I recently made an account on Beehaw because I've been having pleasant interactions with the instance from my lemm.ee account. Some good threads, seemed like a progressive space. So I went back to the philosophy documents and read them again, liked most of what I saw (again) and signed up for an account today. Decided to break in my new account by browsing the top posts of the last month. Several of them were threads I recognised and had commented in, and felt like revisiting. Except my comments weren't there. When I got to a comment I very specifically remember replying to (someone asked what's up with HBomber and James Somerton), and couldn't find my comment, I decided to check the modlog.
I'm banned. I've been talking into an empty void for 4 months. I was banned for being in bad faith. And one of my comments was removed by an admin, because I told people to assume good faith and apparently that's not nice.
This doesn't align at all with the documents I've been reading today. The ones about assuming good faith, and about giving people chances to clarify, and about how banning is a last resort only for obvious trolls. When I came to this community 4 months ago to make a post about fediverse drama, I wasn't interested in active participation in the community, and I didn't make that post with that in mind. I understand how that might not fit the desires of the community here. But I didn't make that post in bad faith. I, and whoever wrote those pages on the philosophy of Beehaw, wanted the same thing back then. To create a corner of the internet free of hate speech and full of kindness. Now? I'm jaded and beaten. I don't want to create a kind community anymore, I want to find one. I've given up on that ambition. So that's why I reread the updated documents with hope. Why I created an account. And why I want to know whether beehaw.org is actually the website I read about in those documents. Because those modlogs say the opposite of what those documents said. If I don't fit in here, if the ideals I thought I saw aren't present, I'd like to find out quickly.
Should I still hope?
I've been in CBT for over a year. While it helped me with my PTSD a little, it was painfully impotent most of the time. Largely, it just left me to my own devices, scared and confused. I haven't used magick for PTSD, I've used it for gender, and unlike CBT it actually worked. I'm a scientist, so I believe in experimentation and results. The results say magick is more powerful than therapy. It's also more risky, but I'm willing to live with that.
Also Bluefluke's guide has a whole section about how dogma is bad
As a scientist, could you point me to some research papers or studies showing that Magick is more powerful than therapy? Thanks 👍
Edit - apparently there is more to this Magick than I initially thought. If it works for people then of course that's a good thing. I've been in therapy for a long time myself and have also maybe seen to many ways that self help stuff exploited people who were in dire need of actual professional help. My issues are not related to gender so apparently this is clearly a gap in my knowledge. I hope that the helpful concepts and techniques from Magick find their way to professional health care and I'm glad it exist for the people who need it.
Yeah to be honest, you really are being dismissive and kinda rude. Occult practices do tend to fall under "sincerely held beliefs", so please don't make light of them so passively...particularly when it clearly is working for a person.
The Psychonaut Field Manual pg 27. [in the box in the bottom]
I love science and study it too, but like...I also acknowledge and love the occult arts and study them as well. Having that attitude has saved my bacon more than you might think.
If that's what you think it is, why then do you sneer upon it because some charlatans exist? If it's effective for this person, that should be a data point that should excite and fascinate you...anecdotal or not.
Should we ridicule science because there's no shortage of charlatans who exist who try to take advantage of it? I hope not...that's how we ended up with anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers.
A comparison would be impossible, because there are no standard practices for gender affirmation psychological therapy. Magick wins by virtue of the fact that therapy is not participating. This is like asking whether there's any research papers demonstrating that an eagle can fly faster than a dog. Dogs can't fly. You don't need to be told that eagles fly better than dogs, it's obvious. Likewise, there is no scientific merit in conducting an investigation on whether gender affirmation magick (which exists) is better than gender affirmation psychotherapy (which doesn't exist).
So because one thing doesn't exist, it means all possible other things are valid and don't need any evidence?
knokelmaat asked if gender magick is more powerful than gender therapy. We're not asking whether gender magick is valid, that's already been conclusively demonstrated. We're asking which is more powerful. The clear answer is: the one that exists.
That's exactly the evidence that they were asking for. So I'm sure you have no problem sharing it
based on your reply upthread i am immediately putting a stop to this because i absolutely do not think you are asking this in any sort of good faith.
Asking for evidence for something that's been "conclusively demonstrated" is in bad faith?
Arguing that magic is better than psychology and then being upset at being questioned is what's bad faith