Gotcha. So you’re saying that explaining my stance is compatible with sealioning.

Here’s the thing. I would love to have civil, honest, constructive conversations. Seeing that this can be perceived as malicious is very frustrating to me. I could be accused of sealioning right now. It seems like a trap: damned if I do and damned if I don’t.

What am I supposed to do if I want to have a civil, honest, and constructive conversations?

I don’t doubt there are people who sealion. I just don’t see myself as having a malicious intent. I’m being open about my stances and I want to see what people’s stances are. But, again, damned if I do and damned if I don’t.

I suppose there’s nothing left for me to do other than tell you that, if you believe I’m acting in good faith, I’d love to talk to you. However, if you don’t think I’m acting in good faith, then there’s nothing we can do to move forward.

Regardless of what you think and what you choose, I genuinely hope you have a good one. In the grand scheme of things, I hope we can all live good lives.

I would love to have an effective and open conversation with you. You mentioned I should try to be more concise and that I seem to be trying to pass classes. Sure, my responses aren’t one-liners at all, but I’m not trying to pass any class. I’m trying to see what we all believe.

Just so we’re on the same page, this conversation started with a comment of yours. It said that “it’s about having insane, radical, or uncompromising/unrealistic opinions”. I assumed you meant that .ml users are “insane, radical or uncompromising/unrealistic”, given the context of this thread. I could’ve misinterpreted you, but that’s how I took it. I decided to respond to your post, because I don’t see myself as “insane, radical or uncompromising/unrealistic”. In response, the only thing you told me was that my response seemed AI-generated. I replied asking you if you could look past your perception of AI-generated content and tell me if I seemed close-minded. You replied saying I should be more concise.

All of this I interpret as if you are not engaging with me in good faith. I could be wrong; communication mishaps happen all the time. In the past, I have misinterpreted people and people have misinterpreted me. It’s also possible you’re having a bad day or something like that. It might even be possible that you think I’m acting in bad faith or something like that. What do you think?

TL;DR: I am happy to do TL;DRs, but I would also like assurance that you will engage with me effectively and openly.

Ah. Thanks for the explanation.

Well, if I look at my posts and ask myself whether I’m sealioning, I do see that I ask many questions to others. However, I also see that I talk about my stances and my beliefs. That is, as far as I can tell, not sealioning. Sealioning seems to require work from others while not doing the work of communicating.

Here’s a post in which I lay out some of my beliefs and stances regarding .ml: https://lemmy.ml/comment/23293518

Of course, I could be wrong, but that’s how it seems to me.

The goal of posting what I posted was to let others see where I stand in relation to .ml and understand where others stand.

You said my post reads like an AI-generated response. But I can assure you I did not use AI at any point. Regardless, I think this is a moot point.

The more important point is what you think of my post’s ideas. Am I an example of the close-mindedness and zeal that you perceive? Or do you find me as someone with whom you can talk?

I would love to think that I’m someone with whom you can talk, but that is something you and others decide. Others decide if they stop the flow of meaning into the conversation or whether they flood and impose meaning into the conversation.

The best I can do is be present and open.

To be fair, I did sign up a long time ago. However, I do have reasons to stay in .ml. Here’s a response I posted elsewhere: https://lemmy.ml/post/40683138/22907808

I’m out of the loop. What’s the context of this?

I’m curious what your response would be to me: https://lemmy.ml/post/40683138/22907808

Thanks for the straightforward response.

It sounds as if it’s clear that .ml admins are pro-Russia and pro-China. I understand you’re also asking if I’m making content-flow choices.

I think it’s worthwhile to interrogate where I stand in relation to .ml and my identity.

The way I see it, .ml does have posts that mourn aspects of countries like the USA and posts that recognize achievements of China. I’m not sure I’ve seen posts praising Russia, like at all, ever (if anything, I’ve seen posts critical of how Russia is a hyper-militaristic society).

I take this to mean that .ml is not indoctrinated in the way that many of my friends are. Some of my friends think that capitalism is perfectly ethical, and they sweep under the rug awful things about capitalism. They sweep under the rug how capitalism creates systemic inequality, how capitalism optimizes for accumulation instead of human flourishing, how capitalism is short-sighted in its investment strategies, how capitalism cannot create infinite growth in a contained system like planet Earth. I see these kinds of analyses in .ml. And I do not see them as much in other places.

I want to make it clear that I’m not saying those analyses don’t exist elsewhere. However, I see .ml engaging with them much more. I could be wrong, and I’d be very interested if you can link to other communities that engage with things like, for example, classical economics instead of neoclassical or post-Keynesian economics. Anyway…

This might lead you to believe that I have a specific political project in mind that I’m supporting. And yeah, I believe in humanism, in human development, and in empathy-based ethics. However, I do not believe in static visions of the future. I do not think that there’s a Single Best Way Of Solving World Problems. I believe the world is a complex system and we need multiple simultaneous experiments at all levels to get more of what we want and less of what we don’t want.

And what is it that I want? I want more acceptance of diversity and less hatred. I want more people working in good working conditions and less shitty workplaces. I want more equality of opportunities and less hoarding of privilege by the wealthy. I want more people out of poverty and less people stuck in the cycle of poverty. I want more investments that care about the long-term benefit of everyone and less investments that care about the short-term benefit of elites. I want more people who can choose what to do with their lives and less people stuck with what they’ve got in front of them.

So am I anti-USA and pro-China?

• If you tell me the story that the USA is lagging in healthcare compared to its rich-country counterparts, then I want less of that. Am I anti-USA because of that?
• If you tell me the story that the USA managed to be an innovation power-house for a century because of its entrepreneurial state, then I want more of that. Am I pro-USA because of that?
• If you tell me the story that China has a demographic problem because of its gender imbalance, then I want less of that. Am I anti-China because of that?
• If you tell me the story that China is investing immensely in the development of green energy, then I want more of that. Am I pro-China because of that?

What I’m trying to say is that we have to look at reality with openness. I believe we should not stick to a simplistic story. I believe simplistic stories blind us to complexity and nuance. I believe we should not stick to easy stories such as “pro-USA” or “pro-China”. I believe we need to be able to break complex systems down and find what we want more of and what we want less of. I believe we then need to be able to accept that in complex systems we cannot know the end-state. I believe, instead, we need to try things out at multiple levels and see if we’re getting more of what we want and less of what we don’t want.

So yeah, I see myself as someone who sees in .ml the kinds of analyses that I don’t see elsewhere. Of course, I’m open to alternatives and am curious about where you stand and what you believe.

To understand what you mean, is that seal winking? If so, are you saying that maybe I’m not being forthcoming or honest? I hope that you and I and everyone here can agree that we’re trying to understand what we’re all saying and where we all stand. I’m not being sarcastic or trying to hide anything.

To me it’s obviously the potato that tastes like tomato. I use tomatoes in so many dishes. Potatoes don’t taste nearly as good as a tomato. Heck, even fried potatoes need tomato: fries with ketchup!

I can’t find it in the article, but there’s another version that makes even more sense to me. I remember there used to be rock, plant, scissors. The rock destroys the scissors. The scissors cut the plant. The plant grows and cracks the rock.

That’s a touching message… but can we appreciate that handwriting? Damn. I’m not a fan of all-caps text in general, but this text is just neat.

This happened in 2016 and here’s the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Perkins_(politician)#LGBT_issues

Huh. I’m trying to understand what you mean. Your interpretation is that .ml is pro-China and pro-Russia. And, as you can see, my account is .ml. I’m not sure I would identify as pro-China or pro-Russia. What does it mean to you to be pro-China and pro-Russia?