Can someone ELI5 what Beehaw is? Their post says that the lemmy instance is just part of a large project, but the beehaw website is the lemmy instance. So what is this project? What makes them special? Google also just shows me their lemmy instance and their subreddit.
Beehaw is trying to be a “safe place” social network. They want to be a social network, welcoming to people, but also protect their community. They want people to be nice, and won’t tolerate people being intolerant (racism, homophonic, sexist, transphobic, or bigoted).
I’d argue that In a lot of these things their can be some nuance in all those terms but in Beehaw expect a more absolutionist interpretation of those terms.
I understand what they’re trying to do. But to give you an idea of what the result is (in my opinion) - when I mentioned free speech there I was lectured that the term is a right wing dog whistle term. I would describe them as a intolerantly tolerant place - either you ascribe to their absolutionist views or you don’t. That is just my experience though.
Beehaws influence has been disproportionate as they were one of the bigger communities during the recent Reddit influxes. They don’t want to be the biggest, they want to protect and nurture their own community. I get it but I think it was inevitable that would not work with federating.
That’s because it’s required to not tolerate intolerance in order to be tolerant.
Free speech is a right wing dog whistle at this point as it’s used to justify being able to say whatever people want to say no matter the impact on others. What people who invoke free speech need to realose is that it’s protected in public spaces, not in private spaces and it’s a purely American thing, even in Canada the freedom of expression doesn’t allow people to propagate hate. I don’t know where Beehaw is hosted but if it’s not in the USA it’s even more ridiculous to talk about free speech on it.
That those kinds of situations are exactly why free speech exists: People want to articulate thoughts in front of an audience that is opposed to them. What they are saying may be bad (depending on your PoV), but the fact that they can invoke free speech to say it is important (excl. harmful stuff like hate speech ofc).
Claiming to support free speech when nothing controversial is being said is just cheap talk.
I once got told that if I even tried to defend or discuss my point of view (after the first and only comment on that thread), I’ll be banned. Because I said that if you randomly pick out someone from a random population, you’re less likely to pick a minority, because they’re a minority. And that’s how statistics works.
Beside the point, but maybe still worthmentioning: if the “majority” is in truth just another minority, but the biggest one, with, say, 15% of the population, and therefore by default calls itself the majority, you’re still more likely to pick an individual of one of the 24 other minorities. What you’re unlikely to do, is to pick an individual of a specific minority, no matter which one. The “least unlikely” is an individual of said “majority”, because it’s the biggest minority. It’s still relatively unlikely, though, and likelier to pick an individual of some other minority, just not any specific one.
yes, but you still have a higher probability of picking one of those than any other individual one of the others. you do have a higher probability of picking any other than that single one, but that’s not saying much. If you pick a random sample, the biggest minority will still be the biggest minority.
It’s pretty easy to be the aggressor in a situation when trying to make a point like that. What was the actual context for that point to even be raised the first place, and was it even the main point of the comment you replied to or was it nitpicking?
The point was about proportional representation in media. The key word there was proportional.
If I picked all my actors by picking names out of a hat (meaning it’s impossible to discriminate), there is a high chance that there won’t be a lot of asians in my result. But that’s not because I have anything against asians, but simply because I live in a mediterranean country, and there are far fewer asians here than you’d find in asia. So even if I ended up with 19 mediterranean people, and one asian person, that’d be a proportional representation.
But I was the aggressor for not agreeing that “biasing the results but only if you personally don’t like them” is good proportional representation.
And calling me the aggressor for stating an objective, undisputable mathematical fact in a relevant discussion is exactly why it’s a toxic echo chamber. The truth there is decided by majority. Not by the real world.
Can someone ELI5 what Beehaw is? Their post says that the lemmy instance is just part of a large project, but the beehaw website is the lemmy instance. So what is this project? What makes them special? Google also just shows me their lemmy instance and their subreddit.
Beehaw is trying to be a “safe place” social network. They want to be a social network, welcoming to people, but also protect their community. They want people to be nice, and won’t tolerate people being intolerant (racism, homophonic, sexist, transphobic, or bigoted).
I’d argue that In a lot of these things their can be some nuance in all those terms but in Beehaw expect a more absolutionist interpretation of those terms.
I understand what they’re trying to do. But to give you an idea of what the result is (in my opinion) - when I mentioned free speech there I was lectured that the term is a right wing dog whistle term. I would describe them as a intolerantly tolerant place - either you ascribe to their absolutionist views or you don’t. That is just my experience though.
Beehaws influence has been disproportionate as they were one of the bigger communities during the recent Reddit influxes. They don’t want to be the biggest, they want to protect and nurture their own community. I get it but I think it was inevitable that would not work with federating.
intolerantly tolerantThat’s because it’s required to not tolerate intolerance in order to be tolerant.
Free speech is a right wing dog whistle at this point as it’s used to justify being able to say whatever people want to say no matter the impact on others. What people who invoke free speech need to realose is that it’s protected in public spaces, not in private spaces and it’s a purely American thing, even in Canada the freedom of expression doesn’t allow people to propagate hate. I don’t know where Beehaw is hosted but if it’s not in the USA it’s even more ridiculous to talk about free speech on it.
Everytime I see someone complain about free speech, it’s usually filled with right wing talking points, intentionally or not.
The thing about free speech is that it matters most when you don’t agree with the other person.
What are you on about
That those kinds of situations are exactly why free speech exists: People want to articulate thoughts in front of an audience that is opposed to them. What they are saying may be bad (depending on your PoV), but the fact that they can invoke free speech to say it is important (excl. harmful stuff like hate speech ofc).
Claiming to support free speech when nothing controversial is being said is just cheap talk.
I disagree with what you say, but I’m glad you’re free to say it.
When the reddit exodus started they were the 2nd largest instance. When 2 new instances grew close to them in user count they defederated them.
It’s clearly their ego that’s special.
It was the first instance I signed up for and they rejected my application. I can’t fathom the reasoning.
deleted by creator
it’s a toxic echo chamber that claims to be a “safe space”, in which you either contribute to the(ir) echo, or you get banned
For example?
I once got told that if I even tried to defend or discuss my point of view (after the first and only comment on that thread), I’ll be banned. Because I said that if you randomly pick out someone from a random population, you’re less likely to pick a minority, because they’re a minority. And that’s how statistics works.
Beside the point, but maybe still worthmentioning: if the “majority” is in truth just another minority, but the biggest one, with, say, 15% of the population, and therefore by default calls itself the majority, you’re still more likely to pick an individual of one of the 24 other minorities. What you’re unlikely to do, is to pick an individual of a specific minority, no matter which one. The “least unlikely” is an individual of said “majority”, because it’s the biggest minority. It’s still relatively unlikely, though, and likelier to pick an individual of some other minority, just not any specific one.
yes, but you still have a higher probability of picking one of those than any other individual one of the others. you do have a higher probability of picking any other than that single one, but that’s not saying much. If you pick a random sample, the biggest minority will still be the biggest minority.
Correct, you have the highest probability of picking an individual from the biggest minority.
It’s pretty easy to be the aggressor in a situation when trying to make a point like that. What was the actual context for that point to even be raised the first place, and was it even the main point of the comment you replied to or was it nitpicking?
The point was about proportional representation in media. The key word there was proportional.
If I picked all my actors by picking names out of a hat (meaning it’s impossible to discriminate), there is a high chance that there won’t be a lot of asians in my result. But that’s not because I have anything against asians, but simply because I live in a mediterranean country, and there are far fewer asians here than you’d find in asia. So even if I ended up with 19 mediterranean people, and one asian person, that’d be a proportional representation.
But I was the aggressor for not agreeing that “biasing the results but only if you personally don’t like them” is good proportional representation.
And calling me the aggressor for stating an objective, undisputable mathematical fact in a relevant discussion is exactly why it’s a toxic echo chamber. The truth there is decided by majority. Not by the real world.