No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
"HB enthusiasts coming here and trying to call me out achieves nothing besides proving my point"
Without taking any sides, saying some group is insane and then saying that them lashing back "proves your point" is beyond stupid.
Like, of course they will, what else do you expect them to do? Sit and politely agree?
We should stop with this kind of BS in any sort of debate. Groups will protect themselves, and will not get polite to those who throw slurs at them; that's natural, normal and speaks nothing about their average behavior.
This never proves any point and is nothing but a dirty rhetorical device aimed to shut your opposition up and make them seem irrelevant. This is not part of any possible healthy conversation.
Also, post is not a genuine question.
If someone calls me insane, the response that proves them wrong is a reasonable, chill response at most. The actual sane thing to do is ignore them or make a joke about the claim.
Just like if someone calls me weird, the response that proves I'm not weird is to say, "hahaha, sure, whatever" or "so what?" The response that would prove their point is along the lines of, "I'm not weird, you're weird" or "they're not calling me weird, they're calling my associate weird."
Ignoring or shrugging off shit people say about you may actually not be a viable long-term strategy.
Contrary to what many of us have been taught, this actually allows others to reinforce their views about you inside their echo chambers.
That's not to mention it's simply not great to hear that stuff said about you or the group you care about, and the longer this drags on, the more toxicity, alienation, and spite inevitably accumulates. None of us are immune to this, and it's not insane to be hostile to those who are hostile to you.
I'll answer yours in good faith.
Internally reach consensus to segregate themselves, then brigade the fediverse whole with content that allowed the majority to believe it was their choice.
Because such actions are well outside of status quo want for bandwagon validation they're by definition "insane" and "unexpected". But, the hexbear community is well aware that the majority is better off not yet knowing what they believe. Many expected such actions as it was an obvious moral and ethical imperative that lacked internal leadership support.
Hexbear was the only lemmy for 4 years, over that time their code base diverged, it took a few months to make federation possible again. There was never a consensus on whether HB should be segregated, a lot of users opposed federation over concerns about harassment or just valuing one of the few leftist communities. The end result was slow federation, with users suggesting specific instances to federate with, and instances getting defederated if the admins failed to take adequate action against transphobes/chasers.
Half this thread is hexbears and others telling people exactly what they believe about random topics. If you doubt that, Hexbear has 4 years of history and a search function. You can even find the struggle sessions where they came to the conclusions I mentioned previously.
What are you talking about?
Now there's two of us that are speaking truth.
Are they? That wouldn't be thematically consistent with their years of telling others what they'd like to hear for their entertainment. Their culture is selfish in that way.
There was never formal consensus in that leadership repeatedly denied the vote, favoring a granular, instance-by-instance approach.
An organized, grassroots movement that employed questionable means to force the wisest decision upon leadership and everyone else.
What?
Here's the vote that approved the granular instance-by-instance approach
Are you describing the consensus building and struggle sessions as "forcing the wisest decision on everyone"?
And then what happened? It seems like you were present for awhile but perhaps not in the trenches, through the OpSec, and to the end.
Indeed.
Q: Why did hexbear brigade the fediverse?
A: Certainly for the lulz. /s
People nominated instances here and when/if people had concerns, there'd be a megathread discussing/voting on defederation.
What?
You've forgotten to mention the minority that did not agree and how strongly they believed they were correct. You've seemingly not considered that democracy's best case scenario is mediocrity.
We will not be led by or stagnate upon popularity among the lumpen. Democracy be damned when faced with such a threat.