Apologies for the clickbaity title or for the messy wording to follow. I’m not great at articulating myself.

I’ve been finding myself posting less and less on Beehaw lately and that my enthusiasm for it is fading, and I have been trying to figure out why I personally have felt this way. Beehaw is, in theory, a great community with a solid foundation built on a good code of conduct and mission statement. This is the place that many of us wanted to find, especially those of us who long for the days of webforums and wanted that sense of community that Reddit never really provided.

I think I have figured out why now. Simply put: The vast majority of content posted to Beehaw is news. Much of that news ranges from mostly negative to downright doomscrolling doomerism. There is very little community engagement or discussion going on, just page after page of news. I don’t follow most news-heavy communities, so if I change my sorting then it will filter out some of it but then the posts I see are days to even weeks old. If I sort by Local - New then it is just page after page of news, most of it with very few or zero comments. And this is with several news-centric communities (like US news) already blocked.

Maybe this is just me or maybe some of you feel the same way, I’m not sure. Or maybe it’s just that this Reddit-styled UI doesn’t lend itself well to other types of engagement; I don’t know. But I was hoping to find more here than just another news aggregator. I was hoping Beehaw would be a more positive, uplifting, inclusive place.

  • HumbleFlamingo@beehaw.orgEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    I’m going to have to respectfully disagree here.

    If people can’t stay reasonably polite, they should excuse themselves from the conversation. Once I realized there was no way to steer the conversation back to reasonable polite, I disengaged from it.

    I think it’s perfectly fair to expect people to excuse themselves if they are unable to be reasonably polite and operate in good faith.

    And to be clear the discussion from my point of view, and I believe others in the thread was not “when are civilian casualties OK”. It’s a trolley problem, and there’s a ton of people on both tracks. Both tracks have civilians and both have soldiers.

    The big difference between your genocide example (and I understand you believe it is an extreme example and not a perfect analog) is no one was taking the ‘Harm is OK if position if X’. Both sides wanted to minimize harm done.