TheRtRevKaiser

I hope no one takes this to mean that I am trying to stigmatize mental illness or people with mental illnesses, but it seems to me that if there are people who want to be famous or notorious so badly that they kill large numbers of people, that doesn't seem to be the result of a healthy or well ordered mind. Am I misunderstanding how the phrase "mental illness" is being used here? I recognize that the headline is referring specifically to disorders involving psychosis, but they even state that only 25% of mass shooters are associated with non-psychotic mental illnesses. Are emotional/behavioral disorders not being considered here? Or is the mass shooting database they are using one of those that includes any shooting with more than a certain number of people involved, even if that includes events that the typical person would not consider part of the phenomenon of the types of shootings that most people are thinking of when they talk about mass shootings?

Seriously, I hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes or saying something that will be taken as hurtful, because that's genuinely not how I mean it. But I really feel like if someone is in a state that they decide the best course of action for them is to kill a bunch of people they don't know, how could that be the result of a healthy mental and emotional state?

I completely agree. Thank you for this comment. This is one of the reasons that in many cases we try first to just talk to users. Lots of folks have bad days, or just have certain issues that they really struggle with staying calm and being kind about.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, but please remember:

1. Be Nice. You might think your cranky comment isn't a big deal, but when there are dozens of them it can get pretty overwhelming. The dogpile is real.
2. Technology@Beehaw.org is not a "free speech zone". I think Beehaw admins have been pretty clear on this, but our overriding concern is community building and creating a corner of the internet where people are good to one another, not creating yet another site where people can say whatever they like regardless of the harm it might cause others. I understand this might clash with what some see as a fundamental philosophy of the fediverse, but we disagree. This isn't the place to re-litigate those disagreements.

It's practically a guarantee that this Sharon's dog is the most obnoxious, poorly trained little shit to ever walk the earth on four legs, too. Nobody wants your fucking dog, Sharon, it's an unholy terror.

I was reminded of the trend of Milkshaking a few years ago. That wikipedia article includes a quote from a Vice Article on the trend that refers back to Serbian resistance as well.

But there's a method to all this dairy-based madness. Milkshaking can be seen within a tradition of nonviolent civil disobedience known as "dilemma action". A term coined by Serbian activists in the 1990s, dilemma action creates a lose-lose situation for the opposition. It’s a genius move reserved for some of the absolute worst people in our society, because there’s no good way to respond to a milkshaking: do nothing and you look like a twat, or fight back and look like you're overreacting. Plus, a milkshake will really mess up your suit. Still, that's not to say you should go out and do it, unless you want to risk arrest: the guy who milkshaked Farage has since been charged with assault, after all.

It's a pretty incredible phrase.

Thanks! I almost skipped it when I saw it pop up this morning, because I've seen so many articles about this topic, but I'm glad I didn't.

I read that point as posting less when it comes to issues of race and racism specifically, but it's possible I'm reading that into it. If so, it could be a little clearer.

Other commenters provided feedback that was given in good faith. Those replies were left up. I hope you can see why we might consider jumping straight to comparing the poster to Hitler when you disagree with their well intentioned post about how to better be anti-racist on Fediverse communities to be a bit problematic.

I agree completely. We do work hard to keep things inclusive and nice™ on Beehaw, but Technology is our largest and most active community by a fair margin, and sometimes folks don't respect the vibe on the instance when they comment - either because they don't realize what instance the post is on, or because they don't understand or maybe don't care to understand the ethos of the instance.

We've done some cleanup in the thread, but removals can take time to federate (if they federate at all, which is not guaranteed in my experience. Hopefully the discussion from here out will be more inclusive, but we'll be keeping a closer eye on the thread in any case.

We've removed some of the comments in this thread for expressing the exact racist sentiments which would warrant this type of post and for arguing in bad faith. This is a perfectly salient conversation to be having in this community so we will be leaving this thread up, but as a reminder, please engage in good faith and be nice. If you don't want to have conversations about anti-racism in Technology then I suggest you unsubscribe from this community and others on Beehaw.

On a personal note: I would be absolutely thrilled to see more, better discussions of the intersections of areas like race, gender, and sexuality with technology, and fewer arguments about which Linux distro is better.

I think pinned comments were added in a recent update, but in that case Beehaw hasn't updated for various reasons that have been explained elsewhere.

I'm not sure about the flairs. It would be a very helpful moderation tool in a toolbox that is quite limited at the moment.