hendrik

joined 3 years ago
[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (3 children)

I think after initial installation, you open a browser with the post-installation step and configure a username and password there. I'm not entirely sure, it's been some time since I did it. But depending on installation method, I don't think it has a provided password.

General password advice: Check caps lock, and if you use like a German keyboard if 'z' and 'y' are swapped.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Unfortunately this rarely works from the IP address ranges Peertube instances on a VPS in a datacenter use. They need to set up a proxy for Youtube sync and use a residential IP address or something that's not blocked by Youtube.

If sync doesn't work for you, check this.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 25 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (4 children)

Btw, since people always confuse temporary suspension and permanent bans: That's not a premanent ban. You can post in that community again, you just need to wait 3 hours. And sure, straight to hell for nazis.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 0 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

I think you misunderstand the problem. You can do that, yes. But have you ever moderated a diverse group of people? They're all very different. Some are bold and loud. Some aren't. Some are introverted or quiet. Or you somehow need to make them feel comfortable and safe before they speak up at all. Some say the first thing that comes to mind and they talk a lot, and some aren't even part of the conversation and as a moderator you need to make them speak up at the right moment, effectively silencing the other people, because then you'll get their nuanced opinion and they used the time to really think it through.

I've managed some people in smaller groups over the time and I can tell you your approach just silences the interesting people. You won't end up with all opinions that way. You get the opinion from the dominant people, mostly the perspective of the confident men amongst them and relatively simplistic ideas. And the result of the entire conversation just won't be great that way.

Edit: That's due to the nature of the conversation and the dynamics with people. Additionally you can't even talk about some topics this way. If something is dear to me and complicated, I can't let that become subject of ridicule and let people pick on it. That'd really hurt. So I won't even bring it up.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, looks like the combination you have in mind might not have been tried before. We had free speech forums. Which mainly failed to achieve their goal of becoming a marketplace of ideas. And we have several platforms for public participation. To collectively collect ideas and vote on them in a democratic process. (citizenos.com adhocracy.plus consuldemocracy.org and likely several others) I think those address NGOs, municipalities, government... and of course the people on the other end.

They might not exactly have the same scope you seem to have, though.

I think the main aspect will be the social part, not technology. People regularly come with preconceived opinions. Echo chambers are really strong these days and most people decline a meaningful conversation, to learn things and change their opinion. They come for affirmation and to blast their opinion at other people. And you'll find a study and scripture to support pretty much anything. At least that's what regularly happens to me. And people more to the sides of the political spectrum aren't even open to reason and facts. But you're likely aware of that. I think it's the main issue. To first gather people around one table, and then make then listen to each other. Which is just very hard to pull off. They regularly don't volunteer to do it.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Yeah, I'd say the humanist perspective can't be wrong. I personally think we should add some Rationalist arguments and especially something like ideas from Effective Altruism. Wanting to convince someone on the internet of your perspective regularly has little effect on the world (in itself). And all the yelling really makes my head hurt. Some of it leads to people digging even deeper trenches and they spend all their day focused on some weird rigid ideas and details as if that was the issue. And that's the predominant way of talking about the subject.

It's not. The issue is that people suffer and die. And that needs to stop. And we need to find a way to address it.

I'd expect you to become subject to wrong decisions by moderators. Because they deal with agitated people all day and they're likely biased into thinking you're just another one of the dozens of people they deal with each day.

And there is a lot of confusion and accusations. I've been on the receiving end of that as well. Though I rarely engage in the discussion. I welcome the effort to use reason, though. And do something to stop all the yelling and start going somewhere. It's not easy. And all the things are connected.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

I think the main issue is that the Bible isn't concise enough for a supposed divine book. It rarely tells me useful things and what to do in my modern life in the big city. Instead it has a lot of passages about camels, living in the bronze age and so on. And I think that's because of what it is. Written by humans, a long time ago, shaped by their perspective. If God had wanted it to contain absolute truth, he shouldn't just have appointed them to write it, but handed out some absolute truth.

And I can see how we can interpret all kinds of things into it. We definitely have the "Christians" who focus on hate. Who run around with these "God hates fags" signs and they find all kinda of things to make other people's life miserable. We have several variants of Christianity and they disagree on many details. We had things from the Spanish Inquisition to today's more liberal times. All based on pretty much the same text. And why is that? Are 99% of people throughout history, and the other variants of current Christians all just wrong and on the wrong path and I'm the only one understanding it correctly? Or who is? Because I really need to know if I'm expected to follow it.

I think it's because Christians do in fact base their morals not just on straightforward literal bible verses. That's why they genuinely and wholeheartedly held different beliefs in the middle ages. That's why they're able to adopt to societal progress. We don't just make women's life miserable any more. They got the right to vote and they're supposed to have equal opportunities now. We even allow them to become teachers. And that's pretty much in direct violation of the bible. Yet I have some friends who are teachers, some even for religion. And the protestant church here even has a male and a female priest and she doesn't view her role as to stay quiet and bear childs. The catholic church which I've grown up in thinks that's not how it's done and they don't appoint females. (Plus she has some formal education on scripture and the inner workings of the Church, so I trust she knows more about it than I do.)

Point being: Women's rights are not an achievement of the church. They didn't sit down, have a covenant or concile and then changed the world to be more open towards women... It's the other way around. Society made progress, and it was a long hard fight. And people adopted.

I think it's basically the same thing with the stands towards LGBTQ+ people.

And we have a few other issues in the catholic church, like Maria 2.0. And the vatican's long held ideas towards contraceptives which are highly problematic because it contributes to spreading HIV.

I have little issues with you and your personal belief system. The issue is that we're all part of the same world and it has quite some impact. And the church still has a big influence. They employ some of my friends, they run entire hospitals and more, several big charities... They shape society. And I'm everything but indifferent towards that. And I don't view myself as an outsider, because I'm living amongst Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics and all sorts of people. We're really one because we share the place we live in. And it matters what we do, both individually and collectively.

I have a problem with people who say scripture has to be taken literally. None of the people I talked with, even with ranks in the Church or a formal education in scripture, has ever told me that, and that's all there is to it. I know such people exist, though. It's not the way I learned it. They gave me the text, but also added context, historical context and told me how we're fitted with a brain with the capability to reason, to understand meaning, and I need to use it. And that got me to where I am.

Luckily the community around me mostly shares what I recognize in your comments as well. How "The gospel" means "good news" and that's the central point of how you're supposed to practice it.

Edit: And to add some conclusion: I sincerely think all the laws governing sexuality, like outlawing anal sex, or teaching how the death sentence is appropriate for coitus interruptus (contraception) are the way of the Old Testament. It's in the spirit that humans are meant to suffer for sins, not enjoy life. And that has been replaced by the "good news" part and the new covenant.

I mean what do you think? Do you think intimacy being enjoyable is God's crude way to punish us, or is there more to it after Jesus? Do I deep-clean the couch and break all the pottery and not sit down in my own home for half a month each month or do you think the invention of the washing machine and sanitary products changed how we deal with female biology? And what's with the female priest in the protestant church here? I've listened to her speak in the church and she views that as her job. I don't even have to revert to the Old Testament to judge. Paul has a very clear stance on that. What's correct in your eyes? Because I think this is very similar to what we're talking about. And answers to these questions could help me understand how archaic cleanliness rules apply to modern times, and how more liberal approaches in society translate to scripture.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

No, I'm not a Christian. I'm sorry, now I think I should have lead with that, or not failed to recognize you were under the assumption I was... I have such an upbringing, I've been part of the church. But I myself don't have the belief in me, that what's in the Bible are factual truths. Still, that doesn't stop me from being interested in Jesus, his life and teachings. And to some degree the scripture itself.

And thanks for the good conversation and your perspective. I learned a lot of things. And I looked some up. My intention was basically that, not proclaim you were wrong. That'd be very hypocritical if I were to try to prove you wrong on the basis of scripture, which I don't even have as the basis for my own morals. I still think these things matter, though. And I follow how the catholic (and protestant) church around me has started blessing same sex couples, they have campaigns now for plurality and welcome such people amongst themselves. And the attached youth organizations sometimes take part in rainbow events like pride month. At least where I live. And from what I get from our conversation, we're likely on the same page here, when I say I welcome that and I think it's a "good" advancement the church made. (It wasn't always like this.)

I think with "the act" itself, we can't settle our differences. I think the entire limitation of sex to procreation isn't right, and I don't base that on scripture. You gave me quite some insight about your perspective, and I still struggle with the translation and the context it is in and its interpretation, but I think I have at least some understanding now.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yeah. And I think it's far from ideal that everyone is yelling at each other on the internet. We have to remember that we're talking about actual people dying, often in horrible ways. And we should actually do something about it. Empty armchair activism or misinformation or just instrumentalizing them so we can have a nice fight on the internet isn't very ethical. Also doesn't do these people any good, it mainly leads to more hatred in the world.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think that's fine. At least from the "dump" perspective, because you're not just dumping something but tend to what you post. And you're part of the conversation so you add something of substance there.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

God cannot be evil.

Yes, I'm wrong here. I think it's a bit of a technicality. He created evil (Isiah 45:7) and no matter if he commits the same thing as evil, per definition that never makes him be evil.

What about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or the many miracles He performed?

I think it's a metaphor. And not even the most important one (to me). I think the important part is that he died for us. And then they added some more fluff to the story. It really brings it home and sets him apart as the messiah if there's an added resurrection. And well, I think performing miracles was quite common for prophets back then and paranormal things happened often. Muhammad also performed many miracles including similar ones like providing supernatural food. Various other people did supernatural acts. And people split the sea and did all kinds of things in the Old Testament.

I'm still very unconvinced about the entire homosexuality thing. I mean the Romans text is kind of the God of the Old Testament, needy for valudation and full of wrath. And then he was pissed and gave humans sexual desires contrary to nature. And that and the "shameless acts" are a bit unclear. Whatever that is supposed to mean if I'm not allowed to interpret it. I'd say men loving each other in a genuine way surely can't be that, there's no shame or harm in that.
The Corinthian thing is more it. Still needs context though, since it requires knowledge about sex practices back then and what has been considered immoral by society back then, because it mostly refers to that. And then we have the translation in the way.

My big issue, if that's not concerned with pederasty... What part of the New Testament is? Or is age just not the problematic part of it, ...that'd be completely fine to do for Christians..., just the same gender needs clarification?

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 1 day ago

Puh. Ich hoffe ein kalter Schauer, weil das wäre mal eine Abwechslung zu dem was mein Rücken gerade tut.

 

Seems they recently changed something on Spotify and all the tools I've tried fail now. And DownOnSpot which seems promising has received a cease and desist letter and got taken down. What do you people use? I want something that actually fetches the audio from Spotify, not just rip it from YouTube. And it has to work as of now. Does the latest commit from DownOnSpot work? Back when I tested it a few weeks ago it failed due to some API changes. Are there other tools floating around?

view more: next ›