What it “ACTUAL” says is “no disrespect” not “no unintended disrespect beyond the disrespect you deserve” - the intended use case is clarifying statements that are ambiguous or could read as disrespect, but are intended respectfully.
I do not agree that it’s “intended” as a window-dressing disclaimer for open disrespect. Even if you personally feel that the target deserves no respect - just have the balls to disrespect them openly and without dancing about the matter.
It’s “proper” usage is preface for a statement whose interpretation is ambiguous or easily misunderstood as disrespect, not as a “you’re not allowed to be offended” preface for statements intended to be disrespectful.
What I was saying is that the latter use case is overwhelmingly the more common one.
The only circumstance it gets used, seems like.
I’ve never heard it followed by something that actually was respect.
Yeah there’s two ‘main’ kinds of people who want a platform where users are able to post hate speech and reach “everyone” with it.
People who want to be hateful and want access to the targets of their hate. They want to upset people, they want to ‘own the libs’ or be able to toss slurs at minorities, and those things are unrewarding for them if they don’t get to see how upset they’ve made their targets.
People who want to recruit people to being hateful. They want to convince normal people to share their prejudices and their biases, they want “debates” or would like to share “statistics” and are seeking a soapbox that can reach people who might find their views convincing.
This is a huge part of why defederation works, why platforms like Voat or Gab rarely thrive for very long. Being hateful in an echo chamber towards people who are outside the room is rarely fun for those folks, and very often results in in-fighting and fragmenting of the movement. Moderates and ‘normies’ are driven off because now they’re a target rather than a participant or spectator.
Shocking news: people are people everywhere, not just on ‘rival’ platforms.
Kbinaut here. I’m still wondering if Kbinite or Kbinaut will win out lol.
Kbean.
The idea that Reddit is staging some nefarious conspiracy to “poison” fediverse spaces … is losing the whole plot.
OP’s straight up writing fanfiction trying to cast a site they just left as villains in some swashbuckling coming-of-age story. It’s a nine-hour-old account, and they’re already embracing the Us vs Them mentality and trying to sell it with prose.
I don’t know how OP managed to pick fights within a couple hours of signing up for their account, but I’d suggest that if they left Reddit for “toxicity” only to immediately find it here too … maybe they’re carrying it around with them?
This would make excellent satire, but it’s pretty dismal journalism.
Ever since that day, I’ve consistently correlated success with the fluctuating number in my follower count. In fact, I would argue that every millennial who works on the internet has internalized the belief that resonance on Twitter is the only way to unlock progressively more illustrious opportunities—it somehow seems more relevant than your degree, your scoops, and even your endorsements.
Speak for yourself, please.
Many millennials who ‘work on the internet’ have understood in the past that Twitter follower counts did constitute a sort of abstracted measure of relevance, like pop culture equivalent of how often an academic article is cited by other academics. There was quite a while where that was, unfortunately, true: for example, your measure as a PR professional was tied to your ability to use your professional skills to boost your personal accounts. It was far from the only thing that counted, but it was certainly an excellent networking tool and having impressive high scores would result in more opportunities, better opportunities, and less hunting for them. There absolutely was an expectation that communications or marketing people would leverage their skills for their accounts, that they would show off what they could do for potential employers within the confines of their own internet footprint.
You could still get work without that, I still got work without that - but work would come to you if you had an impressive social portfolio, not just on raw follower counts but on things like content and engagement as well. The total sum of your social media and online presence was the portfolio of communications or media field, same way designers are asked to provide examples of past work.
And that’s still true - it’s just less and less likely to include someone’s twitter in that assessment.
I think that’s why Elon’s reign of terror has been so bitterly ironic: Everything we’ve been taught about Twitter—and, frankly, social media in general—has proven to be an enormous lie. It was always volatile, and regrettably, we made it the locus of our careers.
Things can be true in the past and false in the present. What this particular person was taught in the past was true at the time of teaching. And then this crazy thing called “change” occurred and it’s no longer true. Except, what he was taught - that conventional wisdom holds that journalists need their own personal brands - remains true. The secondary coaching, that a Twitter presence is part of that branding, is not necessarily true but also not abstractly false either.
That the author struggles with the very concept of change, feels they were promised that Twitter would be permanent, and seems to believe that people who are successful now because of twitter activity then are somehow going to wind up on the streets is hilarious, if perhaps in a not particularly kind way.
Everyone he talked to has a secure career or market position. Sure, they got there via twitter, or they feel twitter helped them achieve that - but they will be fine. Some of them might take earnings hits or need to make some uncomfortable pivots to off-twitter platforms, but none of those folks are teetering on the edge of a cardboard mansion lifestyle after sinking clearly-fruitless hours into twitter boosterism.
Lorenz predicts something of a “Great Clout Reset” on the horizon—everyone emerging from the rubble, starting over at square one—and frankly, she can’t wait to see what happens. […] Maybe that’s the silver lining. Twitter might be dying, but maybe afterwards, we can try to become superstars all over again.
Oh look, we can see how the author wound up thinking that Twitter was all-important and utterly permanent. They’re doing it all over again; and in ten years we’ll get the exact same article about whatever platform they think is actually the Real Deal right now, complaining about how it inevitably failed and Lorenz steered them wrong with bad career tips.
Putting the blame on Microsoft or IWF is meaningfully missing the point.
People were responsible for moderating what showed up on their forums or servers for years prior to these tools’ existence, people have been doing the same since those tools existed. Neither the tool nor it’s absence are responsible for child porn getting posted to Fediverse instances. If those shards won’t take action against CSAM materials now - what good will the tool do? We can’t run it here and have the tool go delete content from someone elses’ box.
While those tools would make some enforcement significantly easier, the fact that enforcement isn’t meaningfully occurring on all instances isn’t something we can point at Microsoft and claim is their fault somehow.
Very much so.
If this coin’s math and mechanics actually work in transferring wealth from rich to poor … it’ll be swamped in poor people wanting their cut, and rich people will want nothing to do with a shitcoin that’s explicitly going to take their money and give it to other people.
Internet history pedantry, but by the time the subreddit rolled around, the term and the movement had already been coopted.
Incel started as a term for men who felt depressed about being unable to find a female partner, and the subreddit they created was originally a supportive space for them.
The term was coined somewhere between 1994 and 1997 by “Alana’s Involuntary Celibacy Project” as a term for people of all genders who were unable to find partnership despite trying. Alana is a woman, and is effectively universally credited with coining the term and founding the movement. The movement wasn’t ‘for men’, the term wasn’t about men specifically, and it didn’t start on Reddit. It started off as more of a personal blog, where Alana documented her own experiences and struggles - the site gained followers from other people with similar experiences, eventually growing into a combined forum / support group / community.
Then it got taken over by angry misogynists and the term became associated with them, while the original group just kind of got forgotten about. That original group deserves attention and empathy as well as the term they coined; the latter group isn’t even “involuntarily celibate,” as they play a very big role in their own celibacy.
Those folks have kind of always been there, and have always been a heavily represented demographic - Alana has said in interviews that the men who joined in the early days did have some concerning views and some concerning themes were on frequent repeitition in the discussions the community had. I don’t think retconning the movement to exclude those people from the “true definition” is doing either camp any favours. The “involuntary” part of the label isn’t trying to engage with whether or not the barrier may stem from factors within their control, but solely confined to the fact that they want something and are not getting it. They are simply “celibate, but not voluntarily celibate”.
One quip that Alana made in several interviews while defining her modelling of the community she founded was that she didn’t care why someone was an incel, ie “it’s OK if you’re celibate because you’re into horses, but that’s illegal” that that person should still be welcomed and included in the community.
I just think more people should give some thought to who that term originally belonged to.
I think that in light of this, it’s even more important to be accurate and honest who those people are: Not male-exclusive, not limited to this or that cause of celibacy, not specifically gatekeeping out the misogynists or the beastialists any more than any other group. Just any people who want to get laid but are not getting laid.
So “transition treatments” have gone up 4000% … in the time period following the treatment becoming available. If being a gymnast was illegal until 2009, or nobody had invented a trampoline until then, you can certainly bet making it legal or possible to do floor routines would result in a 4000%+ increase in people who were openly and publically gymnasts.
Trans people, trans kids, have always existed - we just didn’t have the technology to provide the treatment in that article.
That article is choosing to cite the numbers on the treatment rather than the condition because the treatment’s very recent launch means it allows the presentation of a scarier number.
You’re aligning yourself with nazis while engaging in sophistry to pretend that neither you nor they are nazis.
All these wild mental gymnastics to explain how it’s not like that, or the farcical posturing of academic exactitude and “nuanced understanding” - those are the exact same shit as nazis sending in the quiet well-spoken guy to break the ice and get a foot in the door.
You’re doing triple overtime to figure out ways to argue compassion for cryptofascists and nazi sympathizers, while going even further out of your way to avoid having the faintest shred of empathy for people who simply want nothing to do with any of that bullshit.
You can call them whatever you want. You don’t get to demand that we call them what you want us to. You don’t get to demand that we ignore your choice to align yourself with them, to defend them, and to try and make their views sound more palatable and more reasonable than their end goals.
Since everyone is so happy with misusing the term, what are we going to call ACTUAL nazis so that we can differentiate people you disagree with and ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS.
I completely understand that you absolutely refuse to get it and will continue to avoid getting it forevermore - but I’m going to say it for the rest of the room anyways.
Those guys are the “ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS”.
They just understand that pretending that they’re not is the only way to get through the door of spaces dominated by the reasonable mainstream they’d like to sell their ideology to. They know that the reasonable mainstream wants nothing to do with “ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS” so the “ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS” dress up as the people you’re currently defending and trying to make this conversation about. And anyone in that group that you’re trying to defend the nazis by pointing towards, any single person among them who doesn’t want to stand with nazis - changes where they stand so that they’re not with the nazis anymore. You’re staying still while trying to defend that decision.
The “ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS” don’t dress up in SS Uniforms and ‘heil’ each other in the comments sections - they pretend to be reasonable mainstream people and in order to present their views and their talking points wrapped in rhetoric that masks its nazi roots. They want to win over the mainstream, they want to convince people they’re “on to” something, they want to exploit our willingness to engage in discourse to sell their views and advance their ideology. They are not here to engage in debate - the debate is merely a vehicle towards seizing power and then acting out an ideology of violence and hatred.
I’m not ‘playing semantics’ - I’m not even engaging with yours.
We are not going to split hairs and massage academic definitions until “ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS” aren’t actually nazis anymore. Either you’re a useful idiot and not qualified to try and talk down on folks about the intricate semantics of “nazi” - or you’re actually on their side.
Carefully, on a case-by-case basis; and the community.
It’s not nearly as complicated as it seems on the surface - and you’re trying to make any definition of “nazi” as complicated as possible, because you’re wanting to delegitimize any rejection of nazis or nazi speech.
Remember how you said you don’t care if people like you, you just want to push your topics on other people?
it diminishes its significance and undermines your credibility.
No one cares if the Nazis think they’re “credible” or not. Each and every one of them will tell you they’re not a nazi and they ‘hate’ nazis - while defending themselves and their nazi buddies from critique by insisting the label for their ideology is, for example, “cheapened” if applied to anyone who is not a card-carrying, armband-wearing, farcical exaggeration of stereotypical Nazis in full Reich dress regalia.
They always send the clean cut, quiet, polite one in first. And that guy puts a foot in the door, argues that their pals aren’t really nazis, and that everyone in the room are the real baddies for judging those other guys unfairly - and tries to pry the door wider so their Nazi buddies can come in. Sure enough, every time, you let enough nazis in the room and the room is a nazi space now - so the whole gang of them don’t have to pretend at being polite non-nazis anymore. The polite veneer, the deep care for “debate”, and “respect for all viewpoints”? Those are all just tools, trying to whitewash and re-legitimize an ideology whose end goal is harming other people.
Notice how I’m casually referring to you like you’re one of them? That’s not some wokist over-use of the term. You’re standing here defending them, you’re trying to shove a foot in the door for them, laying down apologia for their views and their right to share them - you’ve spent like a week around the Fediverse arguing against any actions that have served to limit Nazis access to polite and adult spaces within the Fediverse as a whole. I don’t care what you believe about yourself, or your views, or your ideology.
If you’re going to stand with Nazis, if you’re going to stand for them, consistently and repeatedly - don’t get all offended and playact at being victimized when people assume that you are a member of the group you chose to stand with.
Except that’s a sidestep. The viewpoint you were defending was saying that this one specific option, that has substantial academic backing for positive outcomes for kids, should not happen or should be prohibited.
That’s not “discuss other options” - that’s discussing this option and arguing that society should take it away.
That you’re now trying to argue that it’s just discussion and it’s reasonable debate and - forgive my bluntness - being openly dishonest about what the original speech was that you’re defending with “free-speech” and anti-censorship talking points is like … the example case for how this thread started. The nazis and the transphobes and the hateful bigots can always, easily, spin their own takes as righteous and reasonable debate - if you let them lead the dialogue and frame their discourse through the most-appealing lenses possible. And they can make valid-sounding and appealing arguments for why you, too, should defend them and their right to speak.
But inevitably they are also going to use any and all space you clear for them to be hateful and bigoted and call for harm to other people - that is their goal. Everything else is just a setup play.
I don’t think I jive with the notion that kbin is somehow “above” hating Nazis.
There were years there when any watermark from another site would get OP lynched in the comments, and now Admin over there is sufficiently out of touch they’re going to start doing it to their own content.
Bets are on that this is a stupid kneejerk test from Reddit, worried that post-migration community hubs are going to “profit from their content” the same way Reddit did to places like ifunny or 9gag during it’s entire growth arc.
There’s the necessary info, thank you! - I’ve heard horror stories about hosting exit nodes, and was immediately spooked this would result in the same issues.