Looking at the post you reference the person you talked to is a transgender person who moderates both LGBTQ+ and Transfem in Lemmy.blahaj.zone, they provide more than enough evidence of their minority status, but that wasn’t really needed. The question was what group was being harassed and thus this interaction would imply that the LGBTQ community is being harassed on Lemmy.

What I feel like you missed in your previous discussion is that the other person was talking about privacy in the context of being outed in the real world. The harassment being referred to was in the context of your real life identity being revealed or connected to your online conversation.

There’s no such thing. They are mutually exclusive. Take queer folk for example. We need privacy to be able to talk about our experiences without outing ourselves to the world. It’s especially important for queer kids, and folk that are still in the closet. If they don’t have privacy, they can’t be part of the community, because they open themselves to recognition and harassment in offline spaces.

Under this context they are looking for a feature similar to how Facebook (at least previously) allowed you to pick who could see your post as you were posting it. That way you could individually disallow specific people or groups from seeing them.

This doesn’t imply that the issue is that someone is being harassed on Lemmy and thus we need better blocking options. It’s really only an issue for someone who wants to dox themselves and still have private conversations, in which case Lemmy and most online forums can’t accomplish that natively across all instances/subreddits/groups. The only solution is to have a private instance with vetting and heavy moderation. If you don’t dox yourself you can generally avoid the whole issue here.

Based on this I think you’re making a different argument than what the block feature is or ever could be.

I’m sorry, but I feel like you need to support the statement “This comes from discussions I’ve had with minorities about the harassment they face on Lemmy and mastodon” a bit more. Your whole argument for limiting the speech of others is predicated on this statement.

I’m not saying that minorities couldn’t face harassment on Lemmy, but Lemmy is by far the most liberal and minority supportive online forum I have ever experienced. Part of the reason Lemmy is so niche is because it doesn’t have the mainstream attention other platforms have and is heavily moderated.

If you are engaging in an instance where harassment is occurring the moderators generally ban the person quickly. If the moderators of that instance aren’t doing their job people generally leave and the instance dies from lack of content (there just aren’t that many people on Lemmy). If someone follows you from a different instance to another the current instance moderators will likely ban them even if the one you met them on doesn’t. Finally, if they are direct messaging you you can block them, they can continue to message you but you won’t see their messages and neither will anyone else.

What minority group have you talked with that are receiving harassment and what extra protections were needed that aren’t already here?

How anyone can sympathise for him I don’t know

At the end of the day he is a human being, that’s why. I’m not trying to defend the guy, but fundamentally that’s what is supposed to divide the progressives/liberals vs the conservatives. The conservatives don’t care except when it’s their own while the progressives and liberals are supposed to care about all people supposedly.

All I have to say is get fucked loser

Well I can, but this is where people will argue what counts as “Europe.” Wikipedia maintains a list specifically titled “List of School Shootings in Europe”.

Using the same metrics as the US number (1999-current) the total number of European school shootings is 88, if not for 2024 the US and Europe would be pretty close between 1999 and 2023 (US 131 vs Europe 84).

For the other statistics the “What is Europe” becomes an even bigger problem and also the way schools are structured in Europe gets fiddly. Europe much more prefers a higher quantity of small schools while the US seems to prefer concentrating more students in less schools. So Europe has ~1.47 million primary education schools and 79k secondary education schools for ~70 million students vs the US with 130k schools for ~50 million students.

So, Europe has 40% more students, ~10x more schools, and ~25% as many school shootings. If we don’t count 2024 then Europe would have 64% as many school shootings as the US. One of the biggest holdups for making the data comparable is adjusting the European number of schools to match US schools or vice versa. If Europe had school distributions similar to the US the EU would have ~182,000 schools (70mil/x=50 mil/130000) and if the US had schools distributed similarly to Europe the US would have ~1.11 million schools (70 mil/1.54 mil=70mil/x).

When the number of schools is adjusted for differences in school structure European students have an annual average chance of a school shooting of 0.00185% (0.00184% not counting 2024) (88 shootings/26 years/182000 adjusted schools) or a 0.03% chance of ever having a school shooting ((1-(1-0.0000185)^12)). The US on the other hand would have an annual average chance of a school shooting 0.01369% (0.00403% not counting 2024) (463 shootings/26 years/130000 actual schools) or about 0.2% chance of ever having a school shooting ((1-(1-0.0001369)^12)).

Before anyone points out that my previous math showed 4% I’ll remind you that that was only using 2024 data, not all 26 years.

So when you actually look and adjust for Europe fundamentally having 10x more schools for 40% more students the incidence of school shootings over the last 26 years haven’t been that different. In the US it is about 7.4x more likely that a school will experience a shooting per year than in Europe, when adjusting the quantity of schools, but the % chance is already so incredibly low it doesn’t really increase the chance that a given student will ever experience a school shooting.

It is worth noting that Europe does have 10x more schools, and so when a school shooting does occur less people are in the school to be exposed to the shooting, but not taking it into account is an apples and oranges comparison.

EDIT: Just to quickly bring it back to my original argument, the difference between Europe and the US isn’t really how often a student will experience a school shooting, but rather the attitudes toward such events. Europe seems to grieve, find justice for those hurt, learn from mistakes, and move on with what works. On the other hand, in the US the parents grieve, someone sues, the school system looks for someone to blame, and the only thing learned is how to avoid a lawsuit.

EDIT 2: Revisited to double check and fix some math and numbers, if I messed something up feel free to let me know.

That’s not the take away you should be getting by any means. Yes, school shootings are more common in the US than the rest of the world, but they are statistically very very rare in the US. The reason why schools in the US react so dramatically for such a rare event is because they are trying to protect themselves from liability and lawsuit, not because they are trying to protect students or help troubled kids.

You don’t seem to have read my post…

A lot of this is overblown really. A few things:

1. The vast majority of school kids in the US will never deal with an active shooter situation.
2. 43% of school shooters in the US are themselves active students
3. Only 20% of school shooting perpetrators had no affiliation to the school, meaning that ~37% of shooters were former students, teachers, or parents.
4. From 1999 - 2023 there were a total of 131 school shootings, but in 2024 alone there were a reported 332 school shootings.
5. These are some terrible numbers, but statistically it’s a rare thing. There are approximately 130,000 K-12 schools in the US and ~75 million students per year. If we assume all schools have the same chance of having a school shooting (they don’t) they would have a 0.2% chance that your school will have a shooting that year or 4% chance that in your k-12 years that you would be at a school shooting.

When people talk about school security in the US they often don’t consider how litigious and risk adverse the US is. You don’t lock doors, build fences, and hire security guards to protect from such a small risk chance, if they actually cared there would be a greater emphasis on mental health. No, they do these things to minimize risk, lower insurance rates, and ward off lawsuits.

The defense writes itself,

“Hey, you can’t sue us for your child’s trauma, we did everything we reasonably could to ensure that a shooter couldn’t get into the school. We built a fence, we locked the doors, we made the kids wear clear plastic book bags, we used a metal detector, we hired a guard, we expelled kids who made threats, and we called the police on people who aren’t allowed to be here. If a kid then sneaks a 3D printed plastic gun on site and traumatizes the students it’s not the school systems fault.”

The US is crazy litigious, especially if a government entity is involved and someone might get a pay day. In my area a high school girl and some similarly aged boys ran away from school while at recess to a forest a mile or two off site. The girl then said she was sexually assaulted by the two boys, called her mom and was picked up and taken to the hospital directly (never came back to the school). The school had reported the girl missing, but only found out about the sexual assault after the mother filed a police report and the police reached out. The school cooperated with the police and reached out to the girl and her mother asking if she was ok or there was anything they could do, but the mother refused to answer their (the schools) phone calls or cooperate with the police. A year later the mother sued the school, the school system, the municipal government, and the police each for several million dollars for allowing her daughter to run away from school and for not protecting her from sexual assault in an offsite location. This lawsuit went on for over a year before the judge dismissed the case.

Are we looking at the same meatball because I don’t see any darker areas? I see some flecks of spice, but that looks like an unseared ball of meat to me. There are some tinges of red, but those are from the sauce poured over it, not from cooking. You can see the remnants of the sauce at the base of the meatball mixing with another completely different sauce. Pretty sure that meatball is just unseared boiled meat.

My only guess would be that the flotilla relaunched faster than anyone thought it would so the writer just updated the article. Looks like they departed Sunday, turned back on Monday, and relaunched within the same day (maybe even just a few hours).

Example, god would never allow the mass starvation of children no matter which god.

What makes you think that? Your concept of a god is that if they exist they would conform to human ideals of good or that their own rules would apply to them. You could instead argue that if god isn’t good then they therefore do not deserve to be worshiped which is a fair argument as well. However, if god does exist, does not conform to human ideals of good, and there are consequences for not believing in it or obeying it’s orders then you’re just up shits creek.

Just to throw out some examples from the bible but God allowed Satan to torment Job because Job was a loyal and good person, God allowed Lot to offer his daughters for rape rather than some angels, God turned Lots wife into salt for looking in a direction, God flooded the world and killed everyone but one small family, the plagues of Egypt, when the Israelites came to the promised land they encountered other civilizations which God told them to kill every man, woman, child, and beast. We don’t need to look at modern examples, we don’t get past the old testament without it being clear that if the Christian (or Jewish for that matter) God exists he doesn’t follow his own rules.

I don’t know other religions as well as Christianity, but considering Islam, Judaism, and Christianity share some commonalities I’m going to lump them together. In Greek mythology the gods are straight up sadistic at times and the people were supposed to be ok with it, Hera tormented Hercules for being born and the Trojan War was started because one god didn’t get invited to another god’s wedding. I don’t know a lot about the Aztec gods, but as far as I can tell it was believed they required human sacrifice at least on some frequency. I’m sure there are more examples in other religions, but the fundamental argument is the same.

I’m not really trying to change your mind, I myself would probably be closer to agnositic, but a lot of atheists try to logic their way around the existence of god as if god is another person when in reality the relationship may be similar to you conversing with an ant. You might be right and god doesn’t exist, but to say they don’t exist because they allow suffering in the world is fundamentally counter to what most religions say about their god(s).

It already turned around due to bad weather

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/aid-flotilla-heading-gaza-returns-barcelona-due-stormy-weather-2025-09-01/

Please forgive me, but I’m going to answer your post in the opposite order it was given.

I completely agree about the comedy and the satire of the original comic, I’m not opposed to it being over the top to deliver it’s comedic message. I’ll also say that the message is comedic in a dark way. The issue inherent to it is when you have people giving seemingly literal agreement to satirical statements, which is what a lot of these comments have devolved into. Your own post was 659 words, 44 lines, and 14 paragraphs obviously this discussion isn’t just about visual shorthand of a comic, it has some amount of real world investment.

As to your first question, I can’t give a concrete answer. As with many psychological things I can’t tell you what is a reasonable amount of suspicion, but I can say what is an overreaction. Similarly, I can’t tell you what a reasonable amount of collecting is, but I can spot hoarding. I can’t tell you what a reasonable attention to detail is, but I can spot an obsessive compulsive behavior. I’m not a doctor, and won’t pretend to be one, so I can’t tell you in definite terms what a reasonable suspicion is, but I can certainly identify an overreaction.

If someone sees an overly dramatic comic about women being fearful of men and their reaction is to defend the over dramatic behavior then that’s an overreaction. When men call out this behavior as overly dramatic and someone defends it, and in fact doubles down on it, then it’s clearly not just satire or a dark joke.

If we’re using the example of the hotel room I would venture to say that a reasonable level of suspicion would be to lock the door, turn the deadbolt, put the swing arm on, and don’t open the door for strangers. If you start getting into hiding, configuring contraptions, barring the door with chairs, and checking the mirrors to see if they are see through, that’s an overreaction in my book.

That’s fair.

I’ll play devil’s advocate here a bit, but living in a culture where guns are a constant does put limits on a lot of activity. It’s also 100% true to say that people looking to cause damage will do so regardless of repercussions and often in spite of them. In most ways I agree that gun reduction overall has a greater reduction in harm than gun availability. That said, when living in a society where anyone and everyone can have a gun it definitely impacts some of the decisions you make.

I see youtube videos about people freaking out in traffic and getting out of their car to fight and my first thought is that they have no idea if the driver has a gun. The danger of gun culture for most people in that culture isn’t a random shooting at a school or mall, even if that’s what gets the news. The real danger of gun culture is getting into a minor argument or misunderstanding and someone shoots you for little to no reason. It doesn’t matter if they are going to go to jail for wrongful manslaughter or murder if you’re already dead.

When you live in gun crazy society it for sure cranks down a certain amount of behavior amongst normal people. The problem inherent to this is that there are stupid people with guns who for some reason don’t think other people have them and engage in confrontations as if that’s the case.

I get calling it nitpicking to split hairs about when Colbert was fired, even if justified financially (obviously firing someone when there is a contractual penalty isn’t the best business sense), but what are your thoughts on the last sentence the OP made? Yeah, Colbert was fired, whether he was fired today or two weeks ago it’s till fired, but the network also choosing to not fill other unaffiliated and vacant late night slots does seem to give credence to the idea that they might just be trying to get away from late night shows.

First off, uh no I would not blame the victim for being raped and murdered and the fact that that is what you lead with is pretty telling. Next I think it’s really telling that you are saying the over reaction is “basic precaution.”

If a woman does a normal amount of precaution, such as locking the door and not opening it for strangers, that’s normal and perfectly reasonable. If the woman literally barricades herself in that’s insane. In either case, if she is attacked or raped it’s not her fault and but that doesn’t mean overreaction isn’t overreaction.

I’m all for saying fuck the police, but what are you talking about with quasi-military garb and why are you bashing them for wearing high-vis vests?

These look like the worst equipped cops I’ve ever seen. I’m from the USA and I’ve seen Italian Police look harder than these guys, they at least had cars and sub-machine guns. These guys have boots, handcuffs, pepper spray, a fucking belt mounted medkit, a collapsible billy club, a baseball cap, cheap-ass-commercial-laundry-uniform-contract cargo pants, a black t-shirt, and a stab vest. The pigs don’t even have guns and they are wearing “please-don’t-run-me-over” safety vests.

The guys on the street have the right reaction, there’s obviously no threat here.

I think the problem with your argument is the measure of paranoia. It’s 100% reasonable to be suspicious and cautious around men, strange or familiar, if you’re a woman. The issue I think most men have to this isn’t reasonable suspicion or reasonable caution, but rather the over the top reaction women online seem to have.

An example of this might be a youtube video about women checking into a hotel alone vs a man checking into a hotel alone. The man checks in and goes right to bed, the lock on the door automatically engages when the door closes. The example with the woman has her block the one way peephole, double check the deadbolt, brace a chair against the door handle, string a tight rope from the door handle to a firm anchor in the bathroom, unplug the phone, close the blinds, check that the mirror isn’t see through, and sweep the room for listening devices. You see this and think it must be satire, and it might be, but then you go into the comments and there’s a ton of women saying how true this is and how you gotta be careful of men when traveling alone. Every so often you’ll see a comment from a man about how this is insane and all the women respond how he’s privileged and doesn’t understand why women have to do all this.

No man is going to begrudge a reasonable reaction to strangers and safety, but relating to a comic about seeing a spam notification about singles in your area and locking your door is ridiculous. It’s this over the top reaction that men become offended by, not reasonable caution.

Eh, that’s not really a good example. The US already has more people incarcerated per capita than any other country. The biggest limitation is how many people they can arrest at one time, not how many people they will arrest total. You might be able to get enough people to protest at once that they can’t arrest them all at once, but they absolutely will arrest them over 1-3 years. They kept arresting Jan 6th people for 4 years under Biden, you don’t think that the current administration will be after you as long as possible?