[tinfoilhatter]

That's not the case with the Gleam community though. Unless you're willing to adopt their opinions / values / moral stance on certain issues, you won't be treated respectfully - you will be ostracized for having an unpopular opinion or view on a given issue.

It is a totally insane way to run a project, and it's quite obvious the Gleam community is run by persons who are unable to handle people with opinions that differ from their own.

It does sound like a great way to build an echo chamber.

[okkdev]

Unpopular opinion like... being racist?

[tinfoilhatter]

Ah yes, because not automatically supporting grifts like the BLM movement (which enriched the founders and did very little for the black community at large), makes someone a racist - I totally forgot!

[DrNefario]

Black Lives Matter is objectively not a grift. There is an argument to be made regarding "BLM Global Network", but calling them BLM is like saying all vegans support PETA.

Regardless, that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You don't have to change your beliefs to be part of the Gleam community, you just have to not be an asshole about them. If you're the kind of person that starts an argument any time BLM is mentioned, is it understandable why they wouldn't want you in their community?

[self_awareness]

> Black Lives Matter is objectively not a grift.

There we go again. I think that you people would gain if you'd read what does it mean if something is objective and also the meaning of "subjective". Either you live in social bubbles or you're intentionally ignoring anything that's not in line with your ideology. I'm actually not surprised this is the case, since you're not allowing people outside of your bubbles in your community spaces. You cherish diversity, yet in reality you're the most ideologically closed social group that I know. Letting people in only if it's easy for you is very far from "welcoming".

You're accusing the parent of being an asshole, yet you dismiss his arguments based on false "objectivity". And because of your "objectivity", which is clearly subjective, you reinforce the argument that parent is not welcome in your community. How is this welcoming?

I mean I know the answer.

[DrNefario]

I explicitly did not call them an asshole, it was very much conditional on the way they choose to act inside these communities.

Regarding your accusation of subjectivity, I was addressing the misnomer that BLMGN is equivalent to the BLM movement - it's not. BLMGN might be a grift for all I know, but that cannot be used to call the entire BLM movement a grift. By definition a grifter is aware that they're grifting, do you believe that every BLM protest was organised by someone looking to make a profit? If not, BLM is objectively not a grift.

On the topic of being 'welcoming', clearly you don't understand the paradox of tolerance. Is it intolerant to exclude Nazis from a community? Obviously not, despite what the Nazis would claim, because Nazis make the communities they're involved in intolerable to anyone that's not a Nazi.

Thus, if you want to create an inclusive community, you have no choice but to exclude certain groups of people.

It's actually pretty simple to figure out which groups should be excluded: - Transphobes are constantly imposing their beliefs on trans people, trans people want equal rights. - White supremacists are constantly imposing their beliefs on black people, black people want equal rights. - Homophobes are constantly imposing their beliefs on gay people, gay people want equal rights. Do I need to continue?

To be clear, I barely interact with these "safe" communities - pretty much only when I need some help with my code. It's very easy to hide your beliefs if you want to participate, I could be a raging homophobe for all they know because I've never talked about gay people in there.

You say the they don't tolerate anyone outside their bubbles, but anyone is free to join and start getting support, there's no purity test. So do you mean they don't tolerate people questioning trans rights in a support channel? Because obviously they don't. If you want to start an argument there are plenty of appropriate places to do so, places that don't make people feel unsafe.

[15155]

> Transphobes are constantly imposing their beliefs on trans people, trans people want equal rights

What happens if you don't use the correct pronouns someone has declared for themselves?

Is this not "imposing beliefs" on other people?

This goes far beyond "tolerance": you must be an active, enthusiastic participant or face punishment.

> It's very easy to hide your beliefs if you want to participate

That's the point: only one set of ideas are allowed, everyone else must hide, regardless of forum.

> anyone is free to join and start getting support

Try espousing ideals contrary to theirs in completely unrelated venues and see how much support you get sans anonymity.

> places that don't make people feel unsafe.

"Feeling unsafe" is an outstanding weapon to crush behavior one doesn't like. Doesn't even require logic: it's literally a feeling.

[self_awareness]

For the sake of simplicity, and to detach our feelings from this subject, let's assume that Ω-GN is a grift. Ω is a superset of Ω-GN. We cannot conclude that Ω is a grift solely because a subset (Ω-GN) is a grift. However, can we objectively say that Ω is not a grift just because there are some instances within Ω that are not grifts? Clearly, there are also instances within Ω that are grifts, since Ω-GN (a subset of Ω) is a grift by our assumption. Therefore, the existence of both grift and non-grift instances in Ω means we cannot categorically label Ω as either a grift or not a grift based solely on its subsets.

Yet you say that objectively it's not a grift because there is at least 1 instance of a non-grifting event in Ω. Even Kenneth Copeland _sometimes_ is right about _something_, can we say that objectively he's not a liar because _there was at least 1 instance of him telling the truth_? I think not.

Also, you people use this word, "nazi", but do you actually know what are Nazis? German National-Socialists. Even the name "NAZI" is taken from German language. So if you ask me "what is wrong with disliking nazis", yet you use some artificial and historically wrong definition of a nazi, then I'm telling you that the problem is with you people using "nazis" for others who disagrees with you. I probably am a Nazi in someone's eyes, because I'm opposed to trans-women participating in women's sports. In reality, my grandfather fought with the actual nazis which existed in real world, not in your imagination.

> Thus, if you want to create an inclusive community, you have no choice but to exclude certain groups of people.

Yeah, this is how I understand it as well. People want easy inclusivity, a mono-themed style of thinking, and diversity only within their own strictly defined boundaries. I interpret this as a contradiction and a lie: diversity among selected groups is not true diversity, and inclusivity limited to chosen pools is not genuine inclusivity. For me there is absolutely no difference between this and a situation where whites stick to whites, blacks stick to blacks, etc.

If something is marked as "LGBTQ+ friendly" then I'm all fine -- it's very understandable and I know what I'm dealing with. But if something is "inclusive" then I automatically know I'm not in the target audience, because the sole definition of "include" is already loaded. The language already contains words with different meanings. For me this means "we're so closed, we even use our own definition of 'inclusion' to not think about the outside world".