cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/3635039
Various thoughts:
Around 20 people weren’t properly covered by the gender categories, obviously we’re trying to be as inclusive as possible and a different approach will be tried next time
There were about 600 respondents, which gives us a accurate sampling of the active userbase. If you multiply any number by 3, you’ll get a fairly accurate representation of the full userbase each week. This means there are around 800-900 people who don’t identify fully as cis each week on this site.
Nearly 300 trans/gender diverse/questioning people unanimously agree that hexbear is an inclusive space
There was so much data on gender that I was really struggling to find a way to convey the data that wasnt a pie chart, graph, or an incomprehensible kalaeidoscope. If you have an idea on how to beautify the data, you can download the raw data here: https://pad.artemislena.eu/file/#/2/file/xzy4pck8on+oZp9yGRUIezR+/ - I further anonymized this data by removing time of response and any specific comments, I don’t think it would be easy for anyone to figure out who is who.
There were a couple of text responses that really needed further elaboration, I noted hexbear’s rules next to these comments
I’ll probably be doing a demographics survey sometime in the future, including basic fairly anonymous stuff like “what region were you born in” “where do the languages you speak originate” “would you describe yourself as a POC” “what age range are you in”.
The percentage of people answering they were cisgender increased by 8% than the previous survey. This could be for a myriad of reasons, such as cis people being afraid trans people will hunt them down in the public thread and assassinate them. Anonymity may have made them feel safer to respond. Regardless, way more people responded this time, which signifies that people felt safer responding to the cryptpad or it was easier to do. The leading question was a bit more inclusive than last time, but I think I’ll include both questions (are you transgender / gender diverse and are you cisgender) to see how people respond.
We have a lot of people that aren’t binary trans on this site.
Some of the questions were pretty funky and we got a lot of fuzzy responses on them as a result. In particular “After you realized you were trans/gender diverse, how long did it take for you to begin to act on it?” and “At what age did you begin transition?” caused a lot of friction, I think I will ask more vague questions in the future that lead to a path of more specific questions to capture better data, and to save people time. Questions like “Do you feel your gender transition had a defined starting point?” and some further ones.
Around 20 people each week on this site are cis she/hers, which is very low and roughly the same as last time. I feel like if hexbear ever starts hosting other federated stuff (like a federated tiktok or something) and can hook into it natively with lemmy, we’d see a better ratio.
I tried to be very sure any data with >2 people on it was clearly legible, I think some people might find it fun that there are others with their same fairly specific classifications per this survey lurking around on the site.
Overall I feel like the survey was a success despite some bumps.
You can find the other surveys/links here: https://hexbear.net/post/3016455
I made these graphs on company time
Conservatives vaguepost about “the woke”, liberals vaguepost about “the tankies”, I take them both equally seriously
Well ‘woke’ is just a stupid word to rile up conservatives.
A tankie is a well defined, and old term, designing sheep-people blindly following the dictatorship in the Kremlin during the Czechoslovakia revolt.
Today we use it for the same type of people following the kremlins orders and/or dictators fals flagging as communists. Like Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Putin, etcetera.
I mean it isn’t that hard to understand or look up, is it?
Oh I thought tankie meant anyone to the left of Biden, because that’s how it’s being used in practical terms. Cool lore I guess?
Also you know the whole “sending in the tanks” thing comes from Khrushchev right? He was anti stalin- which is why the term reminds me of the way conservatives use ‘woke’ to indicate to other conservatives that the designated target is ‘bad’
Liberals use ‘tankie’ the same way, regardless of its historical meaning, cause pretty much anyone sufficiently anti-war seems to get called one
No, tankie is from the fifties, nothing to do with Biden or Trump.
Khruschev, Lenin, Brezhnev etc, all raging murderous dictators, just some were worse than others. Kruschev got the world the closest to WW3 and nuclear anihilation, so there’s that.
“Liberals” is another of those throw around words that has lost its meaning. I mean we all want to be liberal as in free, but it seems it’s just used to show people who are supposedly stupid?
If it’s from the 50s and unrelated to our politics, why are people who support places like Palestine getting called tankies then? Just feels like an ingroup-outgroup label.
Liberal I always took to mean pro-capitalism, hence why communists use it derisively.
For conservatives it’s used derisively too, but more because they’re not doing the warmongering with enough toxic masculinity
Why on earth would it be unrelated to our politics just because it’s from the fifties? Speaking about Palestine and thus Israel, the problem the world is facing today in the middle east started in the fifties, don’t forget history or you’re damned to repeat it as they say.
If someone labels a pro Palestinian stance as “tankie” well then, if there is nothing else to it, they are just wrong.
I think you might like the term neo-liberal more then? Capitalism in its base version is quite good imo trying to meke better use of things, it’s the neo liberal capitalism that makes everything a hell hole. In my opinion ofc.
Conservatives are just well, yeah, I guess we can agree on that one 👍🏻.
Not to just link you to a bunch of my comments, but it started long before the 50s.
https://lemmy.ml/post/20423526/13755171
Disagree on the first half, capitalism has lots and lots of issues. Doing whataboutism re: other systems is not convincing, nor is blaming its failures on ‘neo’ liberals
Part of the cornerstone of what you’re calling neoliberalism was free trade to enforce using international labor to break labor unions. This manifested as finance and industrial capital having different goals (and all manufacturing getting moved to china). Finance capital makes little of material value (lots of value on paper), and does not employ unionized workers to do it, so it was prioritized by policy to suppress American unionism.
Industrial companies like auto manufacturers transitioned to just selling loans to buy cars assembled elsewhere as their business model (Finance).
Of course it started before the fifties, but thats just drives my point home, right?
And I didn’t say “classic” (or what you’d call it) capitalism hasn’t its flaws lol. But IMO it also has its good parts. Like medication and computers. Sure, can be better. A lot better.
Neo liberalism is crap though.
For me, the most important thing is democracy. Because if you don’t have democracy you’ll eventually be living in a one guy dictatorship. It just happens every time at a 100% rate throughout history.
Democracies aren’t really predisposed to avoid that, just look at America now.
Popular tyrants were pretty vilified in history because they would try to do things unpopular with powerful oligarchs, like forgiving debts so that the broader economy wouldn’t collapse and people wouldn’t be forced into lifetimes of servitude.
In the historical example I’m referring to, the oligarchs called in Rome to save them from those tyrants.
Not convinced that deposing those tyrants made things any better for the normal people stuck paying the oligarchs afterwards. (the oligarchs wrote the history though and said it was really cool actually)
If you’re ascribing all technical progress to capitalism as some sort of credit to it as a system I’m going to have to disagree too. Medicine existed long before capitalism for one, and scientific progress often happens in spite of the market capture rather than because of it.