Sure but what degree of influence is actually “radicalising” or a point of concern?

We like to pretend that by banning extreme communities we are saving civilisation from them. But the fact is that extreme groups are already rejected by society. If your ideas are not actually somewhat adjacent to already held beliefs, you can’t just force people to accept them.

I think a good example of this was the “fall” of Richard Spencer. All the leftist communities (of which I was semi-active in at the time) credited his decline with the punch he received and apparently assumed that it was the act of punching that resulted in his decline, and used it to justify more violent actions. The reality is that Spencer just had a clique of friends that the left (and Spencer himself) interpreted as wide support and when he was punched the greater public didn’t care because they never cared about him.

“A deradicalising effect”

I’m sorry what? The idea that smaller communities are somehow less radical is absurd.

I think you are unaware (or much more likely willfully ignoring) that communities are primarily dominated by a few active users, and simply viewed with a varying degree of support by non-engaging users.

If they never valued communities enough to stay with them, then they never really cared about the cause to begin with. These aren’t the radicals you need to be concerned about.

“And those people diffuse back into the general population”

Because that doesn’t happen to a greater degree when exposed to the “general population” on the same website?

You’re literally on a platform that was created to harbor extremist groups. Look at who Dessalines is, (aka u/parentis-shotgun) and their self-proclaimed motivation for writing LemmyNet. When you ban people from a website, they just move to another place, they are not stupid it’s pretty easy to create websites. It’s purely optical, you’re not saving civilisation from harmful ideas, just preventing yourself from seeing it.

How did I lose the argument? I claimed that the user is probably a drug addict, they denied it. There is really no proving or disproving either claim.

The actual argument I made, that MycoBro’s personal experience has little relevance, was completely unaddressed. Literally read any of his response, all of it was about consuming mushrooms, absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of anecdotal experience.

I merely made my last response because I found the clearly vitriolic analogy to be humourous, and the rest of the comment had nothing of substance.

“putting a foot on the ground”

You mean a ground invasion? Which they’ve already started. The bombing is just to minimise Israeli casualities.

You’re right, I would be very unhappy if a pig sexually assaulted a black man, even if it was it’s fetish.

I believe sexual relations should be consensual and between humans, I’m very conservative in that way.

No, I’m saying two things.

1. His anecdote is not sufficient to refute the claim that 9 times out of 10 you should cooperate with LE.
2. The user probably is a mushroom abuser, given the fact that they are a self-proclaimed marijuana abuser and have expressed interest in Psilocybin mushrooms.

These are two separate things, his anecdote probably being a lie makes his argument look worse but it is not necessary to show that it is insufficient. It would be an incorrect argument based solely on the first point.

I personally just find it humourous and incredulous that he supposedly spent 2 weeks in jail, because he totally wasn’t using Psilocybin mushrooms. You know Shiitakes are huge and pretty hard to confuse with Psilocybin, not to mention the fact that you can test them pretty easily. (They are also in tons of grocery stores, so it’s not exactly alien to everyday individuals).

I fail to see how this is an example of abuse. If someone is lying to you about evidence they have of a crime, then why would that induce a false confession? At worst you would plea guilty in court, when all the evidence (or lack of) would be presented.

This argument requires assuming that people are literally mentally incapable of knowing what they have done. They would have to be so susceptible to manipulation that they would accept any statement as true.

I can link conspiracist websites too. The fact that someone can buy a domain does not automatically confer credibility. I own a domain, does that mean that anything I post to it is automatically credible. If so then why wouldn’t anything I post to Lemmy sites be credible? Including this very own comment.

The outliers don’t make the rule.

On the subject of outliers, are we supposed to assume that a user named MycoBro (a user who references smoking marijuana and having a particular interest in identifying Psilocybin cubensis) is actually academically interested in fungi, and not one of the vastly more common abusers of poisonous mushrooms?

Literally so ignorant. Sweating is not the only way to lose heat. How much heat does the body generate?

The fact that people may die from a certain temperature, does not mean they will die which is what every person here is claiming. Again read a physiology textbook, humans aren’t that fragile.

Again, no. As long as you can replenish water and electrolytes, you’re not going to die. It doesn’t take a few hours to kill someone by heat. If you are actually unable to regulate your body temperature, your core temperature will increase much faster than “taking a whole day”. It’s the loss of water and electrolytes that inihibits your metabolism and cooling that makes you die, not the heat taking several hours to permeate through your skin. (Human metabolism generates a lot of heat, so this idea is even more absurd if you think about it).

Read a physiology textbook, or even basic evolutionary biology if a human couldn’t survive 40C with humidity, humans would be extinct.

Everybody is a liar. Have a casual conversation with someone, then thoroughly research every claim they make and you’re pretty much guaranteed to run into a falsehood.

You should be less gullible.

You should have linked a physiology reference.

Do you know what temperature a hot tub is? That’s with nearly full body immersion, 40 C with 70 percent humidity is easily survivable.

Of course any outside temperature above 37 has a possibility of killing you, but those are the extreme outliers. If the claims being made here were accurate, humans wouldn’t exist, we would never have survived a tropical summer.

Given that they have changed testing multiple times since WW2 this is almost certainly false. Additionally a perfect ASVAB score isn’t that rare, so your station probably recorded one before you.

What? Tropical regions regularly get that hot, are we supposed to believe that humans die off during the day and get replaced in the night?

I live in Maricopa county, and while yes people do die from the heat, it’s not really a substantial amount (about 400 out of over 4 million). It’s almost always the elderly or people with severe health problems.