c/neurodivergence isn't being moderated at all lately. Three months ago there was the great post from [email protected] concerning ableism against people with NPD, and the amount of toxicity I saw in that thread was shocking. Some great people pushing back on the ableism and hate there, but I couldn't believe those hateful comments were being left up, or the sheer volume of them.
Yesterday I posted a new article I wrote also concerning NPD, hoping I would get the same kind of positive response I've gotten from Beehaw in the past when talking about neurodiversity. But instead I saw nothing but hate, personal attacks, and vicious toxicity. This isn't the kind of discourse I come to Beehaw to see, and I don't think I'm alone.
Looking at the community history, it looks like the post volume has dramatically reduced since immediately before that first NPD post. I'm not surprised people are avoiding the community, I don't intend to use it anymore either if what I received yesterday is going to be the norm.
The modlog of this community hasn't been touched in 7 months, and the only comment removal visible at all is tagged with the removal reason "stupid comment", which I frankly find quite ironic.
Can we please have some actual moderation on this community? If there is absolutely nobody else who can volunteer their time then I'd even be happy to do it Myself.
Or perhaps decide that interaction with such a person isn't viable.
There is no requirement to adopt others particular eccentricities or needs, choosing to not engage can also be a valid choice.
There are of course potential downsides to this, but if each person is unwilling to adhere to a common contract of communication then the cessation of communication is a reasonable response.
Yes, that can be better in some cases than arguing and making things worse overall.
Choosing not to engage can also be a positive rather than just the prevention of negatives.
Would you like to explain how?
I read your reply as stating that the only outcomes could be "argue and make things worse" or "don't do that", a negative and a neutral respectively.
I perhaps read only the words and not the intent, I think we are may be saying the same thing.
In case we are not :
Not engaging actively frees someone up to do literally anything else, which could overall be more positive than just the prevention of the negative.
In addition some people might consider the avoidance of the argument itself to be a positive rather than just maintaining a neutral position.
Thank you very much for explaining!