I’m not sure if I’d like to excuse any way of talking. I like that direct way of talking. They attacked a decision, not any person. I also like to say whatever i want while solving problems, without any complicated social etiquette or putting additional effort in social interactions. Sometimes I’m right, sometimes somebody else tells me I made a bad descision. I can handle that. I just think being blunt, overstepping a bit or being allowed to vent is a healty way of dealing with human emotions. (Within boundaries.)
I'd agree with that except they are doing it as a public-facing "official" statement, which generally should be a bit more "professional" in tone IMO. I would certainly describe it as an attack. At its more charitable it was just incredibly passive aggressive and unnecessary. You can say "we believe this is a mistake" without accusing people of being ignorant.
rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
I agree. And i don’t know if the admins talked to each other or just pulled the trigger and/or issued statements. I don’t know the whole story and I shouldn’t judge.
In the end it’s just sad that our small federated world needs to be split up into even smaller chunks. I don’t think this is healthy. But i don’t have any solution to offer.
hoodatninja@kbin.social 1 year ago
I guess it worries me less because it's certainly not the norm and users can still "travel freely" while those who only want to be on beehaw now have a default experience slightly more catered to their values. It just doesn't seem to have any major tangible cons.