elfpie

Thank you for going deeper. I see now the issue with gatekeeping. You're right, it is gatekeeping. We can express it in a more positive way, but the point is exactly not letting in people that might harm the community. As your said, it will repel potential members that would be good additions. In the future, when the community is strong enough and is able to deal with bad elements effectively, the gates won't be that guarded.

About some things not always being clear cut, it is not that big of a issue. Saying something that sounds xenophobic is dangerous because the lack of context is only beneficial to the ones that want to cause harm. My response to the comment would be asking for clarification, but that's my privilege, there's no risk to me. Imagine if I'm the foreigner in the country and there's a growing aggression against my people. I fear for my integrity and the law might be too late to protect me. A comment saying that they wish there were more people talking the local language becomes suspicious in this situation.

Imagine that someone can't identify who I am and say I deserve to be hurt. Should I alert them I'm the one they're taking about? What if it's a whole room talking like that? What if it's ten percent of a room expressing this feeling and the rest doesn't care?

These questions are not to prove a point, but to explain the reasons for the creation of safe spaces. So we are sure the room is not quietly agreeing.

I saw a lot of comments complaining about having to answer some questions before signing up to specific instances. Not that they were rejected, but having to apply. The question is: "Are you a decent person?". Anyone could lie, but the question is enough to show harmful behavior is not allowed and that we'll not be silent just because we aren't the victim of the day.

I guess what you see is what I see as well, even if our interpretations don't align perfectly. Nothing worth arguing just for the sake of philosophical ramblings.

The part about the alt-text, though. I saw a mention to it one day and didn't realize it became a issue. Mastodon and the fediverse suffer from trying to find an identity amid the decentralization. I think one of the reasons people are not fan of beehaw is that it has its own identity. People say they are part of the fediverse, but it's more accurate to say they exist in it.

And you're right about the options. We might not want or be comfortable moving, but we can. And, here at least, you're not isolated when you go from place to place until you find the one that's good for you.

I think of money as one form of contribution. People should contribute more instead of simply asking from a place of entitlement.

OK. I hear you, but I want to understand better before I make any argument. Why do you personally think safe spaces are unnecessary? As I said before, the space I talk about are the rules. Do you apply the same sentiment to the world in general, as in rules are not necessary?

I believe you have good intentions and we should be posting more, but the way you propose we do it is dangerous. You created an algorithm for a karma farm bot.

The part that you said we need more content to attract more content is correct. I treat it in a slightly different way. Just post what you want to read. Maybe the engagement won't be high, but I don't need hundreds of comments to feel satisfied with a discussion. A different point of view goes a long way.

How can someone ridicule the idea of safe spaces? That's what we all want. And it's not just an idea, it's a reality. Our houses are the ultimate safe spaces. As a teacher, I bet anyone would stop going to a class if the best teacher of the world called you a dumbass for every single mistake that you made.

We all expect or wish to be safe in our everyday lives. The ones that specifically look for safe spaces are the people that are not safe.

Toxic rationalism is a good take. The term elitism didn't seem correct, but the uncomfortable feeling that I sometimes have is the privilege that permeates that site. I said the world is a dangerous place before, but it's more dangerous for specific segments of the society.

It's enough to know that certain behaviors are unacceptable and will eventually be dealt with.

The same, but in a different way. Is there something that's exclusive to smartphones?

People seem to overreact to the loss of some convenience or extrapolate problems that are not real.

A local store being closed for a day doesn't mean the concept is dead. One branch of a megastore having trouble doesn't mean the whole chain sinking. Downtime is just a fact of life. Sometimes I don't even notice that they happened.

To be honest, I totally forgot you chose the language of the post during creation.

The part that really amazed me was the use of the language. Nearly every human excludes the whole of Australia. Mathematically it's probably right, but doesn't sound right to me.