I’ll just post my initial comment in the entirety since what happens is entirely predicted by my first comment.
The topic was trans athletes and, like with any hot button political issues, there are rigidly defined ‘sides’ that come with a list of things that you must profess.
These things are simply declared as not being open to discussion and if you challenge that declaration, ye power trippin’ bastards rear their ugly head. This dogma is unhealthy in any community and the people who enforce it through social pressure, cyber bullying and mod powers are actively harmful.
As to demonstrate my point I continued with the conversation, responding in good faith to the people who attempted a conversation, right up until I was mass banned (which only took a few hours).
The first comment is here if you want to see the entire conversation or think I’m hiding some secret transphobic rants in my comment history: https://lemmy.world/comment/15496985
The Initial Comment
This is an issue that exposes some of the more dogmatic people in the movement.
It is as if there is a list of positions that you’re required to believe and if you disagree with any one of them you’re labeled a heretic (transphobic, in this case).
Sports and the fairness of competition is a complex issue even when you’re just talking about cisgender competitors:
Can a person use performance enhancing drugs to train and then get clean enough to test positive for a competition? It seems unfair, to me, for the other competitors if this is the case.
It isn’t an unfair statement to say that the physical performance of cisgender men is higher than that of cisgender women. This is why we have separate competitions for men and women.
The issue isn’t as simple as a choice between “Transgender people should be free, without question, to compete in any competition” or “Transgender people should not be allowed to compete as their gender”
Framing it in such a black and white manner is harmful behavior, no matter which position you take.
We need to understand how people’s bodies are affected and what advantages of disadvantages are obtained and then base the rule changes on objective data and not appeals to emotion or ideological bullying.
Fabricated Pretexts
The last thing I said on the topic (bold added), as there were already commenters insinuating that I’m secretly a transphobe rather than engaging in discussion, was:
Obviously the people arguing that trans people should never compete are ignorant, I’m not supporting that position. From the point of view of fairness in competition there has to be an objective answer that’s backed by objective tests.
Simply declaring that trans people are beyond reproach and that any attempts to quantify biological advantage are unfairly discriminatory and anyone asking these questions is a bigot isn’t helpful.
I include this because included in the reasons for the bans is: “Transphobia attempting to make excuses for trans exclusion from sports.” This is completely misrepresenting what I said and what I believe in order to create a pretext for a ban.
And the power trippin’ bastards come in with the sweeping community bans (linuxphones@lemmy.ca, really?): https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=2&actionType=ModBanFromCommunity&userId=12926811
Conclusion
This kind of thinking is harmful to any community.
Labeling disagreement as bigotry is nonsense. Refusing to engage on a topic and using filters and bans to hide from people who don’t perfectly align with your ideas is not how you make allies or educate people.
The people that do this are responsible for creating the impression that your communities are hostile and made up of extremists. Attacking allies because they don’t fall in line without question is a blunder.
People with moderator powers should be held to a higher standard of responsibility and fabricating reasons for bans and mislabeling people as bigots is the ultimate abdication of that responsibility. These people are not interested in helping a community thrive, they simply want to be the ones with the power to strike out at people that they want to hurt regardless of the damage that it causes.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk (except you, Linuxphones@lemmy.ca, I pray you never learn how to exit vim)
Warning to all: do not start arguing about trans women in sports in this thread. Stick to judgement on the banning please.
You chose to openly and willingly spew debunked transphobic talking points as well as thinly veiled transphobia. That was your choice. I’m sure that you knew very well that these types of exclusionary arguments aren’t taken well on platforms and communities which are protective of trans people or even run by trans people. YDI
Oh and about those preemptive bans, I don’t blame them, some of that is an automated part of Lemmy when doing instance bans for remote users, but even the ones where people manually banned you. I don’t blame them either, you’ve made yourself well known in holding and acting on transphobic and trans exclusionary beliefs, why would they want you posting and hanging out in their trans-friendly communities when they already know you’re someone to do that kind of shit.
You’re confusing disagreement and questions with transphobia because you’re not believing me that I’m discussing in good faith.
That’s the core of the problem. You’re unable to entertain the idea that someone may not know what know.
Maybe, to you, these are debunked talking points but there are people who have never been a part of the conversation. Assuming that because you know about a subject that everyone else has to is a very naive way of thinking. So, when you interact with people who don’t know anything about the subject you come off as an abrasive asshole by accusing them of bigotry and trolling or self-righteously declaring that they’re wrong and bigoted for reasons that they should understand (and also dumb for not understanding).
It’s toxic behavior. Assuming that everyone with questions is acting in bad faith lets you feel righteous indignation and outrage. It feels good to think that you’re part of the group punishing the ‘bad people’, you never consider how the situation looks if it is you that is wrong.
“Hey guys, I wasn’t repeating long disproven transphobic talking points, I was just asking questions and ignoring the answers others gave me, mmmkay?”
You got banned for transphobic JAQing off. Poorly. YDI and any preemptive bans. I keep my flat tidy so it won’t become infested with roaches. This is no different.
The idea that anyone asking questions, about a topic that you already know about, should be assumed to be acting in bad faith is exactly the kind of toxic behavior that I’m trying to point out.
You’ve learned things today that other people have known for decades, it doesn’t make you ignorant or a sub-human.
Someone who is learning something today, that you’ve known for years, doesn’t make them ignorant or sub-human.
You’ve conditioned yourself to look for a way to frame a person’s comments in the most outrageous and conspiratorial way possible.
Your framing is “That person isn’t asking a question because they don’t know the answer. They, secretly, already know the answer and since they’re a bad person (a priori) are, instead secretly PRETENDING to ask a question in order to make me personally angry and so they should be punished”.
You have no real reason to assume bad faith on my part, you’ve never spoken to me before. Instead, because of your time on social media, you’ve created this model in your brain of the kind of people who ask questions that I’ve asked and, in that model, the person is evil, bigoted, etc and so, therefore, I have to be evil, bigoted, etc.
That’s not reasoning, that’s intolerance.
Bad money drives out good, even if your coin is unshaved. How do you tell if someone is sealioning or asking in good faith? I don’t anymore, they all go in the same basket for my sanity. The kinds of questions commonly asked have been gone over again and again and the answers are readily available. Demanding that questioners who can’t be bothered to research be engaged with by people sick of sorting out if a questioner is lazy or purposefully awful is pretty toxic. Nobody owes you a damn thing, so stop acting entitled to the efforts and mental space of others.
Arf arf
seems relevant to share
They already responded by banning me from blahj.
The tolerance being displayed is truly an inspiration for us all.
That’s a pretty troll level response tbh.
Thank you
YDI
YDI, at least in the community of the lemmy.blajah.zone instance. In the other communities, a long ban could be excessive, but it’s not easy to judge that the transphobic[^1] post was done in good faith.
[^1]: e.g., two people with the same physical traits, one a cis woman, the other a transgender woman, your reasoning will let the first one practice the sport and will forbid it to the second one.
Edited
to clarify that they were community bans (not from instances).
The blajah ban says “attempting to make excuses for trans exclusion from sports.”
Which is the opposite of my explicitly stated position:
Obviously the people arguing that trans people should never compete are ignorant, I’m not supporting that position. From the point of view of fairness in competition there has to be an objective answer that’s backed by objective tests.
Simply declaring that trans people are beyond reproach and that any attempts to quantify biological advantage are unfairly discriminatory and anyone asking these questions is a bigot isn’t helpful.
Regardless of your opinions of the underlying topic, the reasons for the bans are simply nonsense, fabricated and are wholly bad faith misrepresentations of my stated position.
The power tripping here is that they wanted the ban and were willing to simply make up an excuse. It’s bad faith use of moderator powers and so it makes them Power Tripping Bastards…
Removed by mod
Yes, exactly. I chose the topic specifically to highlight the behavior of people who act in dogmatic ways.
Am I ignorant of the topic? Possibly. I know enough to know that people are using the topic as a political weapon to harm a minority population to score political points. At the same time, on the other side, people use this persecution to frame the issue as a black and white: ‘You either believe this or you’re part of the persecution’ then they use that as a cudgel against anybody ‘on their side’ who tries to talk about the topic. They’ll declare the topic settled and so anyone who disagrees must be acting in bad faith or actively seeking to undermine the group.
It isn’t limited to the topic of trans rights. People are dogmatic about a lot of issues but, as a left leaning person, I’m already automatically excluded from the right’s communities (by the same kinds of people, just with red hats instead of blue hats).
There was a separate conversational thread about that points specifically:
The fact that some powermod went through all their communities to ban you makes this a blatent case of PTB, regardless of the merit of the initial ban.
This is just how lemmy bans work normally. No powermod went through all their comms.
Ignoring blahaj.zone, which has confirmed instance banned him, OP was banned from more then 20 communites from 8 different instances (before I got tired of counting). And they all have the same mod in common.
How is this how bans normally work?
I’m not even banned in the community where I was commenting.
This is moderators, from other communities, reading through threads and banning people from their communities. It’s like they’re going out in the world and just looking for things to feel offended by and then salving their outrage with a righteously indignant ban. Which of the community rules of Linuxphone did I break by talking about trans people in sports in a completely different community on a completely different server? It only makes sense in the context of power tripping.
What’s the overall strategy here? Are they going to somehow, by manually browsing as a human person (and not a bot or some kind of data analytics engine), locate and ban every single potential rule breaker across all of social media?
If your job was to be a moderator and you told your boss that the best use of your time was browsing random communities and reading their comments in order to find people who (if you squint just right and assume bad faith) may, one day, come to your community and possibly break a rule… you’d be fired. First, why are you banning people who’ve never commented in your community or broken a rule. Also, even if you could work 24/7 and read/locate/ban 10 users an hour you still couldn’t keep up with just new user sign-ups.
There’s zero practical reason for a moderator to be looking into other communities and trying to pre-crime people. It’s entirely power tripping.
