Azure

I am disengaged, i have a life and the site was down.

If you don’t see the dog whistles that started because teens leaving religion on the internet were trying to explore themselves and break from what most people only follow because they were raised in it that the internet dismissed because of memes more than actual atheists causing issues.

Then beehaw is as bad as i was suspecting about trying too hard to appeal to everyone. You clearly wanted your mods words to be taken with respect and NOT users. If YOU are an admin and cannot see how your staff started issues and someone simply stepped in and stood firm, then you don’t allow people to stand up for themselves and as a queer atheist i get it, it’s not as popular, but you wouldn’t let any other minority group be treated this way and your administration needs to think about that.

Beehaw is good in theory but when you do not allow anyone to discuss things and come after the group who was under attack, your team needs more experience. I wish you all well and maybe beehaw will mature, but right now it’s centist leaning new age more than anything based on reality.

They could argue their point and were not attacking anyone specific. The mod continued to be upset and eventually attacked the poster specifically, when the posted stayed hypothetical.

If you don’t know how dismissive of atheists that saying is, how it’s used to shut down their opinion, which they were sharing without attacking someonee specifically, likely because they became atheists after a lot of personal work, is exactly why atheists get shut out of a conversation.

Is their opinion not valid? Have they attacked anyone or taken any rights, or just expressed an opinion they offered to discuss and never attcked anyone?

Literally they pointed out the flaws in the mods argument and the mod got mad. Only one group was being aggressive, one group made a mildly flippant joke and was willing to discuss the nuance. One became sarcastic and rude.

You don’t see an issue with a MOD starting with

Can we please move beyond this 2010 New Atheism view

That’s really not something a mod should say and pretty much dismissing an opinion without even engaging it. I guess atheists are just ok to dismiss and deny an opinion?

They’re responding to the mods energy.

You’re a mod and being this way publicly? Personally attacking?

It’s about one small group. And one that couldn’t stop being taken over by assholes and has a schism because the more conversative left.

Among those who say they were raised exclusively by Protestants, roughly eight-in-ten now identify with Protestantism, including 80% of those raised by two Protestant parents and 75% of those raised by a single parent who was Protestant. Most who were raised exclusively by Protestants but who no longer identify as such are now religious “nones,” with smaller numbers now identifying with Catholicism or other religions.

I have done a lot of research and could have a nuanced discussion. I don’t think claiming people who have negative options are “2010 Atheists” is the bit of a bigot in this case. I think religion has enough people carrying water who were just raised in it and don’t think critically.

I think 75% of the population literally try not to have critical thinking in one major aspect of their life that literally says don’t think, have faith.

It’s a part of religion to not think, to follow and obey. It’s sweet you want to defend them in other avenues, but cognitive dissonance is also causing a lot of sorrow and pain while religious people on majority are standing back and following their leaders, even the progressive ones, aren’t willing to progress fast enough. They’re still following something that’s usually mostly historically been oppressive and regressive to maintain power over the masses.

I mean. They’re doubling down on stupid i think it’s fair to call them out on it. In order to follow most organized religion, you are taught to kill critical thinking and have faith. It’s literally a part of the whole thing

So women are more disposable and companies cut “soft skills” first. Great, working with tech companies is already full of people with absolutely no social intelligence, let’s cut the “fluff” departments (yet what hires on the tech spots? Insurance and the other underpinnings of the compensation packages), and then people show up with “wElL iTs NoT wOmEn iN TeCh”.

It’s the same energy as when an article gets posted about racial equality. So many ways to talk around a big societal problem.

The mods keep saying they’re staying to protect their users, but they should be off boarding to another site if they really care. They have already lost the power to take care of their community, they’re already bending to reddit.

If you keep your group on reddit you just want mod powers on a popular site, you aren’t protecting anyone. I just can’t accept “i care enough to stay and keep my power to obey reddit admins” is so weaksauce.

I mean, if you don’t convey emotions to friend via gifs I don’t know what to tell ya!

I am going to not be able to find obscure gifs i remember from the 2000’s 😩

yup! I also know there are some in ‘safe’ social groups who make the threats because they, as a member of that group, never (or so rarely they aren’t ACTUALLY worried) get attacked. But the groups they use death threats against DO experience such violence, (a fact that the free speech absolutist will argue against, while not even listening to the facts of the matter) and at the very least, I know I second guess the effort of engaging anyone who is willing to threaten to hurt me specifically. Or a question the value of talking with someone like that.

So that is why free speech absolutists LIKE being allowed to make death threats: those who experience violence disengage (or leave) and no one arguing makes them feel in the right. “No one is disagreeing, it means I am correct! It has nothing to do with the shotgun I put in the face of anyone who talks to me!”

It is horrifying.

sunk cost fallacy is a hell of a drug. it’s also why a lot of people stay in bad relationships (friends/romantic/family/etc)

“We do not condone death threats and will continue to remove accounts when we believe their posts represent targeted harassment or a credible threat of violence. But not all heated language crosses the line into a death threat,” Graber said in a weekend thread. “Wisely or not, many people use violent imagery when they’re arguing or venting. We debated whether a “death threat” needs to be specific and direct in order to cause harm, and what it would mean for people’s ability to engage in heated discussions on Bluesky if we prohibited this kind of speech.”

Well I was curious about Bluesky (they’re still on a waitlist when I check so even their beta has bad actors lol) but a space that hems and haws about death threats? You can be the rudest son of a bitch and never threaten harm! This reminds me of that stupid decision by the Supreme Court that “oh well they didn’t REALLY intend to kill you”. If someone threatens me, it becomes my job to decide if it was real or not? Wtf?

Goddamn free speech absolutism has taken some crazy pills. I remember ‘fighting words’ concept, a death threat used to be understood as almost enough to warrant self-defense preemptively. Now everyone does it and “don’t really mean it”. 🙄

Youtube shorts being visually hard to tell the difference but being in my sub lists AND breaking the queuing is obnoxious. I have been cutting myself off from google products as much as I can, they are just so shitty now.

But this isn’t a kid sending 50 messages.

“I’m currently unsupervised. I know, it freaks me out too, but the possibilities are endless,” read another.

Some of the messages suggested the target, a singer-songwriter who’s referred to as C.W. in court documents, was being watched. Others made vague, confusing references to phone lines being tapped. When C.W. blocked Counterman’s account, more messages would appear from new accounts in a pattern that persisted for two frightening years.

So if i called you or mailed you or did any of this in person i would be punished. The idea that we are able to say absolutely anything online is foolish.

In their dissent, they grapple with the potential consequences of this ruling and the impact it may have on victims of harassment and stalking, as well as efforts to impose restraining orders on other people who make violent threats.

“Imagine someone who threatens to bomb an airport. The speaker might well end up barred from the location in question—for good reason,” Justice Barrett writes. “Yet after today, such orders cannot be obtained without proof—not necessarily easy to secure—that the person who issued the threat anticipated that it would elicit fear.”

I want to know how saying you are going to do something isnt even “half credit” towards it.

What i think? I think if someone sends someone something threatening and they mean it or not, the person has a right to their lives to say stop. After that you should be charged for forcing yourself without consent into someone’s lives. I don’t know why that’s a crazy opinion?

Verbal threats of violence used to be punishable. I don’t see a difference in what this man did and harassing someone and we punish that.

There is zero part of me that is worried punishing death threats online is some how a societal ill. In fact i argue that not enough people are held to the social and civil contract we all make with each other online and they need to be reminded they are interacting with humans.

Also, if this man really cannot understand how what he said was harmful, i think he especially needs to be thrown away as a human being. What worth is someone who harasses a stranger for two years to our global community?

So what this says is basically you can say anything to anyone, as long as you don’t intend to see them physically? We have no right to tell someone to stop contacting us, everyone has a right to access people, no matter how abusive, if they don’t really mean to do it (based on self reporting of the stalker to their intentions, NOT off of any level of what they said).

I bet i would have officers at my door if everyone in the supreme court’s families got these sorts of messages from me repeatedly, from throw away accounts and bots, even if i had no intention of doing more than that.

Harassment just isn’t a thing anymore for normal people i guess. Everyone celebrating the other hand down the SC did today missed the horrifying one.

Maybe im so normie i don’t get it, but isnt it about the same personal advice we would have given for any platform?

Im sorry I’m from the forum days when you always knew you were responsible for how safe you are. I’m laughing because people can’t get their data deleted from corporate companies either, is it really still news anything you post is public and will probably not be removable?

I appreciate the care, i do, but on some level some of this is trying to bubble people who aren’t being responsible. If admins really wanted to protect people from themselves, then we’d remove most personally identifiable things interesting and unique about posts.

I’d also argue stalking has more to do with the mental health issues of the stalker than the victim being to blame for how they interacted with the world. We don’t tell a student not to participate in lectures because someone may latch onto something they said and become infatuated. We punish stalkers instead.

Idk this is a ramble. I see so many things so often that used to be personal responsibility on online safety, that instead of teaching the skills we make tools. And i feel like not teaching good personal safety and protection is goong to doom any project ultimately.

You can’t fix ignorance without education.

Right? Be the change you want to see in the world OP!