Mod here. Just want to openly and unequivocally state… I will remove your comment if you’re transphobic. I will refer to trans people to let me know if you are being transphobic. I will ban you if you make an egregiously off colour comment. and I will take pleasure in doing this. Fuck your transphobic bullshit, go somewhere else. Nobody wants you here.
Just to play devils advocate, wouldn’t that mean it’s okay to criticize the idea of transgenderism if you don’t criticize the people who are transgender (although not really sure if that’s even possible)?
Yes. If you could prove transgenderism exists. See because you attach an -ism to it you are (in English) saying “the ideology of transgender individuals” which is “we exist” which is not an ideology. It is a fact. You can disagree with facts all you want but it doesn’t make you smart.or intellectual… it makes you wrong.
“The idea of being transgender” it’s not an idea anymore than you think about being cisgender. It’s a false dichotomy created by cisgender people who fail to understand the issue or fall victim to the “gay agenda” rhetoric of right wing media.
A better way to phrase it is no trans person thinks of themselves as trans. A trans woman thinks of herself as a woman. A trans man thinks of himself as a man. So there’s no “idea” of “being transgender” unless you’re a cis person who thinks they know what they’re talking about.
It’s like the phrase “differently abled” only able bodied people think like that.
That’s the thing about choosing an instance, it’s his house, his rules. At least with Lemmy it’s like you can move out to the next building, Reddit is like living in jail nowhere left to move.
This is my job: to make perfectly clear what is and isn’t allowed. In no uncertain terms I will make sure this place is as free from transphobia as possible.
This is free speech. They get to say what they please. They are not free from the consequences of those words however. I, as a private citizen and not a governmental actor, can censor them.
They can say what they want without restraint or restriction. They are not free from the consequences of their words.
They can say what they like. We can ban them if we don’t like it. That’s how free speech works in a consequentialist society (modern Western society is a synthesis of consequentialism and contractualism).
That’s literally not free speech. If I say I like to eat broccoli every day and that people should try it for health reasons and you’re some kind of carnivore mod and it tickles you the wrong way and you block me for it… That’s censorship and the opposite of free speech.
You’re telling me that you control the narrative. Now there’s nuance to censorship for sure, but you’re telling me that if you don’t like what I say I’m out. I have to type within the confines of the bubble of what isn’t too uncomfortable for you.
I say let the downvotes do the talking. If I go on the electric vehicles instance talking about how (non-ironocally) I love to roll coal and how that’s what’s keeping me from trying EVs, I expect to be downvoted into the shadow realm. And that’s ok. What I’m not ok with is a mod assuming that my voice sucks and that I don’t deserve to be heard. Maybe some smart lemmier(?) will point out some doodad that makes a brrr noise and shoots out some harmless mist or something.
You have the right to be an asshole. Mods have the right to ban you for being an asshole.
Making out that they’re nasty for having some standards of behaviour in their area is calling good bad and bad good.
(Censorship is when local or national government put you in prison for protesting or ban your book or ban your ideas. That’s when your free speech rights are being infringed.)
Where and when in the history of ever has there been consequence-free speech? How is this definition at all useful to you? People have always had the ability to define our own social spaces with rules of conduct, why is this any different just because the social space is online?
Friend, I appreciate your mod efforts, and I support 100% what you’re doing here.
Having said that, I think there is a misalignment in terms of free speech definitions.
What I think you’re saying is that people are free to express themselves, and the government (in the U.S., Italy, Argentina, wherever) will not censor you for that. However, a consequence of that is that you can ban them. Fair enough.
But people are not referring to the free speech in the country, region or whether. They’re specifically referring to the exercising of free speech in the community you are moderating. You’re saying that “there is free speech here,” then it follows that transphobic comments should be allowed (something I wouldn’t like because fuck transphobes.) But since you remove comments that don’t align with the community, then the community doesn’t have free speech - and that’s okay. I’m just referring to the contradiction: “you’re allowed to say what you want, but I will ban you if you say this or that” - welp, that just means that “this or that” is not allowed.
I think that’s what the other commenters are saying. They’re not criticizing you for removing comments. They’re calling out that removing comments (as a consequence of speech) and claiming that there is free speech, well no, technically it isn’t.
This makes no sense in reply to my comment. Free speech is about the government, changing Lemmy instances won’t change the fact that Lemmy is not the government. My opinion, views, etc have nothing to do with this. As far as free speech is concerned a community would be free to remove trans positive comments if they so chose.
Mod here. Just want to openly and unequivocally state… I will remove your comment if you’re transphobic. I will refer to trans people to let me know if you are being transphobic. I will ban you if you make an egregiously off colour comment. and I will take pleasure in doing this. Fuck your transphobic bullshit, go somewhere else. Nobody wants you here.
Cis guy here. Based mod.
Thanks for everything you do to keep this community safe. I know it can’t be easy.
idk, I just got to yeet like at least a handful of transphobes into oblivion so… was pretty fun.
It’s important to find work that also nourishes your soul.
Fucking A right. n
You are amazing, brave people and deserve a place in society where you are loved . M
👍
Thank you so much!
God bless it I fucking love lemmy! 😄
Uhhh??? Based???
Thank you for not being reddit.
Lol
What a hero
For a second I though this was reddit again
Frankly, I don’t care what you think of it. Transphobia is not allowed. This isn’t a democracy. It’s pretty simple: don’t be an asshole.
Every comment removed violates the civility rules of this instance. Which reads thus (emphasis mine):
IOW: Be transphobic and be prepared for me to iron fist the vagueness of those words. It’s pretty easy not to be an asshole.
Just to play devils advocate, wouldn’t that mean it’s okay to criticize the idea of transgenderism if you don’t criticize the people who are transgender (although not really sure if that’s even possible)?
Yes. If you could prove transgenderism exists. See because you attach an -ism to it you are (in English) saying “the ideology of transgender individuals” which is “we exist” which is not an ideology. It is a fact. You can disagree with facts all you want but it doesn’t make you smart.or intellectual… it makes you wrong.
Removed by mod
“The idea of being transgender” it’s not an idea anymore than you think about being cisgender. It’s a false dichotomy created by cisgender people who fail to understand the issue or fall victim to the “gay agenda” rhetoric of right wing media.
A better way to phrase it is no trans person thinks of themselves as trans. A trans woman thinks of herself as a woman. A trans man thinks of himself as a man. So there’s no “idea” of “being transgender” unless you’re a cis person who thinks they know what they’re talking about.
It’s like the phrase “differently abled” only able bodied people think like that.
That would be like trying to criticize blackness without criticizing black people, it’s not possible.
“Criticize ideas, never people.” Guess I can’t criticize serial killers- nevermind
Them’s be the rules of this entire instance.
That’s the thing about choosing an instance, it’s his house, his rules. At least with Lemmy it’s like you can move out to the next building, Reddit is like living in jail nowhere left to move.
Bruh, just do your job/hobby. Mods acting high and mighty is a big part of what made reddit so toxic.
This is my job: to make perfectly clear what is and isn’t allowed. In no uncertain terms I will make sure this place is as free from transphobia as possible.
The good thing about Lemmy you can move to another instance with free speech.
This is free speech. They get to say what they please. They are not free from the consequences of those words however. I, as a private citizen and not a governmental actor, can censor them.
I disagree, free speech means the right to express any opinions and ideas without censorship or restraint even if you find them offensive.
You said you will remove any comment that is transphobic and ban if “you make an egregiously off colour comment”.
That is not free speech, and it’s ok. Your instance, your rules.
They can say what they want without restraint or restriction. They are not free from the consequences of their words.
They can say what they like. We can ban them if we don’t like it. That’s how free speech works in a consequentialist society (modern Western society is a synthesis of consequentialism and contractualism).
That’s literally not free speech. If I say I like to eat broccoli every day and that people should try it for health reasons and you’re some kind of carnivore mod and it tickles you the wrong way and you block me for it… That’s censorship and the opposite of free speech.
You’re telling me that you control the narrative. Now there’s nuance to censorship for sure, but you’re telling me that if you don’t like what I say I’m out. I have to type within the confines of the bubble of what isn’t too uncomfortable for you.
I say let the downvotes do the talking. If I go on the electric vehicles instance talking about how (non-ironocally) I love to roll coal and how that’s what’s keeping me from trying EVs, I expect to be downvoted into the shadow realm. And that’s ok. What I’m not ok with is a mod assuming that my voice sucks and that I don’t deserve to be heard. Maybe some smart lemmier(?) will point out some doodad that makes a brrr noise and shoots out some harmless mist or something.
You have the right to be an asshole. Mods have the right to ban you for being an asshole.
Making out that they’re nasty for having some standards of behaviour in their area is calling good bad and bad good.
(Censorship is when local or national government put you in prison for protesting or ban your book or ban your ideas. That’s when your free speech rights are being infringed.)
Where and when in the history of ever has there been consequence-free speech? How is this definition at all useful to you? People have always had the ability to define our own social spaces with rules of conduct, why is this any different just because the social space is online?
Censor and banning opinions and ideas you don’t like is anti free speech.
You were allowed to say it. I’m allowed to remove it. Welcome to the world. Don’t like it? Leave.
But also: nobody in the world actually likes the idea of absolutist free speech. The founding fathers certainly didn’t believe in such an idea.
Friend, I appreciate your mod efforts, and I support 100% what you’re doing here.
Having said that, I think there is a misalignment in terms of free speech definitions.
What I think you’re saying is that people are free to express themselves, and the government (in the U.S., Italy, Argentina, wherever) will not censor you for that. However, a consequence of that is that you can ban them. Fair enough.
But people are not referring to the free speech in the country, region or whether. They’re specifically referring to the exercising of free speech in the community you are moderating. You’re saying that “there is free speech here,” then it follows that transphobic comments should be allowed (something I wouldn’t like because fuck transphobes.) But since you remove comments that don’t align with the community, then the community doesn’t have free speech - and that’s okay. I’m just referring to the contradiction: “you’re allowed to say what you want, but I will ban you if you say this or that” - welp, that just means that “this or that” is not allowed.
I think that’s what the other commenters are saying. They’re not criticizing you for removing comments. They’re calling out that removing comments (as a consequence of speech) and claiming that there is free speech, well no, technically it isn’t.
Well yeah, but they expect people talking nonsense to get pummeled in the court of public opinion
Censorship and restraint from the government. This isn’t that, so the consequences are not covered.
Free speech is about the government not being able to restrict your speech. Guess what? Lemmy isn’t the government.
Lemmy is a protocol so there can be instances with free speech even if you don’t like it.
This makes no sense in reply to my comment. Free speech is about the government, changing Lemmy instances won’t change the fact that Lemmy is not the government. My opinion, views, etc have nothing to do with this. As far as free speech is concerned a community would be free to remove trans positive comments if they so chose.
I disagree free speech also applies to institutions, social or cultural norms and platforms as Lemmy.