ram

I guess you’re just too smart for people to understand.

Lemmy was never known as Usenet.

Forgive my ramblings, but here’s the main differences I see, from a community perspective:

Bluesky’s for people who loved twitter circa 2015
Mastodon’s for people who loved the format but hated the way the platform made use of it. The community is FOSS-focused and anti-corporate.
Bluesky folks are anti-corporate, but they still want their social media to be on a single platform and tend to dislike federation
Mastodon folks tend to be in smaller circles and more tech enthused

Features-wise, Mastodon kills the algorithm in favour of chronological timelines and lists, while Bluesky embraces algorithms, allowing people to even make their own algorithms for the platform. Bluesky’s AT Proto uses “DIDs” to identify users, which are associated directly with a domain^[1]. This means that when federation does eventually happen, usernames will just be @my.domain.com instead of ActivityPub’s @actor@my.domain.com.

Federation’s still not enabled so I have no clue how things will look and feel on that front, nor am I familiar enough with the protocol to make any claim about how versatile it is. ActivityPub is flexible enough to be a Twitter clone, a reddit clone, a blogging platform, a youtube clone, a twitch clone, a goodreads clone, or several other formats. AT Proto’s currently only proven to work for a Twitter clone.

Good. We need to protect our kids from this anti-LGBTQ garbage. The premiere stands on the wrong side though, even if he were to pay lip service.

You’re such an awful piece of shit, nice obvious dog whistle though.

Something needs to be done about this shit. About all this investment property BS.

Housing should be a human right, but now it’s not even a utility; it’s a luxury good for the wealthy that even the poor must find a way to afford.

Those cards are platitudes, and I think nothing of the messages within them.
An empty card with no design and a signed name would be equally meaningful.

If leopards eat our faces, maybe the Leopards Shouldn’t Eat Our Faces party will take hand washing more seriously.

Stop with the doomerism.
“Lemmy is losing users” -> Lemmy has a stabilizing base of communities developing their own culture after a great exodus from several centralized platforms. Original, high quality content is finding its home here as users engage with one another on thousands of federated, interoperable, transparent websites.

What’s wrong with Usenet? Sure there’s not a ton of users, but that’s a good thing.

Break them up if they wanna raise their rates. Maybe we can’t just switch people back to Shaw at this point, but we can divide Rogers Internet from Rogers Cable and Rogers Mobile.

I believe that I’ve put forward my own desire for understanding, as well as my own perspective to try and be understood. If you do not wish to achieve understanding, or to help me understand you, then there’s no discussion to be had. All you’re doing is hurling insults.

Huh that’s really interesting. I wonder why that is then.

wrt not federating all downvotes, you sure that’s not because the commenter or poster is from an instance that disables downvotes? If they disable downvotes, then all downvotes will only be localized to your instance (i.e. every downvote you’ll see on that comment/post is from kbin.social users, and me, lemmy.ca users)

Would you consider this from another perspective — if you accept that people should be able to determine what they are called/named, a corollary is to avoid using descriptors for them, or idiomatic expressions, that they say they are finding contribute to systematic bias against them? Or that they find demeaning and experience as micro aggressions?

The premise here doesn’t apply. People I use these terms to refer to, I deny their freedom to be called as they wish. Instead I tend to call them nazis, pieces of shit, fascists, and the like.

The Deaf have let us know that these words are still harmful. As one of the most isolated and marginalized communities North America, should their concern about language not be enough to give hearing people pause?

However, if I accept your premise, I don’t see how “allowing others to be referred to as they wish” leads into a conclusion of “allowing others to dictate how I speak of others”. This is non-sequiteur.

I’m no stranger to listening to the marginalized, and, like most people, experience discrimination and have slurs I don’t want others to use, so I already do understand accepting that some terms are unacceptable, but it’s a matter of the barometer.

English doesn’t have a the equivalent of L’Academie Française to arbitrate accepted language and usage. So, it becomes an evolving societal conversation of usage.

Most languages are like this. The reason L’Academie Française exists is merely to marginalize and suppress “improper French”, which before WWI was dozens of languages across the country. Paris French was standardized and languages were destroyed.

Surely then, it’s on all of us to listen to those who are saying how old names and expressions, that have negative connotations, are harming them?

Agreed completely. Some good examples are the N word, the R word, the T word, the gay F word. These are all abject slurs that continue to be used to harm people today. Beyond that, I’m gonna use examples from my own communities for obvious reasons of comfort, and respect; terms like fairy, sissy, transsexual, gay, and homosexual all have various degrees of harm behind them. They often are used to capture caricatures of people like me and apply any negativity from those words unto me. Depending on the context, these words are undoubtedly offensive, but in other contexts, are inoffensive. Of course none of these hit the same notes as “dumb” does for the deaf community, as “dumb” is used colloquially as a term to insult, either seriously or jokingly, so I can’t directly relate in this regard. If I had experience of people referring to deaf people as “dumb” in my lifetime, my perspective would also be different, but that’s not my reality.^This may come down to privilege, but it is also the reality within which I live. I cannot deny my reality without getting actual context of it; beyond simple, theoretical whataboutisms.

Surely then, it’s on all of us to listen to those who are saying how old names and expressions, that have negative connotations, are harming them?

It is on all of us to do this, yes. It’s not on us to accept anything any marginalized person says ever without question. That’s an improper ask.

You seem to be making the case, on the other hand that, able people should be exempt from considering how our word-choices impact others as long as we feel an expression has fallen into such common usage that it has become disconnected from its origin, and can only cause harm when used in a context that evokes its original meaning.

Yes. A decent example for this, with a term that impacts me, is an abbreviation for a transmission.

Or, your position is that if someone doesn’t don’t see the problem, it isn’t one. Interestingly enough, this is almost exactly one of the generally accepted definitions of privilege - not perceiving something is a problem if it’s not a problem for you personally.

No, I definitely agree that people are blind to problems that are surrounding by them. I disagree that this is a definition of privilege though, as I am no less privileged for believing it to be a problem. I don’t lose my linguistic privilege simply because I acknowledge, and to the best of my ability make efforts to see the problems that impact the people who don’t speak the common language of my region. If this is an accepted definition of privilege, it’s an entirely bad one.

The number of downvotes OP has received suggests this community is less civil than I had thought.

It’s an unpopular opinion generally anywhere online, and people dislike being told what they should say or not; they often perceive it as radicalism and paint radicalism with a broad, negative brush. If OP posted this in a community that was specifically tailored to the deaf or the disabled, you’d definitely see a different reaction.

I hope that I come off as good faith to you. I’m trying to be thoughtful and reasonable in my responses. In other comments I have mentioned where I personally stand on these terms. I have no desire to “combat” people with bad faith arguments like many people in this thread seem to be, and legitimately just want to find some understanding. I’m sure I said some shit wrong in this post but I don’t really feel like revising the whole thing to make sure everything in it is perfect. Forgive me if I said something wrong, or even entirely out of my ass.

I totally getcha, 150%. It’s hard too to distinguish between someone steadfast about a cause from someone who’s just using a cause as a means to bully. I often fall into that category of indistinction myself, so I can completely relate.

This isn’t a new discussion I’ve seen, and it’s something I’ve dealt with internally myself. It’s also not as though this is a final answer. I do try to evade these words where I can, but generally I don’t think they’re harmful enough for me to “swear off” so to speak, if that makes sense? I’m not so dull as to say it’s “a personal choice” - that stuff’s just a cop-out for choosing the worst options, but I think that simply suggesting that some people may be offended by certain terms is enough to lend people to change their biases in terminology; or at least it is for me haha

Thanks for the good natured response. I appreciate that in this thread, given how intense some people seem to be.

I ask you read my post, because you incorrectly assumed my position just because I told you to behave better.