I don't think this article goes well with the philosophy of Beehaw. I understand the arguments for violent action, but there's no context or discussion here, just a manual telling you how to act, which includes doxxing and armed action.
You say suicidal thoughts, which I believe you have, but you showed us your depressive thoughts. Some times, it's not intellectual, it's just one aspect of your biology you can't will away. You might need medicine, you'll definitely need to work on it without knowing if your efforts will get results.
I saw in another comment you talking about the things you love. Choose one and really set aside some time to enjoy it. Create a period of total selfishness. Do something practical.
Intellectually, to quiet the voices that are so negative and justify bad decisions, I suggest you question them, specially when they are absolute. For example, "there's no time to dedicate to what I love". Really? No time, zero? Is that the absolute truth? Try to be more truthful. Maybe the time you have is not enough (but again, really?), which doesn't mean zero time generally. Just being honest about your situation can help change perspectives and stop you believing the lies you tell yourself.
Do you enjoy watching videos? There are some professionals I regularly watch that usually help me see the directions I could go to improve myself. To tell the truth, I'm in a low right now and not being treated, but I wish I were.
Civil and high quality are two hammers educated people enjoy using to bash people without dieting their hands. The article address the fact they couldn't verify the content of the discussions, but decided the format shows they are better than the ones in which cursing is prevalent.
From my personal experience, I'd agree that trolls don't invest in their online personas, usually. Getting online in the 90's meant finding who I was, instead of transplanting my real identity to the internet. Without so much centralization, each one of us were a lot of different people expressing all our different sides in different places. Using the same user name everywhere would end up in nice surprises when friends from one place showed up in another, something that would put us in danger of persecution nowadays.
I would suggest something like a "good news week". The last week of every month dedicated to sharing the good content we have stumbled upon or experienced. Something to practice a new behavior and make it stick. I don't believe the changes will come organically. Or maybe a weekly challenge thread, with some goals to the ones that participate. Share a good memory, uplifting news, something that made you smile...
The obvious solution on X's side is to ID everyone that wants to post anything. And remember that the obvious solution doesn't have to be the best solution, a good solution or, even, a real solution at all.
Sorry to ruin your comment, even though I mean it, but they are only talking about the birds in the nests, not most birds that go with the flow like sheep.
Yes, we are worse off with less feminism. Unless the feminism in question excludes women, I'd argue for more intersectional feminism and for the evolution of what we already have.
As for the drive by claim. I'll not deny the article might be, deservedly so, considered in bad taste, but I don't see it as malicious. First, they quote the study that it is a response to:
Women are doing virtually everything these days that men are—working as doctors, lawyers, and rocket scientists; flying helicopters in combat; riding horses in the Kentucky Derby. And physically assaulting their spouses or partners.
Then they decide to make a joke about it:
According to a study of relationships that engage in nonreciprocal violence, a whopping 70% are perpetrated by women. So basically that means that girls are beating up their BFs and husbands and the dudes aren't fighting back. With Amy Winehouse busting open a can of whupass on her husband last week, we decided to conduct an informal survey of the Jezebels to see who's gotten violent with their men. After reviewing the answers, let's just say that it'd be wise to never ever fuck with us.
Honestly, I didn't get it either until the end:
He was, uh, totally asking for it.
They wrote a piece that made people very angry because what it said is terrible. I think that's the point.
I'm from Brazil and a little confused. What I found is that people in the US pay for a software that simplify the process of filing taxes. Free options would be more difficult or inconvenient. But I also read it is already possible to file taxes for free, as people are eligible, which I can't wrap my head around.
Here, as fast as I can remember, the only software comes from the government, from the time of floppy disks (provided free of charge) and Java. You can always pay a company to do that for you, but it's so simple for the majority that we are basically consenting with the use or validating the information they already had.
Maybe people are not really choosing, just going with the only option they know/ remember. If they have to choose from a menu, the first option is very likely and I imagine randomness would be involved.
“If you have an outcome-based approach and you do not reach the goals, then you have to apply additional measures […] whereas now you say okay, I tried, but unfortunately, it didn’t turn out the way I wanted to,” Paulus explained.
Politicians and producers love good ideas that will attract the public's attention, but should be tweaked just enough to not be executed as intended.
After ruining some installations and learning some more, I started questioning the fact that pyenv and some venv management are not taught at the beggining.
It's your site too if you stay - even if not technically true. I'd hate to see dissenting voices leaving or afraid to speak up. I understand the moderation argument, but I also know that having your contribution removed will feel like being silenced because that's what happened. There was a reason, but there's always a reason and the blow won't soften unless you agree with the reasoning.
You wanted to get the world out and couldn't. I believe people are listening here, on beehaw in general. You felt you were censored. I can't really deny that, but I'd suggest to still give the place a chance and see if a pattern emerges. Maybe don't visit for a while, it really worked for me getting away for several weeks.
The problem with tipping not being an extra is that one theoretically ends up paying the waiter's salary directly without being in a direct work relation with them. The restaurant pays people to be there, the clients pay the people to provide a service, the restaurant doesn't share their profits with their employees, the clients are pressured to decide how much of that profit should be shared and generate that number on the side.
It's the old two categories being exploited and pitied against each other.
I'll admit that I got confused. If you visit the site, the article is a response to the research that says women also hit men. I'd argue they simply chose stories of men beating women, flipped the gender and wanted people to be outraged.
Understanding people's disabilities more precisely is the direction we want to go. Using that to decide some of them (a lot of some of them) are not disabled enough is the problem. The researchers defend their method in the name of uniformity, which tends to squash personal realities.
Basically, they want to exclude people that answer "some difficulty" which equates them to "no difficulty at all". There's a world of difference between " I have no difficulty walking" and "I have some difficulty walking". I imagine the researchers judge the difference by seeing who's left behind and ignoring who is suffering to get to the same place.
I don't think this article goes well with the philosophy of Beehaw. I understand the arguments for violent action, but there's no context or discussion here, just a manual telling you how to act, which includes doxxing and armed action.