• 16 Posts
  • 2.9K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 19th, 2023

help-circle
  • I don’t think it’s backwards, I think we have different points. I see issues on the other end of things that your point makes that are not resolved. If you can gather enough people, that doesn’t make a given retribution just anymore than not being able to gather enough to do so makes it unjust. You can’t have it both ways where popularity validates some things without invalidating others. Come up with a better criteria, please.

    If you aren’t willing to be violent over something you shouldn’t be able to send a cop to be violent for you.

    That seems to exclude anybody incapable of violence, whether physically, mentally, or socially. Physically is easy enough to understand. Mentally, abuse victims come to mind. One of the ugly things about abuse is the victim will often internalize the abuser’s viewpoint and think the abuse is deserved. Socially, I have known victims of sexual assault that didn’t want to accuse the perpetrator because they expected the social group they shared to side with the perpetrator. If I don’t like heights or are otherwise disabled, should I not be able to hire a roofer? (I get this metaphor isn’t perfect, the metaphor isn’t the idea.)



  • Priorities have very little to do with ignorance. Let’s try a different example that has a little more nuance than the church one and happens too often in the real world: touching somebody’s wheelchair without the their consent to “help” them. The person transgressing views themselves as considering the priorities of the person in the wheelchair. This is a problem of ignorance, not priorities. The person in the wheelchair should not have to deal with this let alone try to convince, educate, or care about how the other person feels or what they intended. That is the onus you expect of people that don’t share your opinions, to coddle/educate/etc you because you view your intentions as Right or Good or whatever. They don’t want the interaction and you think you have the right to force them into it. It’s the epitome of egotism. Anybody that disagrees gets labeled as as being in an echo chamber.

    Your response to the comment about people is nitpicking. Changing individuals doesn’t provide a good ROI. Expecting them to do so on their own is wishful thinking. It isn’t a difficult solution; it is an impossible one.

    Overall, you’re contrary and like arguing more than looking for better ideas. I think I get why you’re having difficulties with mods. I’m done, too. You have no intent to listen or learn. If that’s incorrect, prove it to the next person, not me.





  • I think that communities don’t have to be for debate. Trying to force that seems fairly hostile to me.

    Figuring out which slights are intentional or not is exhausting, unrewarding work and it’s absolutely easier to assume all of them are hostile. I’m ok with that. There is little value to a user you have to scrutinize and maybe, just maybe, they’re only ignorant and in need of education that you’re going to have to provide and maybe, just maybe, they’ll accept the lesson. Compared to a user that is clearly on board with a given community and how it’s run, it becomes a pretty easy choice.

    I’ve been banned from a bunch of keto communities for downvotes. I’m definitely not there intended audience and was only seeing things via my everything view. They banned me, I blocked those communities. That’s fine. The only thing that even slightly bothers me is that it might skew their place on such an everything view and seems vote manipulation adjacent.