoluted things for the early models to "depict".