Kalcifer

How so? It wasn’t my intent to misrepresent your words. That being said, I do apologize if I’ve accidentally (and potentially carelessly) misinterpreted what you said. I’ll gladly fix my comment if you help me understand where my interpretation went wrong 😊

[…] read how to read a book […]

Thank you for the recommendation 😊

I look at any individual’s history when they post anything sketchy and contextualize. […]

I am concerned that this would distill down to argumentum ad hominem.

[misinformation] is hardly an issue on this platform […]

In my opinion, that statement of yours is, ironically, responsible for why there may be an issue with misinformation. You state it with certainty, yet you provide no source to back up your claim. It is my belief that this sort of conjecture is at the source of misinformation issues.

What concrete steps can be taken to combat misinformation on social media? […]

Regarding my own content: I do my best to cite any claim that I make, no matter how trivial. If I make a statement for which I lack confidence in its veracity, I do my best to convey that uncertainty. I do my best to convey explicitly whether a statement is a joke, or sarcasm.

Fundamentally, my approach to this issue is based on this quote:

Rationality is not a character trait, it’s a process. If you fool yourself into believing that you’re rational by default, you open yourself up to the most irrational thinking. ^[1]

Regarding the content of others: If I come across something that I believe to be false, I try to politely respond to it with a sufficiently and honestly cited statement explaining why I think it is false. If I come across something of unknown veracity/clarity, I try to politely challenge the individual responsible to clarify their intent/meaning.

For clarity, I have no evidence to support that what I’m doing is an effective means to this end, but I want to believe that it’s helping in at least some small way.

What concrete steps can be taken to combat misinformation on social media?

[…] Pronouns are a thing that harms nobody […]

This feels like a hasty generalization. For example, if one is experiencing gender dysphoria, we could assume that misgendering them with their undesired pronouns would cause them psychological distress ^[1] — ie harm.

Thank you! 😊

Nope! I do it all manually; though, it can definitely be tedious at times. It has crossed my mind to write a script to automatically generate at least some of them (or even just some of their components), but I just haven’t gotten around to it yet.

Also, as a side note, the citation style is my own that I’ve been “developing”. I’m sort developing it as I use it.

[…] send $10 to the band.

What method would you recommend for one to do this in general?

I’m not sure if this exactly fits what you’re looking for, but the following 5 albums by The Dear Hunter are connected through a shared storyline ^[1]:

1. Act I: The Lake South, The River North ^[2]
2. Act II: The Meaning of, and All Things Regarding Ms. Leading ^[3]
3. Act III: Life and Death ^[4]
4. Act IV: Rebirth in Reprise ^[5]
5. Act V: Hymns with the Devil in Confessional ^[6]

In light of certain recent government regulations redefining “child” to mean anyone under the age of 18 […]

Do you mind citing a source for that?

Is this post intended to be a sort of outcry around the idea that there’s a risk of malware being in the AUR?

I’m just curious if said consumption goal is based on any scientific rationale, and, if so, what that rationale is.

Me, but with em dashes and parenthesis.

Lemmy ^[1]

[…] never any red meat at all.

Why not?

What bother’s me about these sorts of posts is they don’t give people a consumption goal. Blindly telling everyone to consume less isn’t exactly fair. Say, for example, there’s person A who consumes 1 unit of red meat per month, and person B who consumes 100 units of red meat per month. If you say to everyone “consume 1 unit of red meat less per month”, well, now person A consumes 0 units of red meat per month, and person B consumes 99 units of red meat per month. Is that fair? Say, you tell everyone “halve your consumption of red meat per month”, well, now person A consumes 0.5 units of red meat per month, and person B consumes 50 units of red meat per month. Is that fair? Now, say, you tell everyone “you should try to eat at most 2 units of meat per month”, well now person A may happily stay at 1 unit knowing that they’re already below the target maximum, they may choose to decrease of their own accord, or they may feel validated to increase to 2 units of red meat per month, and person B will feel pressured to dramatically, and (importantly, imo) proportionally, reduce their consumption. Blindly saying that everyone should reduce their consumption in such an even manner disproportionately imparts blame, as there are likely those who are much more in need of reduction than others. It may even be that a very small minority of very large consumers are responsible for the majority of the overall consumption, so the “average” person may not even need to change their diet much, if at all, in order to meet a target maximum.