pitninja

Ick, keep my Twitter-like services and Reddit-like services apart lol. And unless I'm compelled with a strong real life reason, it's Fediverse socials or bust for me going forward, I think.

Quick, we need to get the /r/wallstreetbets folks in here to tell us how not to read it!

I'm pretty certain this is a bug and one that's going to be resolved soon if I'm reading the github PR's and commits correctly.

To be clear, you're not going to get definitive answers from anyone on canonical meanings for the tenets because they're open to interpretation. They were written fairly broadly by design to accommodate various worldviews (and likely to be interesting to discuss).

For me, Tenet IV which talks about the freedom of others to offend is not a paradox. You have every right to remove yourself from the company of those who are offending you, but they in turn have the right to be offensive. Now, that is not to say that people who choose to offend are absolved of the consequences of their actions. In our Satanic social circles for example, if people are offensive, they are removed and are free to go be offensive elsewhere. Therefore, the personal choice to offend as a Satanist is one that must be taken deliberately. I see this tenet as a caution against pushing for restrictive free speech in the public square lest we lose our own free speech which may, through no direct intent of our own, offend people like fundamentalist Christians, for example.

Tenet II which is about the struggle for justice has been kicked around a lot in discussions. The other part of the wording that people ponder is the meaning of "prevail". There are obviously various meanings for both of those words. Justice could be moral justice, social justice, legal justice... I've seen some people question if it even means retributive/vigilante justice and I think that's obviously a bridge too far and incompatible with the rest of the tenets, which are meant to be understood holistically. As far as "prevail" goes, I interpret it to be more of a synonym for "guide" or "inspire" than "supercede".

My story starts with becoming an atheist about 15 years ago, hearing about TST fighting to put a Baphomet statue on the state capitol grounds in Oklahoma, and then not thinking about them much for the next 9 years except when they'd pop up in the news and I'd laugh my ass off at whatever antics they were engaged in. I legitimately didn't realize it wasn't an elaborate troll for a long, long time.

That all changed last year when the draft Dobbs decision to overturn Roe v Wade was leaked. I saw that as a call to action. I went to protests and looked for any organizations I could find that are fighting for reproductive rights. Naturally, atheists on reddit at the time reminded me about the Temple, so I gave it a hard look for the first time ever and realized it was a serious religion. And, not just that, one whose core tenets I agreed with wholeheartedly. I was officially a Satanist by that month's end and haven't looked back!

The motivations for creating open source software can be political, but the product itself is apolitical. Programming code is pure logic and has no opinions.

I don't even really believe that software licenses are inherently political. All they do is permit/restrict specific rights to attribute, use, modify, reproduce, distribute, etc. the code. The only real political position I could see against software licenses is one that doesn't believe in protecting intellectual property rights. So if we're going that far, I will tacitly agree that software licenses could potentially be considered political, but not in a very meaningful sense IMHO.

The Linux Foundation is not the Linux kernel, though.

I'm actually perfectly in agreement with both of those statements 🤷

Thank you for responding thoughtfully and giving me things to consider I hadn't thought about much previously.

This seems like a tricky problem to me because, while I understand that there are inherent issues with deplatforming people who are simply edgier and more coarse in their dialog, whether it's due to their culture, socioeconomic status, or otherwise, I also feel like I have a right not to tolerate undue abuse in my online discourse. You mention your own ability to context switch with your use of language and I understand and appreciate that's a luxury and ability many people don't have in life. I guess I don't really see a great solution to the problem you've described other than flattening wealth inequality and getting people to mingle more amongst cultures starting at a young age.

As far as dealing with adults goes right now, though, I'm willing to have conversations with anyone who will genuinely consider my viewpoint and express why they agree or disagree rather than simply attack my character and offer nothing of substance. I'll engage even if they come back in a more hostile tone than I'd normally appreciate. You have not attacked my character and you've replied thoughtfully, so this exchange has been productive (at least for me) 🙂

Circling back to some of my previous thoughts, I think regardless of culture/class one general problem I see is that when we talk amongst our various in-groups, we don't have a direct contrarian viewpoint to challenge. This lets us get lazy in our internal discussions, accept as fact the ideas others would challenge, leave unexplained the concepts that our in-group just tends to know already, and worst of all vilify dissenting viewpoints to a dehumanizing extent. I see it in all groups, but specifically I see it first hand in liberal groups I'm in and I realize that it can be seductive to talk about conservativism (for example) as simply evil. Hell, I often see fellow liberals tearing apart their own if someone doesn't live up to a 100% purity standard they've created.

When I start hearing my liberal in-groups parrot such talking points, I take a step back and remind myself this is emotional, not rational, discourse and is not a productive way to discuss sociopolitical issues with others. Unfortunately, I don't think enough people do this, so we ultimately get shouting matches when different ideologies bump into each other. Thus, my impassioned plea is that we all try to moderate ourselves and our own in-groups to the extent we are able. We can downvote people we might otherwise agree with if they're being assholes, for example. It will make intersectional dialog more enjoyable for everyone.

100% there is absolutely no reason Reddit needs to be making 3rd party apps be brokers in paying for these API calls. Aside from the ridiculous price for API calls, they're implementing this in the dumbest possible way. And no NSFW is dumb as fuck too and honestly anticompetitive.

You're certainly welcome to build your own instance and choose who and who not to federate with, but if lemmygrad folks specifically are who you're trying to avoid, beehaw might be a good spot for you.

I couldn't tell you 🤷 I'm not sure if it documented in Boost for Reddit either and I couldn't tell you how I'd discovered it at this point. But you're right, I'd say it's at least worth mentioning in the app description in the Play Store (though the number of people actually read those closely probably isn't high).