This is a political maneuver, not an accident. If there was a fund to cover important expenses during a shutdown, then the leverage wouldn't kick in until the fund was about to run out, and that's when the negotiations would start happening. We'd be in the same position.
This shit sucks. It's railroading the intended use of content warnings into something impossible, and then dismissing that people can or do use them in any other way. It assumes the purpose of avoiding triggers is to be therapeutic treatment for those triggers, and then calls content warnings pointless when they can't deliver that on their own. It's ignoring the use of content warnings to lessen the harmful impact of triggers, or their use together with other therapeutic treatment.
She cites studies comparing the reaction to triggering content with or without a warning and says it isn't helpful, but what about when they actually serve their purpose? When people choose not to view content based on the warnings? She says she doesn't do that, and then dismisses that anyone ever would. I do that all the time. I'm pretty sure other people on this site do as well. That's not her experience, and it doesn't support her point, so she doesn't care. The study she cites on avoidance seems to be treating the total number of eyes on a graphic image as a measure of the effectiveness of warnings, and assuming the images would be equally distressing to all people. From what she presented, it doesn't consider that the people can have vastly different reactions to the content, and the ones who opted out of seeing the images could be extremely affected by them, while the ones who opted in may be unaffected.
She assumes that the goal of content warnings is to avoid 100% of exposure to triggering content, which is obviously impossible and she uses that makes them sound ridiculous and naive. Then she assumes that warnings will be successful in blocking out 100% of content, and is concerned that people won't be able to get better at responding to their triggers without exposure, ignoring that people can be selective about when it would be helpful to engage with triggering content.
Her viewpoint sounds nice when she frames it as "the importance of radical acceptance". When that becomes "in real life, staying away from triggering things is only going to make you very fragile" and then she spends much of the video talking about virtue signaling and cancel culture, it's clear this is just the classic conservative "toughen up, snowflake" driving a misrepresentation of content warnings.
Edit: This video is basically equivalent to claiming that labeling foods that contain peanuts doesn't work because
Warnings don't make allergic reactions less severe
Warnings have never cured anyone's allergies
Chocolate bar sales have not been hurt by peanut warnings
If he had been killed by the cops like we expected, I'd be in favor of putting up statues of our flawed, confused, and confusing hero. But since he's alive, I won't be surprised if his reaction to fame is to get really deranged, and start trying to leverage his public support into something shitty. He did something great, and his reasons or other actions won't change that, but I'm hesitant to sing his praises at the moment. Hopefully he's happy with letting his actions speak for themselves.
I'm really not clear on what the intended usage of each community is, so I can't comment.
My main issue was that people's concerns about renaming a community to a term that "was used as a misogynist, oppressive tool against women" were being dismissed. I hope these concerns are taken more seriously.
I've had plenty of issues with how things have been handled, but I think the situation is trending in a better direction. Best of luck in finding the best course of action and in communicating your decisions clearly.
Nobody's been happy with counterpropaganda, and we've heard you loud and clear.
El Chisme continues to remain the new space for posts that would have been at home in The Dunk Tank.
Your description is definitely not the way it's being presented in this announcement post. Maybe having gossip as a new community instead of a renaming an old one would be a good idea. That would allow much more room to explore what the liberatory
aspects of the act off gossiping would look like, instead of being the place where people are looking for the twitter drama they're used to.
As your sources say gossip as a tool can protect women. Gossip as a term, or potentially as the name for a community, can be used to oppress women. While it would be great for this site to play a role in strengthening the tool and weakening the term, it shouldn't be taken as a given that the users who are affected by this are comfortable taking on the fight of reclaiming the word, or that they think this change is effective in doing so.
I appreciate how seriously you are taking the harm of the racist term. I don't appreciate how, at least from the outside, it looks like the position you are in of needing to defend the mods has led you to downplay the potential harm of misogyny to create a comparison.
Through all that's happened, I've been repeatedly encouraged by how quickly and nearly unanimously the whole community agreed that the tank names needed to be changed. The dunk tank had been around for years, but once the harm was pointed out, it was time to for it to go.
Seeing the staunch defense of the name "gossip" when quite a few people immediately say they find it offensive makes me think that was a special case, and not the sign of the strength of the community I had hoped it was.
It's fine for some decisions to be made by mods only, but keeping it quiet and rolling the changes out all at once when the decision is final seems to cause nothing but problems. It means the mods and admins are caught off guard when the users have strong objections, and have to scramble and backtrack to deal with the backlash. A heads-up about what changes were being discussed would have let the mods be aware of what complaints would be made while they were still in the decision making process. Then when the changes are made, they could already have measures ready to address the concerns, or at least consistent explanations of why the changes where necessary. Instead they had to quickly throw out multiple conflicting justifications, and added to the confusion.
If you're surprised the users saw this as more than a tiny change, an announcement that a discussion was happening could have given a warning of what to expect.
When this was announced, they were arguing that closing the comms wasn't a problem because people could just post on similar communities in other instances. But that was after they tried to get those other communities shut down too?
Hear me out guys, rockets go really fast right? So what if someone put some kind of a weapon on the end of a rocket, you could send that weapon somewhere far away really quickly! Has anyone thought of this before? And some bombs are like, really really big right? I'm not a expert, so I can't believe I have to be the one to point this out.
Oh man, if China figures this out, it'll change everything. Let Elon do whatever he wants to keep that from happening.
I think that's my mistake. I had assumed they understood that tool was only for white people to lecture other white people into voting for genocide. I shouldn't be surprised when some of them actually use it to feel morally superior to people who are directly affected.
That part makes enough sense to me on its own, but what do they mean by not caring about “fellow Muslims”, and what connection are they trying to make between those ideas? It’s clear enough that it’s some racist bullshit, but I’m trying to figure out what it’s supposed to mean to other liberals, and it still just sounds like stringing words together. Maybe I’m expecting too much from liberals but I figured there would be something specific that prompted this.
I seriously can't understand what the quoted tweet is supposed to mean. It seems like they're just randomly mashing ideas together? I tried to read the article, but the tweet was deleted, and the account you can see in the screenshot is a content firehose, so I couldn't find what this is about. Are they actually trying to apply the "Trump would kill n+1 Gazans" argument as a way to shame muslims, and then pinning that on homophobia based on nothing? Even for racist scratched liberals, this seems like incoherent nonsense. Am I missing something, or are they already panicking that badly
I'm glad Mr. Sanders understands that getting on a bus is like voting. You absolutely need to get on the bus that's doing a little less genocide. If you get turned around, you can always tell which bus that is because it's the one with Dick Cheney on it.
If you're trying to flip it instead of pick it up, you only have to lift half the weight, so maybe a strong one could, if the forks could handle all the weight being on the end. Sawed off forklift maybe?
"I was not in my uniform, and at no point in my interaction with the staff did I identify myself as a member of the law enforcement community," Sheriff Owens said. "At no point did I indicate my position, nor did I ask the responders to do anything that they would not, had not, or have not done for anyone else who makes a business dispute call."
I don't even know if he believes this or not. I would have assumed he was getting off on bringing the force of the state down on a service worker who dared cross him, but can severe cop-brain really make you think this is a normal and reasonable thing everyone does when their order is wrong? Is it both?
·1 month ago
·2 months ago