50
all 25 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Make sure you report these videos. This will increase the likelihood they are reviewed.
I don’t think this question is in the spirit of c/asklemmy. Some recent posts which I think are in the spirit:
- What are your favorite metal song covers?
- What movie trailer ruined the movie with how much it revealed?
- What are actual good movie trailers that get you hooked without spoiling everything?
- Was there ever a internet comment that actually really hurt you?
- What's your best unconventional "blessing" like when people tell an actor "break a leg!"
I’m not a fan of posts that use c/asklemmy as a catch-all community, but unfortunately the mods have gone AWOL.
I mean, he is asking lemmy 🤷♀️
So you're saying only pointless questions can be asked? If you want to break it down that way then every question could be posted on a more specific community.
It’s not that hard to understand what c/asklemmy is supposed to be about: it was one of the first communities created on the original Lemmy instance (this one) as a clone of r/AskReddit.
I wish I could ask this in other community, but there seems to be none that cater to address specifically on pseudoscience or rationality.
I'd be happy to be corrected, but there is no clear definition of what constitutes science, short of blindly following authority of some institution prone to funding politics.
In medicine, funding is known to be ultimately controlled by big corporates, making "established science" murkier than, say, the science of standardization of units.
EDIT : last line, grammar
there is no clear definition of what constitutes science
My understanding is anyone who follows the scientific method is taking part in science. Some fields can't completely follow the scientific method for practical reasons and they're called "soft sciences" (ex. economics, due to experiments being difficult to carry out). If the scientific method isn't followed, it isn't science.
Economics has been there as an academic subject since centuries, but it wasn't classified as a science till around one generation ago. The same goes for other social sciences. In fact, social sciences used to be known as social studies.
Scientific method isn't the criteria of determining what is science even in core sciences as of today. Take the field of medicine, for example. It filters out all knowledge and research which is not done by qualified doctors. Who becomes a medical doctor is very tightly controlled by institutions, and doctors are heavily disincentivized to speak against the given lines.
So much so, the research in medical field has been reduced to statistics of administration of pharma drugs to humans. In medicine, one no longer tests whether consumption of say, an apple, will have any impact on a patient. Testing apples, and finding them beneficial will not only not be publishedas research, it is considered "pseudo-science" by many.
That last example is extremely bad and reeks of bad faith argument. Eating apples, as with fruits and fresh produce in general, has been tested multiples times and some of it's benefits measured.
There's already a general consensus that they are "beneficial". A study that says "apples are good for you" wouldn't add anything unless they are good in a way that wasn't known before. For example, do they have a different and unknown impact in people with a specific condition?
Of course if the study doesn't have any real study behind and just says things like "apples are good because they are fruits" then it can be labeled as pseudoscience.
That last example is extremely bad and reeks of bad faith argument.
And there you go, someone found it out real quick - it was actually a bad faith argument, all the way from the beginning. This is why I did not respond to that guy. It touched his nerve, when I declared traditional Indian medicine as unscientific. He then decided to create a loaded comment, and if it wasn't already evident, their comment is fallacious - it deviates from the topic I had originally intended to discuss - by directing the blame on modern science being controlled by scary "illuminati" and "weeping angels" in corporate suit and boot.
Too bad his BigPharma scare tactics don't work in the Indian context, and also makes him look like a QAnon weirdo to the western folks over here. Mechanisms of ayurveda, unani, siddha and homeopathy fail in front of modern science with simple theories like the atomic model theory, or Avogadro constant. But hey, his favorite party bought the Ministry of Ayush in India, why would he let a 'brown sepoy' like me insult the supreme leader?
According to his logic, an uneducated charlatan in saffron robe, who looks like a "pious" guru has the utmost right to insult dying doctors and sell cow urine (I am not making this up, his company "Patanjali" sells it for real). And his Coronil kit - which I've previously mentioned in the post, has destroyed the livers of many of the unfortunate ones due to heavy metal poisoning, who could not afford to buy the vaccine - and now, their financial burden has increased tenfolds. Yet, there's no accountability. This scammer earns crores of rupees, fooling the citizens of not just India, but also Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and also hippies from the west - USA, UK, Germany, you probably know how much the reach is. Vulnerable people consume pseudo-science garbage prepared by shady gurus and godmen.
And why does it matter that I've made this post? Because a board-certified doctor established in California is promoting pseudoscience - and mind you, none of the universities in the US or Europe recognize any traditional snake-oil medicine degree, maybe except for homeopathy. How is he not held liable for fooling people on the other side of the world?
Yeah, I spoke with the guy a bit more, he's a total nut job. I guess for an external party night be fun to read, was painful to try to explain. At least there's testament to his madness, so if somebody feels the first comment seems reasonable, can read the rest to rethink that.
That last example is extremely bad and reeks of bad faith argument.
And there you go, someone found it out real quick - it was actually a bad faith argument, all the way from the beginning.
Calling an argument bad faith or good faith is unscientific. In fact, it is what church used to do to science before science became popular.
This is why I did not respond to that guy. It touched his nerve, when I declared traditional Indian medicine as unscientific.
I didn't actually go to your links and didn't know till now that you are targeting Indian medicine. The form of your argument itself is a fallacy called appeal to authority and it hardly matters what you are targetting or what you feel about it.
He then decided to create a loaded comment, and if it wasn't already evident, their comment is fallacious - it deviates from the topic I had originally intended to discuss - by directing the blame on modern science being controlled by scary "illuminati" and "weeping angels" in corporate suit and boot.
Lol. Your words, your emotions. Not mine.
Too bad his BigPharma scare tactics don't work in the Indian context, and also makes him look like a QAnon weirdo to the western folks over here. Mechanisms of ayurveda, unani, siddha and homeopathy fail in front of modern science with simple theories like the atomic model theory, or Avogadro constant. But hey, his favorite party bought the Ministry of Ayush in India, why would he let a 'brown sepoy' like me insult the supreme leader?
Now that you are the one spouting conspiracy theories close to your heart, you are legitimately the one using scare tactics.
According to his logic, an uneducated charlatan in saffron robe, who looks like a "pious" guru has the utmost right to insult dying doctors and sell cow urine (I am not making this up, his company "Patanjali" sells it for real). And his Coronil kit - which I've previously mentioned in the post, has destroyed the livers of many of the unfortunate ones due to heavy metal poisoning, who could not afford to buy the vaccine - and now, their financial burden has increased tenfolds. Yet, there's no accountability. This scammer earns crores of rupees, fooling the citizens of not just India, but also Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and also hippies from the west - USA, UK, Germany, you probably know how much the reach is. Vulnerable people consume pseudo-science garbage prepared by shady gurus and godmen.
Patanjali is not my company, nor do I follow Baba Ramdev or consumed his coronil kit. But I can assure you, damages done by them are dwarfs compared to ... well, have you read about what Johnson & Johnson did to infants?
And why does it matter that I've made this post? Because a board-certified doctor established in California is promoting pseudoscience - and mind you, none of the universities in the US or Europe recognize any traditional snake-oil medicine degree, maybe except for homeopathy. How is he not held liable for fooling people on the other side of the world?
See, appeal to authority again.
And somehow you believe that I am making bad (faith) arguments.
Now that you are the one spouting conspiracy theories close to your heart, you are legitimately the one using scare tactics.
I created this post to discuss about the ill-effects of traditional medicine, which is clearly known to not follow systemic scientific methodology. Traditional medicines are based on the concepts of balance of dosha (vata-pita-kapha), primal elements (fire, water, earth, air, space) and humor (blood, phlegm, black bile, yellow bile). Now that's ayurveda, siddha and unani for your respectively. Likewise, homeopathy is based on the concept of "likes get cured by likes" - therefore, the harm-causing agent is diluted to many parts. There's also other traditional medicines, witch doctors and faith-based healing, from Asia, Africa and even Europe. None of these align with the modern scientific theory - knowledge of which is accessible to the general public. Now, if you don't understand basic science, I am not going to bother, you have all the free time in the world to cross-examine it yourself, starting with fifth grade concepts of chemistry - that's all you'll need, not even physics or biology.
And somehow you believe that I am making bad (faith) arguments.
You chose to be a bad actor starting from the initial comment, deliberately choosing to misdirect a flaw that is not a part of science, but corporate greed and capitalism. It is because profit over safety overshadows the concern for the well-being of another human, and has nothing to do with modern science itself. In the example you've mentioned about Johnson&Johnson, instead of safer substitutes, they chose to use talcum power, which is always contaminated with asbestos. Be it Ponds, Nivea or Cinthol, all of these are contaminated with asbestos, and they're still being sold.
Now, what you've done is:
- misdirected the conversation from traditional medicine to modern medicine
- misdirected the consequences of capitalism to modern medicine
You've engaged in red herring fallacies multiple times. And therefore, there is no need for me to engage in any further conversation with you.
But I can assure you, damages done by them are dwarfs
Except that they don't. Pharmas are held accountable for medical mishaps, so are doctors and nurses. Not these quacks pretending to be guru or godmen.
As far as it comes to my "appeal to authority", the FDA, FSSAI, CDSCO or NHS have a team of highly skilled scientists, who have spent years on their specialization. They are questioned by other governing bodies of health, they are answerable to the public, make decisions based on rigorous scientific evidence from lab data and clinical trials. They also have to go through peer reviews, most of which is done in well-respected journals. There are smart people out there who question them regularly. My trust is not blindly on that institute, but rather their entire eco-system, that allows me to see for myself how they have reached to a solution that benefits human society.
I created this post to discuss about the ill-effects of traditional medicine, which is clearly known to not follow systemic scientific methodology.
You wanted to trash talk about traditional medicine without acknowledging that modern medicine isn't following science either.
Traditional medicines are based on the concepts of balance of dosha (vata-pita-kapha), primal elements (fire, water, earth, air, space) and humor (blood, phlegm, black bile, yellow bile). Now that's ayurveda, siddha and unani for your respectively.
Modern medicine has the parallel concept of homeostasis, which is even more generalized.
Likewise, homeopathy is based on the concept of "likes get cured by likes" - therefore, the harm-causing agent is diluted to many parts.
Homeopathy is not traditional medicine. In fact, it is younger than allopathy - the mainstream modern medicine.
There's also other traditional medicines, witch doctors and faith-based healing, from Asia, Africa and even Europe. None of these align with the modern scientific theory - knowledge of which is accessible to the general public.
Most of modern medicine is inaccessible without paying a doctor, and the research behind it is behind paywalls and not accessible to general public either.
Now, if you don't understand basic science, I am not going to bother, you have all the free time in the world to cross-examine it yourself, starting with fifth grade concepts of chemistry - that's all you'll need, not even physics or biology.
Question. Are you an Indian, or have recieved education in India?
You chose to be a bad actor starting from the initial comment, deliberately choosing to misdirect a flaw that is not a part of science, but corporate greed and capitalism.
So you understand that modern medicine is not a scientific enterprise, but one of crony capitalism that has overtaken academic institutions. Good to know.
It is because profit over safety overshadows the concern for the well-being of another human, and has nothing to do with modern science itself. In the example you've mentioned about Johnson&Johnson, instead of safer substitutes, they chose to use talcum power, which is always contaminated with asbestos. Be it Ponds, Nivea or Cinthol, all of these are contaminated with asbestos, and they're still being sold.
And, this is worse than coronil.
Now, what you've done is:
- misdirected the conversation from traditional medicine to modern medicine
- misdirected the consequences of capitalism to modern medicine
How is it my problem that what you are shilling for doesn't stand my scrutiny?
You've engaged in red herring fallacies multiple times.
And therefore, there is no need for me to engage in any further conversation with you.
s/ Your scientific majesty, I have sinned against the church of modern medicine. Please condone my blaspheme against the divine doctrine of science. I'll atone by trash-talking against the evil pseudo-science of traditional medicine. /s
Feeling better?
But I can assure you, damages done by them are dwarfs
Except that they don't. Pharmas are held accountable for medical mishaps, so are doctors and nurses. Not these quacks pretending to be guru or godmen.
Lol. Remind me. Who has been held responsible for covid-19?
As far as it comes to my "appeal to authority", the FDA, FSSAI, CDSCO or NHS have a team of highly skilled scientists, who have spent years on their specialization.
Not too long ago, it took these specialists 27 years to decide that a widely diatributed vaccine had a fatal side-effect and should be discontinued immediately. Also, have you read the time frame of justice in Johnson & Johnson case?
And the flip-flops by qualified doctors and their institutions on whether alcohol is bad for health or good... before that smoking, X-rays.
They are questioned by other governing bodies of health, they are answerable to the public, make decisions based on rigorous scientific evidence from lab data and clinical trials. They also have to go through peer reviews, most of which is done in well-respected journals. There are smart people out there who question them regularly. My trust is not blindly on that institute, but rather their entire eco-system, that allows me to see for myself how they have reached to a solution that benefits human society.
There was this video (now removed and heavily censored even in FOSS circles) which showed one-by-one some newspaper clippings about percentage efficacy of covid vaccines declared in published research. It started with a headline declaring 100% efficacy of vaccines, followed by another with 99%, than 98,... 97... and so on, ending literally at 1%.
What do you think? Were these figures were sent to newspapers before peer-review, or after?
Personally, I don't care.
That last example is extremely bad and reeks of bad faith argument. Eating apples, as with fruits and fresh produce in general, has been tested multiples times and some of it's benefits measured.
You are missing the point. There are hundreds of pieces of published research on stuff that didn't work or not work during corona virus like remdesivir, ivermectin, azithromycin, paracetamol, etc... but, where is the published research on effect of apples?
Maybe doctors were too busy (or too pre-occupied with furthering interests of the pharma lobby) and didn't pay attention.
- Could the nurses have done the research on apples? Probably.
- Is it published anywhere? No.
- Would it be science if done with scientific method? Probably yes, though the current institutions controlling science would probably disagree.
No, not missing the point. Your comment shows I'm right on point.
This kind of studies is not something a random person, or even a trained nurse, can do on their spare time. You couldn't just give apples to some people and look a week later for results. You need control group, you need to account for extra factors.
And before the experiment you need to have a reason for it. Can a drug that works for other coronavirus work here? Some compound that has the opposite effects mitigate the symptoms?
Why would even check "apples"? They might consider a component that exists on apples, but why apple itself? Unless there's an external event that correlates apples with a result, it's a bit weird.
Natural sciences without scientific method are not science. If you don't test and validate the hypothesis, you're just making things up. Without it, I can say apples cure baldness and blame big pharma for not letting this being published.
This kind of studies is not something a random person, or even a trained nurse, can do on their spare time. You couldn't just give apples to some people and look a week later for results. You need control group, you need to account for extra factors.
This reinforces my point that medicine is not a science being conducted by scientific method. It is being conducted through authority, and using terminology of the church (like good faith / bad faith) to steer clear of logical criticism.
And before the experiment you need to have a reason for it. Can a drug that works for other coronavirus work here? Some compound that has the opposite effects mitigate the symptoms?
Why single out known drugs, but exclude known foods?
Why would even check "apples"? They might consider a component that exists on apples, but why apple itself? Unless there's an external event that correlates apples with a result, it's a bit weird.
What you are suggesting here is reverse of what following scientific method would lead to: First check apples, and if a positive result is there, then go check for components.
You really need to check your assumptions that were involved here.
Natural sciences without scientific method are not science. If you don't test and validate the hypothesis, you're just making things up.
Hypothesis in checking apples is trivial, and actually similar to one involved in testing any drug.
Without it, I can say apples cure baldness and blame big pharma for not letting this being published.
Sure you can, and you'd be as right as big pharma is in curing baldness. You'd be with less money though, and without that money, doctors who line up supporting big pharma are unlikely to line up for you.
This reinforces my point that medicine is not a science being conducted by scientific method. It is being conducted through authority, and using terminology of the church (like good faith / bad faith) to steer clear of logical criticism.
That making a proper medical study is something too hard for a single person to do on their spare time is not appealing to authority, it just shows how complex and rigorous a proper study has to be to be usable. A study with 100 subjects is considered small, now think how long it would take to interview them, take samples, analyze them, follow up... and all that to check a random fruit?
I know that for indian traditional medicine you can just say "it's on an ancient book!" and "somebody who followed it lived to 100 years" but they don't have to prove it.
Why single out known drugs, but exclude known foods?
I haven't said you can't, just that if you are going to go to the massive work that's a proper study, you want a proper justification for it. Is there anything in apples that makes it seem useful? else, why apples? why not pears? peaches? oranges? For example, some drugs that were used in treatment of covid symptoms were identified by combining the results of thousands of patients and seeing that some that were using that drug to treat a different condition were doing better. Based on that the hypothesis that that drug was the reason was done and the experiment started, tested and validated. On the same manner a lot of drugs were shown to be useless, and even that is important information for those looking for a good one. Just like on real life, if you lose your keys at home, you make the hypothesis that they are in your coat and check that hypothesis. You don't just say "I'm going to check on the fridge". It's not impossible, it's just not the most likely scenario so it's far from your first guess.
What you are suggesting here is reverse of what following scientific method would lead to: First check apples, and if a positive result is there, then go check for components.
No, not at all. First step is to make a hypothesis based on some observation. If you have made an observation that people that eat apples seem to fare better with an illness, then you can make he hypothesis that's because of the apples and then define some measurable variable for validation the hypothesis. You don't say at random 'why not apples?' and then mobilize a team. You don't have a reason for it. If for instance, apples are rich in a component that is shown to be good, they might check giving apples for the experiment. Again, without reason, why apples and not kiwis?
Hypothesis in checking apples is trivial, and actually similar to one involved in testing any drug.
I haven't said the opposite. Just that there doesn't seem any reason to test for apples.
Sure you can, and you’d be as right as big pharma is in curing baldness. You’d be with less money though, and without that money, doctors who line up supporting big pharma are unlikely to line up for you.
I'm sure some quack Guru would be happy to use that to sell their services to fools like you. It's really funny to see how much money fake medicines make and their defenders saying "big pharma bad because profit".
Can't say I enjoyed the conversation, but I'm done. You either lack the skills to understand or have too much bad faith to have an honest argument.
That making a proper medical study is something too hard for a single person to do on their spare time is not appealing to authority, it just shows how complex and rigorous a proper study has to be to be usable. A study with 100 subjects is considered small, now think how long it would take to interview them, take samples, analyze them, follow up... and all that to check a random fruit?
On what basis did you come up with sample size of 100? I have read studies with samples less than that size, including control groups.
I know that for indian traditional medicine you can just say "it's on an ancient book!" and "somebody who followed it lived to 100 years" but they don't have to prove it.
I am not aware of testing techniques involved in Indian traditional medicine and have no comments on their scientific-ness. Also, for the record, I don't think Ramdev/Patanjali have developed their cures for modern ailments in accordance with whatever traditional testing techniques used to be.
Why single out known drugs, but exclude known foods?
I haven't said you can't, just that if you are going to go to the massive work that's a proper study, you want a proper justification for it.
Justification is easy : An apple offers numerous benefits over allopathic medicines and if it is found to be a replacement of any medicine, it should be replaced.
Is there anything in apples that makes it seem useful?
Nutritive value alone settles that question as far allopathic drugs are concerned.
... else, why apples? why not pears? peaches? oranges?
I haven't ruled any of them out.
For example, some drugs that were used in treatment of covid symptoms were identified by combining the results of thousands of patients and seeing that some that were using that drug to treat a different condition were doing better. Based on that the hypothesis that that drug was the reason was done and the experiment started, tested and validated.
They did all of that, and other things, because they didn't have any drug that worked, but they specifically wanted only a combination of drugs to work, so they just did whatever jugglery they could.
For the record, there is still no drug to cure covid.
On the same manner a lot of drugs were shown to be useless, and even that is important information for those looking for a good one. Just like on real life, if you lose your keys at home, you make the hypothesis that they are in your coat and check that hypothesis. You don't just say "I'm going to check on the fridge". It's not impossible, it's just not the most likely scenario so it's far from your first guess.
As far as curing covid is concerned, ALL drugs are still useless. IN REAL LIFE.
What you are suggesting here is reverse of what following scientific method would lead to: First check apples, and if a positive result is there, then go check for components.
No, not at all. First step is to make a hypothesis based on some observation.
If you have made an observation that people that eat apples seem to fare better with an illness, then you can make he hypothesis that's because of the apples and then define some measurable variable for validation the hypothesis. You don't say at random 'why not apples?' and then mobilize a team. You don't have a reason for it. If for instance, apples are rich in a component that is shown to be good, they might check giving apples for the experiment. Again, without reason, why apples and not kiwis?
They checked the drugs at random. Four years of hit and trial and there is still no method to the madness that happened.
Hypothesis in checking apples is trivial, and actually similar to one involved in testing any drug.
I haven't said the opposite. Just that there doesn't seem any reason to test for apples.
The only clear reason that remdesivir got tested before apples is that big pharma, or anyone else systematically funding doctors, does not see any jump in bottomline when apples are black-marketed.
In a complex set of assumptions, reasons do not exist. They are invented to butter the side of bread that suits one.
Sure you can, and you’d be as right as big pharma is in curing baldness. You’d be with less money though, and without that money, doctors who line up supporting big pharma are unlikely to line up for you.
I'm sure some quack Guru would be happy to use that to sell their services to fools like you. It's really funny to see how much money fake medicines make and their defenders saying "big pharma bad because profit".
I am all for profit, if made legitimately. But I have seen single dose of remdesivir (which wasn't curing anything) sell for over $1000... in India.
Can't say I enjoyed the conversation, but I'm done. You either lack the skills to understand or have too much bad faith to have an honest argument.
Unfortunately, most people mistake familiarity of ideas with their truth, and you are no different. This is why big lobbies get their way through propaganda, and people's will is generally meaningless.
I'm not sure why you have such obsession with apples, but clearly it's not the only unreasonable thing in your brain. After my first message I thought your answer would me something like "that's a stupid example for the sake of argument, nobody would really think that". In that, I was wrong, and a bit less hopeful for the sake of humanity.
I'll just invite you to make your research about how apples will cure COVID, or any other illness. You seem to bet highly on it, and you think medical research can be done in the side, easy peasy. You clearly have easy too much time.
Please don't forget to post the mandatory "haha! I won, my logic was unbeatable!". Won't be seeing that notification though.
I'm not sure why you have such obsession with apples,
I do not have an obsession with apples. I took it up as a specific example and remained consistent. Do you find consistency difficult to understand?
... but clearly it's not the only unreasonable thing in your brain. After my first message I thought your answer would me something like "that's a stupid example for the sake of argument, nobody would really think that". In that, I was wrong, and a bit less hopeful for the sake of humanity.
So you wanted me to behave in a predictable manner, but I didn't. That should actually increase your hope from humanity. Give it some thought.
I'll just invite you to make your research about how apples will cure COVID, or any other illness. You seem to bet highly on it, and you think medical research can be done in the side, easy peasy. You clearly have easy too much time.
I'd take up on your offer if you can provide an isolated sample of the virus culture. Deal?
Please don't forget to post the mandatory "haha! I won, my logic was unbeatable!". Won't be seeing that notification though.
Lol. You are definitely not a good loser.
Its exactly this. We covered in nursing school how to read a research paper and what things to look for to find limitations and biases that were either intentionally hidden or overlooked, or just to be able to properly contextualize what we're reading.
A good example from my specific specialty is antipsychotic drug trials. One of the examples they showed in class was a study that "proved" that Risperdal had a more benign side effect profile than Haldol... by giving normal doses of risperdal and insane doses of haldol. So of course the Haldol had more side effects, they were giving way more of it than most patients would ever be taking. Iirc they said something like 20mg 2x daily, and I can count on one hand the number of patients I've had on that high of a dose and every single one of them had injured multiple staff members.
Meanwhile the Risperdal group was on like 8mg, which for Risperdal is on the higher end, but not wtf range like 20 of Haldol (it is important to note that dosages can vary wildly between different medications even within the same class; I take seroquel which is in the same class AND generation as Risperdal, but I take 50mg and that's a tiny dose for seroquel, because I'm taking it to sleep for shift work, a true antipsychotic dose would be 400-800mg. The lack of direct equivalency between many medications even within the same class makes this particular type of misdirection easy).
So yeah, the line between "hacks selling poison" and "scientists in search of the truth" is not as cut and dry as it should be and can require a fair amount of both critical thinking and specialized knowledge to sus out. Wether or not you think the average person should have those knowledge and skills, the fact of the matter is that they don't. That's why it's important to have well-vetted academics doing the research and reviewing each other's work, and giving them a platform to gain the public's trust then educate them. The problem is a lot of people in power right now really do not want the public educated about anything, because that would make them harder to control and abuse.
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
50 points (93.1% liked)
Asklemmy
42438 readers
1687 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS