I think the big question here is still where we land. It could easily be somewhere in the 20-30k range.

[email protected] for folks who want to go straight there.

Love this idea. I think we should also make sure that we are keeping broader fediverse compatibility in mind. Particularly kbin and mastodon.

Why are we so shitty to each other?

Pretty sure it’s a result of over a decade of algorithmically incentivized cultural shift. Fights drive clicks and they clued into that pretty early on.

Some interest specific instances that I haven’t seen here so far:
slrpnk.net
fanaticus.social
mander.xyz

There’s also a brand new currently unfederated instance for legal professionals at links.esq.social

The way I see it there are 2 paths forward for Lemmy. Without at least one of these scenarios occuring it seems unlikely that we’ll get back to a level of natural growth.

1. Reddit starts fucking up again. If this happens it’ll probably be because of or sometime around the IPO so be on the lookout for that.
2. We start getting significant user growth from other fediverse platforms, likely Mastodon. These users already understand how federation works and are actively looking for a lot of the features that Lemmy has to offer on their existing platforms. I think the way to get there is primarily through topic dedicated instances springing up as professional groups find Mastodon does not truly fit their needs. One recent example of this is links.esq.social which is a brand new currently unfederated instance for lawyers and legal professionals.

These things absolutely can be fixed in an update but I think we both know the devs have no intention of going in that direction.

We do need to continue growing at a natural but sustained rate. 50-60k is not a healthy place to stop and there’s still a lot of low hanging fruit development-wise.

You know this could really be the GENESIS for a modern web based LIBRARY.

Some other Schedule III drugs:

• Products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dosage unit (Tylenol with codeine)
• ketamine
• anabolic steroids
• testosterone

[email protected]

This is awful but not anything new as far as I’m aware. My high school had it and that was just a little under a decade ago. It’s easy to look at these things in the context of the rise of authoritarian strong-man politics and go “holy shit that’s horrible” but it’s important to remember that most of these horrifying new dystopian features of society are actually the result of the decades of fear-mongering about drugs, crime and terror.

The implication that the experiment cited was at all meant to backup the assertion that there exists a

phenomena wherein men tend to feel the need to dominate discussions regardless of their actual qualifications

is very clearly a mischaracterization. What I did was describe the content of the video in a comments section otherwise devoid of any evidence that anybody had watched the video. If you are interested in looking into the body of work that establishes the tendency of men to talk over others, I have found the full-text of the fairly foundational metastudy “Understanding Gender Differences in Amount of Talk: A Critical Review of Research”. It’s notable that most of the research on this topic leading up to the present day has been framed as answering the age-old question “Do women talk more?”.

attributes a lot of reasons for why the men did this

Those are not reasons in so far as they are meant to explain the men’s motivations but rather the methods by which they wrestle and maintain control of the discourse. It’s important to understand that this is written largely to bring them to the attention of the folks that are actively marginalized by these activities, so that they may counter and dismantle these systems.

Nope. There be trolls over there.

The video spends a long time on the phenomena wherein men tend to feel the need to dominate discussions regardless of their actual qualifications. It cites one experiment wherein 16 women and 9 men had an introductory conversation on the issue. During this conversation there were 6 active speakers. 4 men speaking for a total of 9 minutes and 2 women who spoke for a total of 1 minute. These tendencies are mostly due to individuals desires to claim leadership of a group but absolutely leave us “paralysed and unable to push for the necessary policy changes”. If you are interested in watching any portion of the video, you can skip to the part that I mentioned by going here.

The paper that the video cites: https://www.environmentandsociety.org/perspectives/2017/4/article/taking-space-men-masculinity-and-student-climate-movement

Petromasculinity is a well documented phenomena and when paired with the male tendency to dominate discussions and consolidate power in hierarchies (both are covered in the video in the form of studies wherein climate oriented groups are completely derailed by their male participants apparent need to talk the most and shut down group based discussion) we see a problem that is salient and familiar but applied to a crisis where the stakes could not be higher. For the men in this thread who are unwilling to even WATCH the video let alone consider the merits of its arguments, it is very likely that you are actively the problem, because the same tendencies that inspire that action are also used to silence voices that can be instrumental in actual change.

In conclusion you are @PM_ME_FAT_ENBIES in the exchange.

Modlogs are public. Not just for moderators.

What was your old username? Would be helpful to look you up in the modlogs

What was your old username? Would be helpful to look you up in the modlogs