this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
644 points (96.7% liked)

memes

22064 readers
3609 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Frenchgeek@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 days ago

To be fair, when you try it in person, they're all "Who are you? How did you get in my house? I'm calling the cops!", then it's no fun at all.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Of course it was.

They were wrong. How are they going to know they are wrong if no one tells them?

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 3 points 4 days ago

The ones who know they're wrong bother me even more.

[–] SoupBrick@pawb.social 128 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (17 children)

The end goal of debates is not to change your opponent's mind, but to present your ideas and reasoning to the people watching in a convincing way.

I stop when it is clear the other person is arguing in bad faith.

The block button is your strongest weapon against trolls.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 52 points 5 days ago

It also helps teach you about your own opinions, and helps you learn new things even if the person you're taking to is a moron (because you have to research stuff to debunk their bs)

[–] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 5 days ago

Sometimes in public forums my goal is to show the neutral third parties who might stumble upon that thread to see for themselves which view is more reasonable. Bad faith arguments that are common sometimes need to be knocked down whenever and wherever it persists.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] late_pessimistic@slrpnk.net 7 points 3 days ago

Its my crack I can't stop coming back to all while hating every second of it

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 28 points 5 days ago (4 children)

There's a weird dynamic to arguing online, particularly when it comes to political topics. Most of the time, you won't convince your counterpart. Maybe some point sticks with them later and you'll never know, but either way they're not really the target of the arguments. It's the (potential) audience that the argument is supposed to be for: People less emotionally invested in the conflict may take away something useful from the arguments, people on the fence about an issue might come around to your point, and people sharing your opinion will see that they're not alone and feel affirmed.

Essentially, it's a performance on an public stage for the sake of discourse. Phrased strongly, you don't want "the other side" to dominate the public opinion, so you engage them. In the process, you may hone your own arguments, or you may find them wanting, perhaps even see them start to crack.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 69 points 5 days ago
[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 63 points 5 days ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (9 children)

Absolutely. There’s way too many blithering idiots online. We made the web way too accessible to them back in the ‘90’s.

And if idiots don’t get challenged, you run the risk of them thinking they’re actually right. And that’s very, very dangerous.

I will admit the only reason I attempt to verbally correct them is because I don’t have access to a Reaper drone to shove a Flying Ginsu missile up their ass.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (5 children)

I mean, evidence shows that having their ideas challenged online tends to entrench people in their ideas more so than it convinces them that they're wrong.

So, while I sympathize with your goals, I think your method is having the opposite effect of your intended outcome.

I say this, knowing it's true, and still doing the arguing online thing anyway.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (10 children)

It's not about them it's about the other people that might be influenced by their post.

Online is never an A&B conversation, which is why I usually avoid direct confrontation and just provide well structured, clear information, because I don't really care whether I can convince someone who has made up their mind.

It's about deconstructing the argument with clear digestible information for the dozens of lurkers.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It’s my favorite hobby.

At this point, every comment on Lemmy is greeted with angry responses who are willfully choosing to ignore the point I was making and try to fight me.

If I say “I like dogs” someone is going to come along and tell me I’m a jerk for not liking cats even though I didn’t say I don’t like cats. That or someone mansplaining dogs to me.

Calm down Lemmy. Take a breather.

[–] BigBoyShuanzee@aussie.zone 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What about birds you heartless monster, you have ruined my day!

It is good fun though.. It's part of the reason I got permabanned from Reddit.. That and criticizing Israel and Nazis.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

i got banned for posting a picture of my cat sitting on the porch.

it made me a bird mass murderer, or something. ban was for inciting violence.

it was in 2021. then i was unbanned a few months later with a DM begging me to buy IPO stock.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

People like being offended and feeling victimized.

It's a rush and they get addicted to it.

I have a cat and a dog... and a lot of folks will just argue with me on principle or try to make me pick a side. even in real life. or like get in a big stink about if they are purebred or rescue. i have no clue why any of it matters, i guess other than their insecure need to feel validated by getting you to agree with them.

I hate it. It's so stupid and annoying. You can't just like things anymore... anything you enjoy has to 'hurt' someone else and they have to let you know how wrong and bad you are for enjoying it.

I like Cilantro, and I've had internet weirdos tell me that it's able-ist to enjoy it, because my enjoyment of it is some sort of racism against the people for whom it tastes like soap. Or like commentary made at me in the taco line when I order it how it's so gross. It's so ridiculous. I think Pinto beans are disgusting, but I don't feel offended and hurt that other people enjoy them.

[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago

Please give your furry friend a treat from me and tell them I said hi!

[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Oh, I'm about to argue with one right now you little dumbass

[–] wraekscadu@vargar.org 29 points 5 days ago (9 children)

Mostly, yes a lot!

Writing about my thoughts, opinions and positions has helped me understand them even better!

You're rarely going to change anyone's position online, as sadly most aren't arguing in good faith. BUT responding to rebuttals from others and questions (good faith or bad faith) leads to a very cool intellectual exercise where you get to probe your positions from so many different angles.

If things become toxic or brain-rotty, then you can just disengage without explanation! Kinda cool actually!!!

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Pro tip: Never open your inbox.

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

Not as powerful as you but I’m working on it

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ashenone@lemmy.ml 25 points 5 days ago

I don't want to be on my death bed wishing I had argued more, so I'm doing what I can while I'm young and ornery

[–] hark@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

It's a hobby.

[–] vegafjord@slrpnk.net 14 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (14 children)

It is fun arguing with people you disagree with as long as both argues in good faith and has uses good etiquette. Both needs to be open minded to a certain degree.

The goal of a conversation is not to convince, but rather to explore your own and their mind. To grow together. A conversation is not a competition, we should not aim to "win" a conversation.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

what was i supposed to do, let people just be wrong online?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Hawanja@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Hello, fellow stranger online!

[–] CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Laughs in does not read replies

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago

Other people in this thread have already said it better than I could but in brief: Yes

[–] Astronut@lemmy.zip 16 points 5 days ago

I don’t have any friends still alive to argue with so I gotta fuss at sonsabitches I don’t know!

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Was it worth it?

Well, we're clearly sitting on a picturesque beach on the Spanish Med, so... yeah? Sure, getting SWATted was no fun, and the bogus restraining orders were a real hassle, but ever since we had no choice but to leave the US things got a lot better.

Now, how about some sunscreen babe? You're gonna burn like that.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Before I realized there was no point 99% of the time, I didn't think it was a waste of time. Now if I'm feeling generous I think, at least on a platform like Lemmy, best you can hope is like 10% of the time you plant a seed for the person with a wrong idea or opinion that will eventually lead them to a better understanding. I certainly know that's happened to me before when I was wrong. So often, people make the online exchange feel awful though. There's a prominent attitude in many extremist/wrong viewpoints that not only are they right, everyone who thinks differently is an evil asshole.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Generally speaking, I don't argue with strangers on the internet with the goal of changing their minds or "educating" them. I mean, I do start with that intention...who doesn't? But by the time I am finished, I realize that I'm just clarifying my own thoughts and positions in my mind.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 14 points 5 days ago (12 children)

Yes, and if you don't agree you can debate me!

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] snowby@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

1000% worth it.

If you don't do challenge things, you let bullshit flourish and that influences societal views.

[–] Strider@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago

I can answer with confidence: sometimes!

[–] Ougie@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Screw feelings. The truth is worth discovering.

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes, but the implication that feelings and truth are mutually exclusive is often used to bury, dismiss, or invalidate the truths around what feelings people experience, their meaning, importance, and roles in human lives/society.

It's not about stripping feelings from discovery to arrive at truth, but rather charting the truths that feelings are actually pointing to in order to discover more complete truths.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Prizefighter@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

I want her feet

load more comments
view more: next ›