The modern political left has become extremely anti-egalitarian on the gender axis: they discriminate against men.
And they do it relatively openly, though they rarely, if ever, explicitly admit to it and they often claim to be gender egalitarians.
But if you're going to make a post talking about the misandry found in the left, without mentioning the equal amounts of misandry found on the right, then I find that to be a little disingenuous.
Many of men's greatest issues like effective access to mental health care, effective social safety net, accessible and welcoming social environments of neurodivergent men etc... Are all things that are being fought against by the right.
This is going to be speculative, but when you recognize the amount of money in government and how the left has historically been trying to provide social safety nets for everyone, you can see that this creates certain social pressures. If there's a lot of money in helping people, then there's going to be a feedback loop of people financially interested in promoting even more investments in helping people.
The right tends to stand in opposition to this. And what the left has learned is that while the right will be willing to burn everything down just to stop a tiny little welfare project that helps everyone, it turns out that if this welfare project only helps women, then the right won't stand in its way, it may even be supportive of it. This has created a massive industry that focuses on helping only women. Some of the money involved ends up for the promotion of misandrist ideologies that help to legitimize programs that help exclusively women, because that's where the money is.
My perspective is that leftist type people want to help men and women equality. But the right makes it impossible. Over time, this situation combined with the sustained power of money has warped leftist ideology away from what they'd ideally want to see.
The right is just as much to blame for all this as the left. I would argue it is even more to blame for it.
Clarence Thomas is one of the more startling examples of the "fuck you, I got mine" generation. How do you go from being in the black panthers to this?
I love this, as soon as the black guy makes an opinion that differs from what you liberals agree he's suddenly not a good black dude, what a bunch of hypocrites
If you intentionally choose to completely misinterpret and misrepresent things then fuck off buddy, on the other hand if you truly can't see then I feel sorry for you friend...
This whole post can be summarized by: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression".
The Left (I myself identify as a Leftist) behaves the way they do (again, ideologies are not monoliths) generally because, essentially, Men have always been in power, have shaped society, and have benefited from this shaped society since the dawn of time. Yes this is the Patriarchy. In our patriarchal society, women are objectified and sexualized from a young age, with the cat-calling and sexual harassment starting in the teen years or younger. 1 out of every 6 women in america have been the victim of sexual assault/rape. I myself have several female employees that have been the victimized by this, and one of them even said that her mother told her "if you were in a relationship with him it can't be rape".
When men complain about Men's Rights/Inequality, it sounds a lot like the rich complaining that workers want higher wages in an age of record corporate profits. "Crocodile Tears" often sums it up. When a man complains about a perceived slight, expecting everyone to drop everything to help him, it's hard to do that when what that man has experienced is just a fraction of what you go through constantly.
Leftists and feminists calling for equality does not make the life of the oppressor worse. It just means things will be equal. Men saying "it's not fair" rings hollow when men have been oppressing women for millennia, and all women want is to be treated equally.
oh and denigrating Jordan Peterson is good. He is someone actively funneling people towards facscism and nazi-ism. Men need someone promoting Positive Masculinity, not telling men that a woman being mean to them means all women are evil. He's like the king of the incels and if you look up to him you need to seriously re-examine your life.
The patriarchy has never existed in north American history. Most of the gendered oppression have been caused by the monarchy, specifically coverture practices. We had kings and queens (both of whom who have equal powers to create laws before it got taken away). You're also using the apax fallacy to judge men as a whole by the actions of a few men and women in power who are in the minority. The only reason we consider it a patriarchy is due to patriarchy theory (most positions in power are held by men, therefore men oppress women) which is not only rooted in apax fallacy, it's designed to encourage misandry on a societal level.
Feminism has never been about equality. Many 'proto-feminists' such as Mary Wollstonecraft who actually written books about the rights of women and men never called herself a feminist. It was academic feminists from 1848 and onwards who claimed them as such. The ideology of feminism where it classifies men as the oppressor class of women (thanks Elizabeth cady staton) and developing concepts such as the patriarchy theory (kate miller, andrea dworkin and the like) that IS misandry, yet it gaslight everyone into thinking it's about equality.
"Men saying "it's not fair" rings hollow when men have been oppressing women for millennia, and all women want is to be treated equally." Rich people in power have been oppressing everybody else for millennia of history, it just shows up differently based on gender. That's how these things have always been.
Oh good, they finally legally mandated color blindness. Historic and pervasive systemic racism is solved once and for all thanks to the Supreme Court issuing an edict that it shouldn't exist. Huzzah!
They should legally mandate the nonexistence of poverty next. They can solve all the problems America has in a few weeks this way.
I don't know much about Jordan Peterson. I had help from other figures before I discovered peterson personally. Aba and preach I've seen a lot of their channels and I like how nuanced they are with their takes. Of course I don't agree with all of them, but they were the first dudes who got me on the right mental track.
I don't know much about Jordan Peterson. I had help from other figures before I discovered peterson personally. Aba and preach I've seen a lot of their channels and I like how nuanced they are with their takes. Of course I don't agree with all of them, but they were the first dudes who got me on the right mental track.
Re: your stance of feminism and its role in the betterment of the lives of men.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the primary problem at the core of most issues facing men today is the narrow, unrealistic, and frankly unhealthy image of masculinity that our society expects us to strive for. And I have to imagine that the (or at least a) goal of any sensible male advocacy group would be to push back against the notion that a man who doesn't meet this single societal ideal of manliness has failed to be a man.
However, I also don't think it can be dismissed as coincidence that so many of the words used to belittle men and boys who behave in ways they're not "supposed" to imply femininity.
"Don't be such a pussy."
"That guy's a little bitch."
"Haha, he cried like a girl!"
Would you not agree that one of the most powerful ways to go about robbing these types of sentiments of their power over young boys is to help feminists destigmatise simply being a girl or a woman? Most issues facing men aren't because women are being given advantages, but because men face the disadvantage of not being allowed to adopt roles or attitudes deemed beneath us — just as women are not allowed to adopt roles and attitudes deemed beyond their place.
I firmly believe that feminism, if truly successful, will allow men the freedom to be who and what they want to be because "masculine"/"feminine" will no longer equate to "good"/"bad" or "strong"/"weak".
How could feminism in any way give men "the freedom to be who and what they want" when they portray men as the problem? Feminism is toxic to healthy masculinity and healthy gender relations.
I think you are conflating men as a group with men as individuals. I think Russia is terrible, but I've met many lovely Russian people.
While I can't speak for feminists, I think when they say "men are the problem" that's shorthand for a system that generally pays men more, expects them to take on less domestic responsibilities, allows them to vote away women's rights, and all of the other longstanding injustices.
The difference between feminism (or even feminists) and men is that the former is a movement or a chosen label, while the latter is not something one can choose to be. So when you generalize the latter (“men are pigs”, “men are responsible for the world’s problems”, or even “Kill All Men”), it really comes across as outright hateful. At least more so than criticizing a movement (feminism) or generalizing feminists (although I don’t believe in doing that too). Seriously, if you were to replace “men” with “blacks”, or even “women” in feminist drivel, you’d be (rightfully) called out for spreading hate. For how much feminism pushes inclusivity and careful, considerate use in language (think: using ‘police officer’ instead of ‘policeman’), when it comes to men, they just give fuck all.
And for the ‘wage gap’, it should really be renamed the ‘earnings gap’ as for the same amount and type of work, men and women are generally paid the same. The main reason there’s a gap is that men generally work more and in higher paying fields. Now why they choose to do so is certainly worth discussion, but to frame it as men being paid more with the insinuation that they both do the same amount of work, is disingenuous.
Men taking on less domestic responsibilities is part of gender roles, no? In exchange they are expected to earn more by working more. Not to mention when you say domestic responsibilities, I doubt you include male dominated tasks like mowing the lawn, or fixing the car. Again, framing it as one-sided privilege (‘men have the privilege of doing less house work”) is disingenuous. I don’t think housekeeping or child-rearing, which is female-dominated, is a walk in the park either, for reference.
If you believe the system allows specifically men to vote away women’s rights (abortions I believe?), and that men shouldn’t have a say in that. Do you also believe women shouldn’t have a say in voting on issues like Selective Service or even conscription, in some countries, that primarily or uniquely affect men? Furthermore, in many countries, women are outright born with the right to vote, whereas men have to sign up for Selective Service or Conscription (what happened to ‘My Body, My Choice’?)
I think you are conflating men as a group with men as individuals.
I don't, but most feminists do.
I think when they say "men are the problem" that's shorthand for a system
Then they should blame society, not men as a group. Most men don't have any more influence on the system than most women do.
And what do you think constant negative messaging about men as a group being the problem does to the minds of boys growing up? Are you surprised many of them go down the alt-right radicalization pipeline?
a system that generally pays men more
I don't know where this is true, but certainly not in Western countries, where such discrimination by gender is illegal.
expects them to take on less domestic responsibilities
More a question of expecting men to take on different domestic responsibilities, on top of expecting men to be the primary providers.
allows them to vote away women's rights
Instead, men overwhelmingly voted for granting women equal rights.
and all of the other longstanding injustices
You mean injustices such as conscription, age of retirement, homelessness, etc?
Most of the feminists I know are straight and either married or partnered - they clearly don't hate all men. Some maybe do, but I don't think it's the majority.
I don't know where this is true, but certainly not in Western countries, where such discrimination by gender is illegal.
I'm in the US and it's absolutely endemic. Women still make significantly less than men on average and gender discrimination is baked right into jobs. My city starts teachers at $56k and police officers at $70k - one of those jobs requires a GED and the other requires a Bachelors degree. Even with a Master's teachers can make as little as $61k - and that's entirely because it's traditionally a "women's job". Can you name any male dominated field where most workers have a master's degree and make that little?
Europe's maybe a little better, but there's still no country where women outearn men - if there really was equality there you'd expect to see that look more like a bell curve.
Most of the feminists I know are straight and either married or partnered - they clearly don't hate all men.
Most feminists collectivize men as "the patriarchy" and hold them collectively accountable for a host of societal problems. And whenever an individual man misbehaves, they often immediately link that back to the patriarchal collective.
You may not recognize that as hate, but what is effectively the difference?
Women still make significantly less than men on average
Not for the same job with the same responsibilities, working the same hours. If women want to make the same or more than men, then they can step up and do the same jobs for the same hours as men.
My city starts teachers at $56k and police officers at $70k
Even taking school shootings into account, one of these jobs is significantly more dangerous than the other and requires shift work. And again, if women want to make more money, then they should become police officers instead of teachers... Who's stopping them?
there's still no country where women outearn men
That's because men are still expected to be the primary providers. And unfortunately that's not something easily changed. Most women expect that, and feel ill at ease when roles are reversed. Do you really want to force women into dangerous or strenuous high-earning jobs? Or maybe we can respect our men more who bring home the bacon, so to say?
I wish it was more surprising to me that this person genuinely went to "This female dominated field starts at less pay than this entirely different male dominated field, wymyn are swo oppwessed!"
Exactly. Of course men in their 50s-70s will outearn women because that's how things were in the past. The future is clearly shown by how much money 20 year olds are making. The only reason young women are making less is because they choose to stop working and have a kid (And yes, men are pressured to have kids too).
but men are pressured to work even harder to support that kid
Male workers having children then becomes an economic benefit, as the man has to work harder
Female workers having children is an economic loss, as the worker stops working entirely.
From an financial point of view, anyways
Another reason why i'm all pro WFH policies. It gets men back in constant contact with their children and makes all the excuses a woman might make to not have to work anymore really weak.
It certainly does appear to be narrowing, and it'll be interesting to see if the teenagers of today manage to hold such a narrow gap as the decades go by.
The government of Russia ≠ the people of Russia. Men are just a gender. There is no government of men. When you say "men are the problem", you are talking about individual men and men as a whole.
Society also expects men to earn more and ties their value to how much wealth they have. Women play a part in this too just as men do. It also expects men to take on more responsibilities outside of the house.
There are as many injustices against men as there are against women. What happened with Roe v. Wade being overturned is terrible, but when it happened people actually cared for women's wellbeing. Including myself.
Where is the outrage over any of the injustices that men face (the draft, male genital mutilation, exclusion from homeless/DV shelters, family court, etc.)? There is none, because when women are victims of injustice people care; conversely when men are victims no one cares.
At worst, feminist literature will try to ignore male victims to make DV seem like a gendered crime, taking away services from men, and make out so-called male victims as abusers in disguise (like the book "Why Does He Do That?").
The government of Russia ≠ the people of Russia. Men are just a gender. There is no government of men. When you say "men are the problem", you are talking about individual men and men as a whole.
Obviously you are technically correct, but I still think many feminists use "men" as a shorthand for the broader male-dominated system. If I say "I love the way women smell" I really don't need to clarify that I probably don't mean all women in all situations, it's kinda obvious.
Where is the outrage over any of the injustices that men face
That's a logical fallacy. There probably should be more outrage about those things, but that doesn't change the initial situation.
And that reveals their blatant sexism and focus on female supremacy
If i used "women" as a shorthand for a broader female-dominated system of oppression against men (like how feminism very much behaves), people might physically attack me. We have to reiterate repeatedly that feminism != women because feminism does some very nasty sexist genocidal things and blaming all women for those things would be as silly as blaming all germans for the actions of the nazi's
They don't make that distinction against men because they're actively trying to attack men, and so want all of those 'miscommunications' and 'oh i didn't mean it that way even though thats absolutely what i said' bullshitery so they can hide how outrageously sexist they are being while pretending not to be.
That's a logical fallacy. There probably should be more outrage about those things, but that doesn't change the initial situation.
It's 'funny' how you are perfectly capable of seeing this logical fallacy.... until you're doing it yourself.
The fallacy you are claiming they are making is the same one you made yourself when you waltzed in here and made it all about how hard things are for women.
They don't make that distinction against men because they're actively trying to attack men, and so want all of those 'miscommunications' and 'oh i didn't mean it that way even though thats absolutely what i said' bullshitery so they can hide how outrageously sexist they are being while pretending not to be.
Perhaps there's some truth to that, though in my circles i hear a lot more about the patriarchy than complaints about men in general.
The fallacy you are claiming they are making is the same one you made yourself when you waltzed in here and made it all about how hard things are for women.
I suppose i'm trying to defend a position that's not my own, and yeah, using "men" to describe a system created by some men to advantage all (or at least white) men in a broad way is absolutely sexist - but it's hardly the main issue here.
It means "men having power, or free of power women hold"
And if you run into the right ones, the mask comes off entirely. Just look at the production of The Power and you'll get plenty of great examples of misandry on display, proudly.
I suppose i'm trying to defend a position that's not my own, and yeah, using "men" to describe a system created by some men to advantage all (or at least white) men in a broad way is absolutely sexist - but it's hardly the main issue here.
the system wasn't created to advantage men, otherwise feminism wouldn't have happened.
The system was created to advantage the wealthy and powerful, and keep them that way. That they were white or male is incidental. Any other race or gender in that position can and will create the same problems.
Saying something ridiculously sexist like "There wouldn't be wars if society was run by women" or any other similar forms such as "the future is female" is just as braindead stupid as someone saying:
"Racism would disappear if X was run by Y people"
It's not the color or gender of the people, it's the incentive that the positions of power create to subjugate others.
Feminists actively promote the idea that just having women in power solves problems, and that is a blatantly stupidly sexist idea to believe.
Saying something ridiculously sexist like "There wouldn't be wars if society was run by women" or any other similar forms such as "the future is female" is just as braindead stupid as someone saying:
"Racism would disappear if X was run by Y people"
True, but women make up the majority of the population in the US, and so in an equal society we'd expect them to make up a very slight majority of fortune 500 CEOs, congressional representatives, supreme court justices and presidents. Whether or not you think that'd make a real difference in the world doesn't change that it's a perfectly legitimate goal and I don't think it's one that's particularly sexist.
If you were to argue that you should have more women in those roles to make up for the historical injustice... that becomes a bit less clear as it would create a situation where present day men are disenfranchised to make up for the mistakes of our forefathers.
so in an equal society we'd expect them to make up a very slight majority of fortune 500 CEOs, congressional representatives, supreme court justices and presidents
Well that's a load of bullshit.
You're treating all of those things as if they were a lottery, and women simply weren't considered.
They're not. ANY OF THEM
Every one of those positions has an army of men competing to be the next one in the seat. Ignoring all of that because you feel like women should have made it is just stupid.
Here's the facts for you: Even with blatant discrimination in women's favor, they still don't get into all the "positions of power" people try to cheat them into because those positions often still require work women by and large choose not to do
Work like taking risks, or being in the public eye and taking responsibility for failures that may not be your fault. Both things women avoid at far greater rates then men.
Edit:
And to be very clear, i'm not saying women can't, I'm saying they don't, won't, and will continue not to, in anywhere near the numbers men do, simply due to their personal choices.
This is why the focus on 'equity' is so fucking toxic. It's basically saying "all power in society should be evenly distributed, i was able to twist data around enough that it i can show a way women have less (ignoring all ways in which men have less), and unless women have all power that men have in equal rates, it's sexism!" and most of the people who say this with a straight face know full well it's impossible and the purpose of framing it this way is so they can continue to advocate for free shit, in perpetuity
women by and large choose not to do Work like taking risks, or being in the public eye and taking responsibility for failures that may not be your fault.
Many, but female aversion to physical and social risk is a broadly studied field that you are perfectly capable of searching yourself, and especially with the prevalence of cherry-picked studies i feel it's better you find one from a source you trust on your own.
Suggesting that the perfect attributes required to lead a major company just happen to coincidentally be those that are bestowed on white men is absurd. I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.
Suggesting that the perfect attributes required to lead a major company just happen to coincidentally be those that are bestowed on white men is absurd.
Or that women specifically preference men who exhibit these traits, rewarding them with sex and status in ways that women generally are not and have not been rewarded for since our species first started to walk might relate to the skills necessary for success in a competitive field.
As it turns out, reality doesn't care about your delusions, or how unfair you feel it is
I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.
Of course you don't, that's what people who are wrong usually do.
In Western countries like most of the European ones, men and women receive equal pay for equal jobs.
Families already share responsibilities equally (fair, not everywhere; I can speak for the north of Italy), and women feel free not to engage with boyfriends who are not up to that.
Finally, in the US it’s mostly women who are voting against women’s childbirth rights.
I haven't spent much time in the north of Italy but we have some suppliers there and every single one of the engineers at the one I worked with was male. I don't doubt they have equal pay for the same job, but I don't believe for a minute that the average women in northern italy makes the same as an average man.
As for voting, there was only one woman on the supreme court that voted to overturn roe vs wade. The rest of the votes came from men
Right but one thing I really admired about that italian company was that they'd bring on engineers as apprentices right out of high school and train them on software or machining. I think that'd really admirable, and it's great that people can work their way into high paid positions.
But i still fail to see why an engineer with a high school education should be paid more than a nurse or teacher with some college education. Is the former really that much of harder job, or that much less in demand?
Friend, I think you're already falling into the "us vs them" mentality. We should be able to separate the loud, misandrist, "men are the problem, women are the solution", feminists from the "we're equal before the law, but I still perceive inequality and something should be done about it", passive feminists.
That is what is done to MRAs who were just saying "men have issues too, here are some" and being labeled as misogynist, radical, dangerous, and incel (which also shouldn't be an insult, much less one exclusive to men).
Each community has their loud, obnoxious members, but they shouldn't be representative of that community unless the community is mostly loud and obnoxious itself.
As such, I'd like to challenge your view that feminism is the problem and propose that it has much more to do with tradition and religion. Men and women alike face irreconcilable gender roles, prejudice, and traditional and societal obligations, that lead to their oppression:
men should work, women should clean
men and women should make children
men should not show emotions, women are too emotional
men should protect women, women are the damsels
a man should sleep with a woman, a woman should sleep with a man
The issue is much deeper than simple "women say men are the problem, which is the problem". Tribalism, identity-politics, and myopic, single-viewed, unidirectional thinking is toxic.
Can gnome-disk-utility set up permanent mounts? I've used it for other things before, but I've never used it to permanently mount a drive. If so, I wish I knew about that sooner.
Yes, if you check the “mount at system startup” checkbox, it’ll update fstab for you. My only problem was when deleting partitions on gnome-disk-utility, it doesn’t automatically delete the fstab entries it previously created. You’ll need to manually clean it up yourself. This might cause mount problem if you delete and recreate the partition with the same mount settings because there are now two fstab entry, where the first entry references partition that no longer exist.
I've gotten used to adding extra drives in fstab, myself. I do wish adding permanent secondary drives was a more straightforward process though. I understand the Windows approach of making them instantly accessible has security implications, but I feel like that's something distros could implement as an optional setting.
I think little things like this hinder Linux adoption among end users. The purists may cry foul at this idea, but I think there should be more and better GUIs for system management tasks, so users don't have to use the terminal or muck around editing text files as much.
EDIT: Apparently gnome-disk-utility might be a solution if you're looking for something more straightforward than manually editing fstab. I don't know whether it can do permanent mounts or not though.
EDIT2: Turns out gnome-disk-utility can create fstab entries, but it can't remove them if you've used it to delete a partition.
If Reddit can bot comments then Reddit can also bot moderators. Come on, don't be lazy Reddit! Show us your leadership capabilities and come up with a solution!
"How to sabotage your community: 101"
Red Hat is taking notes.
The person speaking was Laura Nestler, here is her bio from REddit:
Laura Nestler, Reddit's VP of Community, is a global leader with a 15-year track record of building strategic, high-impact teams and scalable community systems at growth-stage startups. Nestler leads Reddit’s Community Operations team where she is responsible for defining our international community strategy, driving key initiatives for community development, evolving Reddit’s community governance model, and transitioning the team into a global organization. Prior to Reddit, she served as Global Head of Community at Duolingo, working across product, marketing, and strategy to develop community products and programs.
She is a global leader, guys, with high-impact teams! She will solve the crisis in no time, you'll see! Is there anyone among you who can claim to be a "global leader" ? No one?
Im copying/pasting something I said on another thread but it applies here. Its what I would like to ultimately have in the federation:
I am a free speech absolutist and I want pretty much anything to go but I want the tools for users to be able to block it in any manner they want from blocking users to blocking magazines to blocking domains and I want it to include comments and actually go both ways (joke not intended but right after I wrote that I liked it). When I block something I don't want that person, place, or thing to see any of my comments or posts. If I blocked them its a good chance its folks that might try doxing or some shit. I would like blockers to know who or what they blocked so they can undo if they choose but I don't want blockees to know. I would like profiles to be only seeable by logged in users and I would like usernames and such masked for folks not logged in. I realize this is a lot and its not here now and that some folks may hate the idea of what I write here but that is how I would like to see something like this go. As much power as possible brought to individual consumers to prune their feeds and as much freedom as possible for creators.
I don’t see how you could effectively block people seeing you if the person wanted to, because even if a system is made so you can only be seen by logged in users, that user could make an alt. Heck, they could have an alt that they don’t use for commenting, so one wouldn’t even know to block it.
well I wouldn't expect it to in that circumstance. I just want the most out of what it could do. Stalkers going to that extreme will always get the way around to some degree. I just don't want it easy for them to notice and honestly I would prefer in the long run they not exactly advertise that stuff but just have it be the way it is and someone would have to look into it to know blocking works both ways. It will certainly cut down on the casual jerk. Jerk being a realtive term to the individual. To me a system like that would approach more what organically happens in life. You hang with those you like and avoid those you don't.
Disagree on blocking them from responding. I think that this change to how the Reddit blocking feature worked was one of the largest errors Reddit made in recent years. Led to people in conversations disagreeing, one user making a statement and then blocking the other so that it looked like the blocking user would get the last word, which prevented the other from responding.
It's also useless to stop someone from doxing you, because they can just create another account and use that. The only way that it would be efficacious in that regard would be if the whole system worked via whitelisting users rather than blacklisting them.
im not saying blocking from responding im saying I disapear to them and they to me. they can still respond and other folks I did not block would see it and possibly my last one. I would be the one unable to respond as I would not get notified of their response and no longer see it. I guess I would not expect any previous conversations that are in their notifications to necessarily disapear as thats already in their profile. I responded to someone on the doxing thing. I just want to get rid of low hanging fruit. Ultimately I just don't want to be in the same virtual universe as them. I know it does not sound like it from this convo but I don't block user often but when I do I really just don't want anything to do with that person even incidentally.
I respect that but for me I want to get away from these people in all ways. I go to a bar and because of a few assholes I stop going even though there are some folks I like. There is no way around it. Technology holds the promise to be able to stay at the bar. Making others invisible to me but not becoming invisible to them is in some ways sorta scary. Especially when you consider im not looking to make folks invisible only some. A good example is I like discourse but if someone response is something like "well then stop being a jerk you pussy", well that is not the discourse I want so I block them. I don't see thier brilliant responses to my discourses now but as you say lurkers do or whatever. That is polluting my discourse and I did not want to talk with this person anymore. I really don't know how to convey this honestly but anyway I don't think mine is the end all be all its just what I would want and I totally get others not wanting it. Ultimately I will take half a loaf like most things in the world but I would leave for an instance that has what I want in an instant.
I don't see thier brilliant responses to my discourses now but as you say lurkers do or whatever. That is polluting my discourse and I did not want to talk with this person anymore.
Nope. The discourse ended when you abandoned it. Whether the other person is still shitposting is something you have no control over. I guarantee that if they were enough of an asshole for you to want to block them, any lurker worth their salt's already aware of their assholishness. And really, it's kind of silly to concern yourself with the opinions of people who might or might not even be there.
Stop thinking of these exchanges as debates you need to win, and think of them instead as conversations that either are or aren't worth your time. When you block, you're making a decision the conversation's not worth any more of your time, so stop giving it your attention--and that includes wondering what else has been said and what others think of it.
yeah I generally am not looking to win. I consider some of the best discourse to be when someone changes my mind. I don't block people though to end a converstation. I just stop replying. blocking was becuase the person just replies with insults and just generally behaves badly. So its not about a particular discourse but about just wanting to be completely seperated from anyone like that.
This approach is incredibly open to abuse. Reddit implemented this to a lesser degree and abuse already started happening. By blocking everybody who disagrees with you, you can start threads that are only visible to lurkers and your supporters, creating a warped perception of public opinion and false consensus.
this sounds a bit like arguments I have had on this about it will create echo chambers. its up to lurkers to curate their own feeds and echo chambers will always be there. I want the ability to cut bs out of my stuff and others to do the same and I want freedom for creators to make what they want. Im sorry if it means bad stuff will be out there but that ship has sailed anyway. The more we get to something like this the more I think bad ideas will fall to obscurity. I really don't see how blocking shit out is open to more abuse than shoveling the shit out. Honestly one thing I would hope with something like this is that I would need to filter less because hopefully some folks blocking me would increase the quality of my feed.
Just an FYI, OnlyFans (or any other business) could easily start a kbin, mastodon, pixelfed instance and call it kbin.OnlyFans.net or OnlyFans.social, or what ever they choose.
Yeah, the Fediverse is pretty much designed to be able to handle stuff like this. They just get their own Instances, and anyone who does not wish to see that content can defederate with them.
You can’t keep anyone, at all, not porn, not Zuckerberg, not Nazis, nobody, off the Fediverse. It’s actually impossible. All you can do is defederate the things you do not wish to associate with.
This is a non-issue, and hand-wringing about it is largely pointless. If you want to talk about the rightness of defederating different platforms, that’s a different story. But that’s also up to the communities of each individual Instance.
You can't keep anyone, at all, not porn, not Zuckerberg, not Nazis, nobody, off the Fediverse. It's actually impossible. All you can do is defederate the things you do not wish to associate with.
kbin.social
Oldest