• Horse {they/them}@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    acting as if the entire userbase of a website holds a particular specific opinion

    it’s fine for like, vibes, as in “reddit is full of shitlibs” or whatever, but what i mean is like “everyone on hexbear said this guy was based, but he’s actually a nazi!”
    and it’s usually like, 3 people said the guy was ok in one thread

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      “everyone on hexbear said this guy was based, but he’s actually a nazi!”

      There have been times I’ve blocked Hexbears for ~24 hours. Not because they were rude or they broke the rules but because they’ve made comments like your quote. Such stuff really irks me and I’m prone to “Somebody is wrong on the internet!” arguments. I’m way too old to do that anywhere. And I certainly want to avoid actual arguments at Hexbear. The next day comes and I unblock them because my impetus to argue has evaporated.

  • insurgentrat [she/her, it/its]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    It’s 100% the deliberate obtuseness. People are so combative, everyone has their off days but the culture of the net is to deliberately misunderstand what someone wrote in order to own them with some cute nothing statement.

    It sucks, nobody would talk to someone in real life the way people do online.

  • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    ontologically

    A simple trick to getting more likes is to use the net’s favorite phrasing. If the poster had used “inherently” - they wouldn’t have gotten so many likes. Getting annoyed by it is silly but “ontologically” gets to me.

    -–

    A couple weeks ago I used clearsky.app to see what who had started blocking me recently on Bluesky. Usually the accounts are uninteresting as can be. But on the list was a guy who calls himself “America’s Copy Editor”. I never spoke to him and I really doubt he ever saw one of my posts.

    He blocked my main account and my comments are pretty tame. I realized what likely triggered him despite that. He might have really hated my use of dashes. My title is an example. I do what I feel and not what’s “correct”. Such stuff must drive him crazy. He’s blocking ~11,000 people.

    • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Ontologically is just God/bible shit. I usually hear it’s used by pastors and religious folk, so I’m cool with it’s meaning being changed to be a synonym for “very”.

      • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        Ontologically is just God/bible shit.

        I’m not familiar with that usage. Now that I’m thinking about it. I wonder how many times a week people post “What does ontologically mean?” in places like r/AskPhilosophy. And then I imagine there are heated arguments.

        “Yeah - I know it means something in philosophy and philosophy is really important. I get that. But in your 2,000 word reply you didn’t answer my question. What does it mean on Facebook?”

        • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          I believe and ontology is just a collection of concepts. So “ontological” is frequently used in relation to the Bible or Catholic ontology.

          X being ontologically Y in that case would mean that in the context of the referenced ontology, X fits in the category of Y.

          Without an ontology specified, the usual fallback is either context or just Christianity. So “this picture is ontologically evil” would mean that “this picture is satanic” in the Christian context, or, in the Facebook context, it just distills down to a synonym for “very” or “definitively” since it’s meant to reenforce that the Facebook ontology would determine that the photo is evil.

          • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            I wonder if the OP knew the Christian/Facebook connection. In any case - his post is funny to me now.

            -–

            Ninja edit

            Like everything else I just realized AI will surely get in on the fun and add its gibberish two cents for “ontological(ly)”.

            “What does Shrimp Jesus mean?” is filled with ontological overtones. The addition of “ontologically evil” could mean the poster is joking and unaware of its hatefulness. Or it could mean the poster is intentionally blaspheming the Lord which is a sin. Or it could mean you’re the righteous man and I’m the shepherd and it’s the world that’s evil and shellfish. And I’d like that. But that shit ain’t the truth. The truth is you’re the weak. And I’m the tyranny of evil men. But I’m tryin’, Ringo. I’m tryin’ real hard to be the shepherd.

            • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              I think at this point no one really knows the context, it just sounds cool and is better than using a common superlative.

              The reason is kinda fits it just because the root word was been used a lot in religious contexts without a specified ontological basis (since Christianity is implied). Which means that people are using it that way without the Christian context. Which initially makes it confusing, but if you just slot in “Facebook Zeitgeist” as your ontological basis, it actually makes sense even if that wasn’t the intended use.

    • The English language does not deserve this level of respect. I mostly work with people who speak English as a second, third or fourth language and our communications contain 5000 grammatical mistakes a day, shock horror we understand each other just fine.

    • JustSo [she/her, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      I’m certain the bump in popularity for “ontologically” came out of that pointless UFO disclosure circlejerk, making it even more irritating.

      I didn’t follow it too closely but there was a lot of teasing that impending disclosures of alien visitation would be “ontologically challenging” (hint: trans-dimensional demons -.-) to the public.

      So annoying that its stuck around.

  • buckykat [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Ending sentences with prepositions is perfectly normal fine use of english. What irks me is when people try to sound fancy by using the preposition in the middle form but then also have a redundant ending preposition.

    Example:

    “With” is a perfectly fine preposition to end a sentence with. ✅

    “With” is a perfectly fine preposition with which to end a sentence. ✅

    “With” is a perfectly fine preposition with which to end a sentence with. ❌

  • CupcakeOfSpice [she/her, fae/faer]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 days ago

    Casual ableism (not intending to call anybody out) especially when people make fun of or discriminate against psychotic people. I am a psychotic peep, so I guess it’s a classic “Not my problem until it affects me” situation, but y’know. And I do care about other issues, but this is surprisingly prevalent on the internet and really bugs me.