DivergentHarmonics

Ooh ... excuse my slight neurodiversity. I guess i'm just not a part anymore of a sickening society. Went to other places on that other platform the short periods i spent there.

Appreciate you taking your time to be so verbose. :-)

Yep i read the first part. That was part in my decision making for sighing up on this server. Now i'm getting around to reading the second part. Thanks for explaining your take on what you call "rationalism" because else that would have left me questioning. Am i right in taking the term "centrist" as political? Would have to educate myself on that.

What is your definition of being "nice", actually? This question is hard to answer, i know. What i mean is, demanding from someone who is upset and therefore gets emotional, to switch to "non-violent speech", is a form of tyranny. My stance on voices that get emotional because of dissatisfaction is that they are in need to get heared more than those who are satisfied anyway. Conflicts are actually a valuable part in my work, as they are so revealing about people, and they provide a lot of energy that can get transformed for the better. People might be in a state where it's just impossible for them to be "nice", and demanding it from them would result in them getting yet more aggressive. In that sense, a demand for being "nice" is a demand for masking dissatisfaction, thus becoming a hindrance to resolution.

I can very well be nice and slap someone in the face with a sarcastic irony, without people even realising it. Just don't want my account to be trapped in a space that tends to consequently give PC tyrants an upper hand. I'm not from USA btw so those typical masking standards are not so much part of my culture. I'm all for being civilised and i think that i am :-) but i'm also understanding of people getting angry because i might understand some of the psychology behind it -- and some people might be nice and all but they are still fundamentally being idiots.

edit 2: Before anyone gets confused by this comment, here is some solution. The examples here are how a web browser displays the URL in the address field. For a link to work in the federation, the browser must be made to assume we want to link to another webpage within the same domain (that is, the server we are logged on to). This is done by omitting the domain from a HTML referance. Of course. It's W3C standard. See this post which clarified it: https://lemmy.ml/post/1168136.
... unfortunately, links to federated posts and comments are still broken because posts synced to other instances get a different ID than the original.
end edit 2

original comment:
"beehaw.org/c/community@instance.org" -- example: beehaw.org/c/lemmy_support@lemmy.ml
or lemmy-specific syntax that will bring up a list of communities known to your instance as you type, and choosing from there will make it a link: "!community@instance.org" -- example: !lemmy_support@lemmy.ml
... unfortunately, this dosnt work for lnks

edit: seems that i just uncovered a ~~bug~~ systemic inconvenience, because the link that is generated leads you directly to that instance's webserver ... which we don't want if this is posted on our home instance (because the link should actually enable us to post on that remote instance). otoh, if we are viewing this from a third instance, then a link "instance2.org/c/community@instance.org" would likely not work at all. (right?)
check: beehaw.org/sopuli.xyz/c/lemmy@lemmy.ml -- nope!
check: /c/lemmy@lemmy.ml -- yep!

Neurodivergence spaces like r/Aspergers, r/AutisticWithADHD, and r/autism

definitled!
add r/HSP