I’m gay

  • 69 Posts
  • 247 Comments
Joined 8M ago
cake
Cake day: Jan 28, 2022

help-circle
rss

I think there’s a good chance for some sampling bias. At the very least there’s some selection bias, in that it’s representative of Australian Gen Z individuals who opted into some ‘willingness to participate in surveys’ on an online website (or seemingly so, it’s possible they may have signed up in person? its unclear in the methodology section exactly how they were recruited, but it does give some high level ideas).

In 2021, an online survey was conducted across Australia’s major cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Canberra and Adelaide. The actual study participants were recruited using simple random sampling (based on computer-generated random numbers) from a database of 35,000 people who have previously indicated willingness to participate in surveys.

Out of 698 randomly invited participants, 478 responded by completing the survey, generating a response rate of 68.5%.

I also don’t think the question was designed all that well

When asked about the main contributors to climate change and presented with a long list of factors allowing multiple choices and an open-ended “Other” option to include another opinion

How many should I select if I’m talking about main contributors? I’m sure many participants asked themselves this question when clicking boxes. If I click every box, is that reflective of the “main contributors”? When I hit 5 boxes, is that enough? If I’m trying to disambiguate between the options of “livestock and agriculture” and “big corporations and industry”, I’d definitely side with the latter as more important because you can have sustainable livestock and agriculture but large corporations typically do not. Also the latter is a larger box which holds most of the problems of the former. Do I select both when we’re talking about “main contributors”? I’m not certain how I might have answered, had I been presented the same survey.

In the end, I think the author jumps to more conclusions than is supported by the limits of the methodology employed.


The liberal cry that everything they don’t like is Russian interference, that every bit of political activism or deviation from the norm in any direction is the result of a proxy war between Russia and/or China and the rest of us.

Huh, do people really say this? I haven’t experienced this online, but yea, I can get why that’s just absurd and harmful.

People desperately looking for tech CEOs to address disinformation by embracing centralized arbiters of truth.

I mean, I think they’re mostly just asking for them to actually remove content that is reported for being misinformation because the amount of it that was going around the last two major elections has been quite a bit. But again, perhaps I may not be running in the right social circles to see how this is framed.


A lot easier to pass a mandate requiring people to develop this than pass the budget for the recycling, sadly. 😔


A rather densely worded article which makes some good points, but I don’t really know many people who think of disinfo in the way the author is framing it. Perhaps I haven’t dived in very deeply on how people view disinformation - my take on it is that while there are major interests out there (such as the mentioned Russian troll farms) it’s the day to day misinfo that’s most troubling to me. It’s the fact that shitty articles get re-shared by people who don’t take two seconds to question the information… they look at the article title and go “why yes, the transgenders are ruining sports” and spread along the message. Sure, the person behind said article might be intentionally sharing this to groups on facebook which they know are full of the kind of people who do this, but I don’t see the malicious actors as the source of the problem, but the shoddy education system which allows so many people to buy into bad journalism like this. The people resharing without a thought are how we ended up with Donald Trump, and I think we would have ended up with him even if they weren’t seeded with disinformation because the quality or the quantity doesn’t matter here, only the resonance of the message. They used to share blog posts and commentaries which avoided fact and talked about feeling, disinfo is not a new concept, it’s just happening in a new medium and has a new face.


Not all that surprising given how social dynamics work at different age groups. I do wonder how well queers are represented in the sample and a bit about where/how people are added to this sample, but I don’t have access to the study nor is it currently on scihub.


We would be very interested in a better method for limitation on this as well - some kind of age and size limits or automatic pruning would be wonderful.


Exercising judgement is a difficult act, but not one that is black or white. It shouldn’t be painted as something that is or isn’t, either. A slippery slope either existing or not is a false dichotomy trying to shoehorn a complicated situation into an on/off configuration.

Calling the application of social pressure to get cloudflare to stop enabling hate a slippery slope is ignoring that it’s arguably the first instance of something like this to happen, it took an enormous amount of effort for it to happen, while it was not happening the livelihoods of individuals were being harassed, harmed, and destroyed, and it involved a private enterprise making a decision for themselves and is not reflective of how others in the industry will respond.

Of important framing, did we call the workers rights movement a slippery slope? Racial justice? Feminism? I think the more contentious the public perception is of a movement, the more likely people are to call something enabling said movement a slippery slope. However, on the opposite side of things we usually recognize the reduction or removal of human rights or governmental representation universally as a slippery slope when the issue is no longer contentious or is broad enough to apply to all individuals (while nobles may have framed the rise of democracies as a slippery slope away from monarchistic and feudal governmental systems, I doubt the same was said by the majority of individuals who stood to benefit from this paradigm shift). Applying the wording of ‘slippery slope’ to make demons out of issues they simply disagree with seemingly only happens by conservative individuals to protect a worldview that suppresses others.


A very generous user designed us a new icon for free 💜



Hey there, I’ve given you a 3 day ban for not being nice. Please review the rules in our sidebar and be nice in the future.


if you’re not willing to treat users on this instance with good faith, perhaps you should find another instance 😊


Please don’t reply multiple times to the same person, make one coherent reply with all your points so we can keep things tidy. While they could have potentially asked in a nicer way, someone asking for a source does not make them a shill and does not warrant throwing accusations back at them.






Marked this as NSFW to make it clear it discusses troublesome content


I’ve been slowly seeing more and more parties booked as afrobeats and it’s slow rise in EDM subgenres. I’m a huge fan of melodic and syncopated rhythms, often finding myself drawn towards DnB, breaks, UK garage, etc. perhaps at least partly because western music so rarely plays with variation in the rhythm and instead plays with melody while keeping rhythm fairly steady.


If students can form associations, does it matter that much what the association is about?

We have laws to protect against hate and harming others. If you freely associate a group to spread hate, this should not be allowed. I disagree with the supreme court here in that they should not allow universities to suppress non-hateful groups. But then again, they want to openly discriminate against pretty much all minorities given their stances on existing supreme court precedence so it’s not surprising the court found the way it did.


I mean if you’re writing a blog to get found by SEO you’re doing it for capitalistic reasons and to think you’re above the same capitalistic demise of ‘journalistic integrity’ is just narcissism at that point.


Ah apologies, I use an extension to bypass paywalls. I’ll pay closer attention to the source and pull out a rip next time.


I’ve had a particular hate for this kind of obvious centrism in journalism. It’s antithetical to minority rights and it surprises me that anyone still tries to make this kind of argument, when we’ve clearly moved on from universally despised behavior such as owning slaves or how we report on overt racism towards say, black people in the united states. The idea that they are just ‘reporting the facts’ is laughable at best and clearly shows how little they are willing to consider the social implications of anything they publish. If a journal uses this kind of reasoning to argue on behalf of centrist writing, then it should be thrown back in their faces by their journalists whenever they ask them to double check any sources… when did this double checking happen when you platformed an anti-trans voice?


Perhaps ironically this author could have made their point in a much shorter article. I have no issue paying attention to something long that I feel is of good quality. When it’s a seven minute read because you haven’t bothered to reduce the clutter, or because you make the same statement five times, I’m going to lose interest quickly because I’m not sure you have much to say, but rather you just like to hear yourself talk (or in this case, transcribe it).













Man shot dead by officer at funeral while hugging aunt
> “I went to hug him because he was upset, and next thing I know they just yelled ‘Jason!’ and they ‘pow, pow, pow, pow, pow,'” Odell said. “I about got shot. I felt the compressions of the bullets. It was horrible.”
fedilink

What is Beehaw? Where we came from and what makes us different
pin
First off, I wanted to say hi to all the new members we've had join in the past month. Thank you for joining us here at Beehaw. A community doesn't exist without its members, and it's exciting watching this instance grow. I've always been a proponent of keeping explanations as simple as possible and allowing discussions to clarify the finer points, but I've noticed that I've been repeating myself a lot recently with the influx of new users and lot of fantastic questions about what we are, what we're doing, and why we're different. This is to be the first post of a series in which I'm going to share my own thoughts on the vision of Beehaw and how I hope it can be brought to fruition. It's also a place for me to share my thoughts on what's wrong with other social media platforms, such as some of the major pitfalls of most moderation systems. To be clear, I don't speak on behalf of everyone who's been involved in starting this instance and I certainly don't speak on behalf of everyone here, so this isn't meant to be a manifesto, or a set of rules etched into stone tablets for you to obey. I will try to frame ideas that I hold through my own eyes (I), and ideas which I believe the establishing community holds through the lens of our eyes (we). # A condensed history of the formation of Beehaw --- The group of users who created Beehaw used to exist on another platform. Many of us came to that platform from many other platforms before it. We were sold on the idea that it was a different platform, where discussion would be encouraged, and things would be different. While the platform was still small, there was a much higher feeling of cohesion and community and users being aggressive or hateful to each other was incredibly rare. When they were mean, it was often over emotionally charged issues and typically resolved itself with apologies or slight changes in who interacted with who. Over time this platform, like many others before it, got infested with a group of people I like to refer to as rationalists. I'm simplifying their mindset to that of the rationalist, because rationalism touts itself as a belief that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge, rather than belief or emotional response, and they often touted such ideals. While I agree that beliefs and emotional responses can get in the way of important work, the kind of rationalist that I take qualms with is someone who doesn't understand that their own beliefs or emotions are clouding their judgement. At times they repeat racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted narratives because they are not as learned as they think. They often end up causing a lot of harm to minority individuals who already struggle to get society to listen to them because bigoted notions dominate the common narratives found in society. On this platform I attempted to address this emerging problem of rationalism. To be clear I do not view these people as bad people. I simply think they are misled or unintentionally ignorant. When I was younger, I found myself in possession of many of the thoughts they discuss because I was also taught them through the lens of a colonial oppressive system. It took a lot of work to undo some of the brainwashing that I had gone through and to realize the harm that I was causing by 'debating' these issues online. Unfortunately for me my attempts to address this problem on said platform were met with ire by the creator of said website, and I was told in no uncertain terms that I should cease these meta-discussions altogether. That message and that final thread that I had created on the matter lead to a discussion on an informal community for the website where likeminded individuals began to lay the groundwork for what we felt was wrong with this system of moderation and the problems we saw in modern social media platforms. # The spirit of Beehaw --- The issue as I see it with modern social media is the way in which rules are enforced. There are many good reasons to itemize specific behavior which is not allowed, but the downside is that extremely specific rules are easy to maneuver around. We've all experienced someone who's a real jerk on the internet but manages to never get banned because they never explicitly violate any rules. I'm not sexist, they'll claim, but happen to post a lot of articles calling into question modern feminism or criticize the wage gap. I think many people today would agree that someone 'debating' the benefits of phrenology in the open would constitute racist behavior, but there was a time and place in the world where it was considered real science, despite many scientists distancing themselves from this field very early on and critics writing scathing commentaries on this emerging field. This same guise of civility is frequently exercised by bigots, with modern examples of sexism, homophobia and transphobia being easily found on nearly any major social media platform. Humans are pretty good at figuring out when someone is being a dick online, even if they are acting within the defined rules, and one solution to this problem is to recenter humans in our online social platforms. The idea of not having a ton of explicit rules, and instead having simple rules like "Be(e) nice" is a startling one for most, because it upends what we've come to know and expect from the internet. However, by keeping the rules simple and instead attempting to enforce the spirit _behind the rules_, we're able to deal more effectively with problematic individuals and create a space in which you aren't worried about whether you're going to have explain to someone why you're a human and why you shouldn't be subject to incessant bigotry online. # What is (and isn't) Beehaw --- That brings us to the fundamental question of what Beehaw is and isn't. Beehaw is a social media platform. So, we do want you coming here and sharing links to news articles, websites you find, starting discussions, connecting with others, and in general doing what you see on other social media websites. We want you to do this while being nice to each other. If you aren't nice, we'll remind you to be nice. If you continue to be problematic, we'll escalate from there, but it's going to be on a case-by-case basis. If your first reply when we ask you to be nice to each other is to fuck off, I'm going to respond in kind. I also understand that being emotional is a normal part of being a human and that some of us struggle with anger more than others, and I'd like for this to be a community which is open to the idea of reversing actions, such as bans, if you're willing to talk with the community about why you think it should be reversed. Of note, we simply do not tolerate intolerant behavior. Being explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or bigoted in any other fashion is not tolerated here. But how might one determine when it's okay to be intolerant towards people you _believe_ are being intolerant or who are being intolerant but doing so because they are uneducated or have not spent time deconstructing their own privilege? Many philosophers have written extensively about this subject, and I simply don't have time to write an entire manifesto. In simple terms, I am not advocating for tone policing. I believe that being outraged and angry at people who are destroying our society is a good thing to do. When the supreme court removes protections for abortion, it's okay to be outraged and to take action into your own hands - they have done something intolerant. When someone advocates online that you don't have the right to your own body, it's okay to tell them to fuck off. In fact, I greatly encourage it. This is being intolerant to the intolerant. However, when someone online shares an opinion and it feels like they might be intolerant and you jump to the conclusion that they are intolerant and you launch into a tirade at them, this is not nice behavior. You didn't check if they have the opinion you think they have, and that's simply not nice to someone which you don't know. It gets even more complicated when you consider someone who is sharing an opinion they have which is actively harmful to many individuals in the world, but it's due to their ignorance. I personally believe that so long as this person is not actively spreading this intolerant viewpoint and are **working on themselves to become a better person**, that it would not be particularly productive to launch into a tirade against them. I understand, however, how someone could be quite rude in response to such intolerance and I agree that this person may desperately need to be educated appropriately, but there is no way for that discussion to happen on this platform in a productive manner while lobbing insults at each other. I can understand why, at first brush, some might consider this tone policing. However, I disapprove of the intolerant viewpoint, and I approve of it being corrected, but I also approve of the intolerant person attempting to become a better person. The only way for a platform which is hoping to exist as an explicitly nice place online to avoid taking sides in a situation like this is to withdraw from the quandary entirely. This kind of nuanced political and philosophical discussion is just simply not meant for Beehaw. I'd like to think that I'm aware and learned enough to avoid 'debating' things like phrenology, which are obviously racist, but I'm also smart enough to realize that there's likely some ideas which I've internalized or been taught by a colonialist western society which are _harmful_ to other minorities. I want to be able to learn about how everything I was taught was wrong, and to be corrected, and that space can only exist when we don't let users berate each other over ideas they project on others (whether that projection happens to be correct or not).
fedilink