Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Stéphanie Pageau

@kissane I'm often scared that these "purity tests" will turn people entirely away from a good position.

I saw someone say that if you don't mask because of peer pressure, you're basically a fascist... wouldn't you prefer to get people to be COVID-safe from 90% to 95% of the time, instead of from 90% down to 0% because they think they'll never be able to be safe enough?

I don't know, I've been seeing a lot of black and white statements lately (and I'm sure I've made some too). I think it's important to think about the consequences that berating someone for not being absolutely perfect can have.

4 comments
Ryan Robinson

@stephanie @kissane
One of the few times I have invoked the wrath of the fediverse was when I dared to say I take off my mask on the elliptical because it gets harder to breathe when all my sweat is trapped around my mouth and nose. Didn't matter that I mask more than 99% of the population, basically anything other than sweating, eating, or needing to talk a lot.

Erin Kissane

@stephanie Yes, absolutely. I’ve spent a lot of time since 2020 with public health folks who do things like HIV prevention and vaccine hesitancy comms work and they’re all quite clear that purism and condemnation are wildly unhelpful ways of moving more people toward more safety. It was eye-opening! I know that a lot of people are just venting their (very understandable) rage but it’s such a counterproductive mode.

Fifi Lamoura

@kissane This! As someone who lived through and survived the AIDS crisis (and lost many loved ones to it), I am constantly annoyed by people who don't understand why we ran "safer sex" campaigns rather than demanding everyone stop ever having sex (abstaining from sex is the purist position on AIDS, not wearing a condom, and I wish that Covid zero people would understand this and why it's "safer sex" not "safe sex"). Harm reduction isn't a purist position and they do active harm to the message when they try to make it one. actu@stephanie@ottawa.place

@kissane This! As someone who lived through and survived the AIDS crisis (and lost many loved ones to it), I am constantly annoyed by people who don't understand why we ran "safer sex" campaigns rather than demanding everyone stop ever having sex (abstaining from sex is the purist position on AIDS, not wearing a condom, and I wish that Covid zero people would understand this and why it's "safer sex" not "safe sex"). Harm reduction isn't a purist position and they do active harm to the message when...

SlightlyCyberpunk

@stephanie @kissane "I don't know, I've been seeing a lot of black and white statements lately (and I'm sure I've made some too)."

Well, it *is* important to not be too black and white about being too black and white. There *are* lines that should not be crossed; the trick in figuring out which ones those are :)

But yeah this is a topic I've thought about a lot, and ultimately I think a lot of the purity people are probably absolutely correct...the disagreement fundamentally in more about the severity of the connequences. I can talk all day about the dangers of Google consuming the net but if I'm talking to one of my friends who doesn't own a computer, doesn't use social media, and needs an hour to get logged into their email when they're expecting something...well why the hell would they care? Sure it'll likely eventually affect them through government/corporate capture but at that point the argument is getting so abstract and there's so many other interventions available...

The purists are right...for a given lifestyle with a particular set of priorities. A single problem in isolation often will be black and white; the prioritization is usually where things get tricky. Because it's not just about what should be prioritized, but implicit in the question is *by whom*? I saw a post a little while back from someone who had asked the Mastodon devs to do more work on moderation tools, and the reply was essentially that they'd love to but they have other tasks they're working on that they feel are more important right now. So the complaint really was not that they don't care, but that they don't care *enough*. And I'm not sure I disagree with the devs, although maybe for a different reason -- I'm not sure I want them to be the ones making those decisions. I don't actually know how any of them identify but for the sake of example, is a cis straight German man in the best position to decide how to protect a queer latinx community?

And Mastodon is hard because that question of *by whom* isn't usually there on other social networks. Who needs to prioritize moderation on Twitter? Well...Twitter does. They're the only ones who can. But on an open network with open software that work can be done by anyone. So on Twitter the argument pretty much ends at "something should be done!" but here that is only the beginning. We all have the opportunity to contribute to WHAT should be done and BY WHOM. And that discussion is bound to get messy!

@stephanie @kissane "I don't know, I've been seeing a lot of black and white statements lately (and I'm sure I've made some too)."

Well, it *is* important to not be too black and white about being too black and white. There *are* lines that should not be crossed; the trick in figuring out which ones those are :)

Go Up