Some of this may also have to do with the user creation exploit that popped up a while back.
They just want a social network like reddit
Reddit users by and large are not content creators, particularly not in the way that Mastodon users are. I'm suggesting each Mastodon user recruited would be worth way more than each reddit user recruited. Reddit users are simply not worth the effort and have significantly less to add to the culture/conversation
Are you going to host them?
They're already there. They are currently struggling with growth. This seems to primarily be an issue of getting the word out.
But more importantly, what are you going to draw them here with? Why would they bother? What’s the sales pitch? What do they gain?
They gain group-like functionality and deeper, more focused discussion. These are often requested features of Mastodon that Lemmy can provide without any additional features on the development side.
What's the alternative? It honestly seems like a worthwhile way to do it for me. I really think there's only value in following niche communities from Mastodon. Discourse like that found on politics and news is pretty plentiful (and often higher quality) on Mastodon as is, but the gardening communities make up an important part of my Mastodon feed.
This is a great point. I'm super curious but generally unfamiliar with how things are in other parts of the world.
Looks like it's been taken down
It is not so much that they are conflating two unrelated stoicisms as you seen to imply but rather that you seem to be specifically trying to distance yourself from historical stoicism. There's good reason for this, stoic philosophy was originally just as tied up in metaphysics as any ancient philosophy. This sense of metaphysics, while easy to discount from a modern perspective, was used primarily to justify existing power structures. Key among them patriarchy and slavery. Ultimately, this has little to do with the particulars of the philosophy. Knowing that, it would seem an easy task to separate the two as you would like to and yet it is still remarkably difficult to find any modern stoic groups that do not recommend Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus, etc.
What you call the more general stoicism (lower case) is better understood as the whole of stoic cultural influence as it relates to the modern world. Even the etymology of stoics comes from the school of philosophy. It is not reasonable to try to claim stoic philosophy is best understood as only it's most modern incarnations even as popular stoicism relies on ancient men to be it's primary mediums.
Don't forget to report. I don't think the moderators watch super closely since this is still a super small community.
Feels pretty exploitative. Hope it goes away without karma as an incentive.
Accounting for margin of error it may be more accurate to say there are roughly equal numbers of self-identified gay and bisexual men. Even still, this looks very little like the trend for women and would seem to go against the common idea of how people are distributed along the sexuality spectrum. Why do you guys think this might be?
Source is a Gallup poll from 2021. You can find their write up here: https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx
Also positive masculinity tends to still be rooted in fairly patriarchal ideas of what it means to be a man in ways that liberation from gender roles specifically is not.
I would love to see more written content overall.
The version I've always heard is "when somebody tells you who they are, believe 'em".
Pretty sure it's a result of over a decade of algorithmically incentivized cultural shift. Fights drive clicks and they clued into that pretty early on.