MizuTama

No, it's not possible to edit someone else's post on Lemmy as a platform. We can't even mark a post as NSFW for content warning tags.

The Lemmy devs were very adamant that they never want that as a thing during their AMA earlier this year, just uninformed users being uninformed and jumping to weird conclusions for some reason

Ah, lmao good ol' Scamwig stays at it. I wouldn't be surprised though if sometimes it requires both, I'm pretty sure I've met people that were likely viewbotting and still didn't end up with a following.

Can you rephrase that for me? I'm not sure if I had way too much caffeine but I'm not sure if I'm reading the end of that sentence correctly.

I have seen convincing videos from people on how to fairly consistently drive traffic to videos with know-how but even some of them just say that streaming is a lot of luck from what I recall with the notable mouthpiece of this being Ludwig.

So i did make a mistake there the non-ASD neurodivergents should be their own group as an unknown as to how they'd generally respond. But i would guess theres atleast a bit of overlap with ASD and some other types of nuerodivergency on this. Since its pretty common to have overlaps like that.

Gotcha, I know ADHD has an extremely high occurrence rate on ASD diagnosed people so it would be elevated if not simply for the fact that this behavior is common in ASD folk as is ADHD (I believe roughly 70% of people tested diagnosed with ASD who test for ADHD are diagnosed with that as well though this is me also vaguely recalling a study I read some time ago). I wasn't sure if there was information I had missed regarding similar trends in ADHD populations when controlled for ASD co-occurrence.

I can't see the comment to directly respond to it on Hexbear for some reason, but do you have a source for the ADHD portion of the claim? The source seems to only concern ASD, not ADHD.

It isn't an issue for me, I just wanted to float some reasons that liberal idealism tends to meet strong resistance here. There are more pragmatic reasons for the stances taken as well, which with my current understanding, I agree with. But frankly, I'm currently too drunk and too behind on theory to be a good source to articulate it. Assuming you aren't banned on my instance and I remember through my ADHD deluge, I might circle back on this in the future and explain further.

Yeah, at that point we're playing semantics, then I think since we're reaching a point of agreeing on the premise of the idea with different terms.

I disagree that they are the modern public square, in the loosest sense, especially in cases such as Lemmy that are instanced. You aren't blocked from the whole of Lemmy, you're blocked from a particular instance but still able to access a lot of it. If anything, it's closer to a publicly accessible private space: if I have a garage sale and I'm letting people look around, it's publicly accessible but still not in the public domain. I have different opinions for nationalized sectors, i.e., if Twitter were bought by the U.S. government, but that's more so due to a distrust of government power than a sense of free speech absolutionism. A lot of Hexbear are folks who are disproportionately harassed by people who typically abuse the more idealist leanings of free speech idealism and have suffered continuous distress from that, so I'm not particularly surprised you're met with hostility from folks here .

I think it's pretty clear from my first comment that I am a free speech absolutionist. So no I don't believe shutting off certain opinions even I find them abhorrent.

Like I said before. We appear to fundamentally disagree, so I don't really see any point in going down this road. You think I am a "free speech warrior shithead" already and I think your way of thinking is short sighted.

What about when that "abhorrent" opinion is just couching violence in innuendo and insinuation? Often facist rhetoric such as Neo-Nazis (in the most literal sense) have recognized that they'll often get defended up until they outright call for violence and have adapted tactics to continue sustained harrassment campaigns until they manage to inflict psychological harm that can accomplish the same goals of their physical harm.

to sell you something. But for most topics they aren't as simple or straightforward even if some people try to make it that way. It's more of a scale. Lots of grey.

Just because there are scales of grey doesn't mean there are not more correct versions of things depending on your goals. Just because they are not clear does not mean they don't exist. Simple and straightforwardness have nothing in relation to the correctness of them but the accessibility of that correctness.

I mean, so you're saying people shouldn't have the ability to remove people from their spaces as long as their not outright calling for violence or getting physical? I'm not talking about some type of government intervention, but private groups or spaces in this context.

Edit: Also, you say calls to violence aren't free speech, but I've met plenty of absolutionists who disagree. You are drawing a line there, saying that. There are also various degrees between wishing ill on someone and an outright call to violence that is decided by the audience receiving it. I don't think the above user telling you that you kill yourself is a call to violence for example but many would disagree there.