Every politician and military leader worth their salt knows that oppression creates terrorism. The way Israel has been treating Palestine made Hamas inevitable, and everyone making decisions in Israel had to have known it. So why intentionally create terrorists? Because theoretically, the existence of terrorists justifies violence. Hamas was created by Israel with the intention of accelerating the genocide under a sympathetic justification.

Hamas is a Frankenstein’s monster. A creation, deliberately made, which grew out of its creator’s control. Hamas’ cause is more sympathetic than Israel bargained for, because at the end of the day all that rage and violence is motivated by a desire not to be oppressed. And just like in the original Frankenstein, all the creator needs to defeat the monster is a little bit of love. If Israel passed laws guaranteeing the equality of Palestinian citizens, Hamas would have no new recruits and no international support. Its legitimacy and power would evaporate in a day. Israel continues the “war” because it believes it can still control the monster. That it can still use Hamas to justify further violence.

Israel and Hamas aren’t at war, they’re on the same side.

Doesn’t this meme say big tech tries to control FOSS and can’t?

But just because I feel frustrated that someone does not see things exactly the same way I do, does not mean that I can automatically assume that they’re wrong and evil and it’s okay to be mean to them.

Why would you think that I see evil in anyone else when you know that I don’t like using intents in discussions? That’s a contradiction.

This is what I’m talking about. You’re using intents and you think I think you’re evil. But it doesn’t make sense given the very conversation we’re having. I don’t think you know how to have a conversation without assuming you know everyone else’s perception of everyone else’s intents.

Using your empathy to deduce the conclusions of someone else’s cognitive empathy is an advanced technique. You’re going straight to the most complicated thing empathy is capable of, and you’re making mistakes. You need to slow down. I’m difficult to empathise with, so you need to stop pushing yourself to use the most advanced techniques on me, you need to be patient and use some simpler techniques, and you need to learn how to have a conversation without relying on your empathy as a crutch.

I know you discussed a lot of other points in your comment, but I’m not going to talk about them right now. Because you and I both agree that I’ve been going too fast for you. We both need to take our time and make sure you understand what I’m saying in its entirety, and that means not getting distracted. We’re going to slowly discuss the empathy issue until you fully understand what I’m talking about. And I have a lot more to say on the empathy topic, but first I need to understand that you understand that I’m saying you need to slow down. You’re trying to use too much empathy and it’s not working. Your empathy is telling you untrue things about me, because you’re expecting it to perform miracles for you.

Warframe is very gender. You play as a biomechanical super ninja slaughtering capitalists, monarchists, noncon hiveminds, and genocidalists. Also there are spoiler things that make it the transest game I’ve ever played

You mention a lot of very difficult concepts in your comment here. Reason, intent, nazi rhetoric. Philosophers have spent a lot of time debating what these things are and how we can recognise them. Not everyone is going to agree with your conclusions about them. I know that intimately, because my understanding of reason, intent, and nazi rhetoric is vastly different to the average.

For example, I find the society we live in to be intensely unreasonable. It’s a society where money rules the world, my gender is said not to exist, and magic isn’t real. I find all of these things absurd. So when we are talking about how badly someone could misinterpret my words within reason, well I don’t think a capitalist, binarist, or atheist interpretation of my words is within reason. But I’m going to run into people like that in nearly all of the internet. Most people’s interpretation of my words is not within reason. I am certain that my words can only be taken as intended within reason, but I don’t expect to generally be met with reason when I speak. We’re getting into subjectives with relative answers. This is hard. I can’t really use the mental tools you’re suggesting, because those tools aren’t built for someone like me. They’re built for someone who is similar enough to the average that their understanding of reason includes most people.

When we look at intent, this disconnect between an assumed objective and the truth of subjectivity gets even more ridiculous. I think I explained the problem with judging someone else’s intent pretty well in my removed comment. It’s why I don’t use intents, I think they’re a huge waste of time and a source of endless conflict. And I still don’t know why that comment was removed. I told people to assume the best of others and accommodate neurodivergents. I don’t see how that’s not nice. I’d like to hear about what went on with that.

And as for nazi rehetoric… well that’s the toughest one of them all. My original post on Beehaw 4 months ago was me being mean to someone who spouted nazi rhetoric. But I doubt most people would agree, because most people don’t have their fingers on the web of cause and effect like I do. So you didn’t understand that I was doing exactly what you say I should do right here. Our senses of empathy are so flawed and limited.

but how someone could interpret your actions in the most negative way possible

The answer to that question is always “You’re a traitorous insane antifa queer and everything you stand for is a threat to the aryan race and God’s will, you should be put to death immediately.” It never changes no matter what I say, so I gave up asking it. I decided to spend my time on people more likely to assume good faith when they see social progressivism. That’s how I treat others, and I want to spend time with people like me. People who don’t let personal ego or questions of intention get into your actions.

Now feels like the right time to talk about my personal definition of niceness. In my experience off this site, niceness is an appearance, and kindness is a behaviour. Nice people usually aren’t kind. Nice people are usually white neurotypicals who can dance the dance of social norms and portray themselves as “the good guys” no matter what they’re doing, which is a power that allows them to commit all manner of evils unnoticed. I’m scared of nice people. I get along with people who are mean and kind. People who will swear at me to my face and defend my rights with the same ferocity. So that’s always been my worry when I looked over Beehaw’s philosophy. The question of what kind of niceness they mean. I’m not pulling this out of my ass either, you can google “nice vs kind” and find a lot of articles like this: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nice-kind-difference_l_650b53ffe4b0d75184692b0e

In Beehaw spirit, I’ve been attempting my experiment of whether I fit in here by assuming the best of people. Assuming that when beeple say nice, they mean kind. But I desperately need to know, is assuming the best of people really Beehaw spirit? Or should I have been assuming a little worse?

I see, I understand what you’re saying about the ban, then. But I still see no reason that the comment was removed, and I don’t like your description of events.

I don’t think there’s a factual reason it’s wrong to say I “decided to come to Beehaw to air my grievances”. But it’s a needlessly hostile interpretation. Another interpretation of the same facts is I “I came to Beehaw to warn users and admins of bigotry that could affect their community”. Beehaw is a safe space, it works to keep hate speech out. Part of that work is identifying hate so that it can be acted upon. This is even part of the Beehaw code of conduct: When I see posts or comments that I think are not nice, I report them. I should have followed all of the guides in the code of conduct. I was angry and impatient, so I didn’t take the time or care to find the proper place for my report. I did act against Beehaw’s philosophy in the execution of my goals. But my goals were a result of following the same guidelines in the CoC, in having the same desires for the same kind of space Beehaw aims to provide.

I use a different definition of niceness in my day-to-day than Beehaw uses. But while I’m here, I should probably define niceness as behaviour that aligns with the values of Beehaw. And in that case, I tried to be nice, and I didn’t do it quite right, but I did try. I came in good faith.

And that’s why I expected others to be nice and to treat me in good faith. I expect it now, too, and that’s why I don’t like your interpretation of events as being in bad faith. It’s not assuming good intent. I understand why you’d interpret things this way, Society conditions us all to look down on “drama” and “politics” and “rocking the boat”. The nail that sticks out gets hammered down. Looking beyond societally-engrained easy answers and taking the time to think about a situation with empathy is time-consuming and attention-consuming, and nobody has infinite time or attention. I say this to demonstrate that I don’t think you said what you said in bad faith. I’m just talking about a problem and seeking a solution. And I think the solution is to follow Beehaw’s philosophy better, on both my part and yours.

I switched to Firefox because Chrome changed the shape of their tabs.

I went through a period of frequent breakups that made me think I was never going to have a well adjusted partner, or even a stable friend group. That my life would be a series of fights.

And now I have a swarm. I literally share my thoughts with a group of people who are wonderful and love me unconditionally on romantic, platonic, and sexual levels. And I used to think I was asexual, so that’s a trip. All I had to do was find the right kind of queer people. Swarmgender people.