That post explicitly says it’s not a place for debate or participation from users of other instances.
I’d like to respect that but I think events like this need debate and discussion because it helps to develop and evolve the culture of lemmy and the fediverse in general.
The post says:
This post is “FYI only” for blahaj lemmy members. It is not a debate, and is not intended for non blahaj lemmy users to weigh in and offer opinions.
I recently received reports of a feddit.uk user espousing transphobia. Specifically, this was a feddit.uk user refusing to use the word cis, repeating the “adult human female” dog whistle, and claiming that trans women are not women. I approached a member of the feddit.uk admin team and raised my concerns and sought clarification of their stance on posts like this, where the transphobia is mostly dogwhistles, and “civil disagreement” on the validity of trans folk.
I was told by the feddit.uk admin that their preferred response is this kind of transphobia is to “sort it out through discussion and voting”. However, the comments in question are currently more upvoted than downvoted, and little “sorting out” has occurred. The posts remain in place.
At this point, the admin stopped responding to my messages despite being active elsewhere on lemmy. When it became clear they were ignoring my messages and had no intention of removing the posts in question, I made the decision to defederate the instance.
I know some folk agree with the feddit.uk admins approach of pushback through discussion and voting, but this instance is not designed to be that kind of space. Blahaj lemmy is meant to be a place where we can avoid the rampant transphobia universally visible on nearly every other social media platform, and where we can exist without needing to debate our right to do so.
Okay, how can you get more to join your side. If you don’t have discussions with other people? You can’t. Have fun in your echo chamber.
“How can you get people to stop stabbing you, if you don’t let them into the room so you can explain why they should stop?”
We can’t all be soldiers. You can’t expect everyone to take the knife over and over until the world gets better.
Good thing is, we can do both. You and me, we can have a talk about this. I’m ready and willing. Maybe I’ll even convince you.
And it doesn’t require exposing everyone over on blahaj to your bigoted bullshit.
Echo chambers are only a problem if there are no people who move between them. And trust me, vulnerable people can only protect themselves so much. They’ll get shit thrown their way no matter what, the world is still far too fucked to prevent that. All you need to do to see that, is look up the suicide rate among trans people.
That’s why every word with scorn behind it, counts. The less of them a person has to deal with to begin with, the more likely they are to be alive tomorrow.
You’re doing a great job.
I am.
I have you pointing out my strong language, instead of dismantling my logic.
If you want to convince someone to join your side. Don’t call them a bigot.
Fair. But the things you are saying are bigoted.
Doesn’t mean you are one, just that you need to re-evaluate your views.
And, failing to counter my point, already takes you halfway to realizing I might be saying something worth listening to.
Think about it some more. If I’m wrong, all it’ll do is allow you to figure out how wrong. If I’m not, then by changing your mind you’ll just end up being more right.
Also, how is “countering and getting people to your side” working for you?
Good. Because my point is to get people to discussions with other people.
Also when did I say I was against trans people?
You didn’t.
The opinion you are presenting, is against their safety, though.
Talking about IRL. Yeah, I see your point. But online, I can’t.
What’s the distinction?
Is this “online” discussion were having less real than the one we might have face to face?
Moderation isn’t about convincing people presenting harmful views, to change their minds.
It’s about protecting people.
And we aren’t talking about physical harm. Except in the sense that mental harm can eventually become physical harm.
If you just jump in to argue with the offender, that does absolutely nothing to prevent your users from being exposed to it.
If I wanted to convince you that I genuinely wished you weren’t alive, all I’d need is the written word. And if I threw a net wide enough, subtle enough, I’d catch some strays even if I didn’t succeed with you specifically. (I do not want you dead, or wish you any kind of harm)
Do you genuinely believe such harm isn’t possible? Or not worth preventing?
Every. Word. Counts.
If suicidal people can be saved through words, then they can also be killed by them.
Ah yes, the evergreen ‘If you disagree, I’m going to imply that you’re transphobic/against trans people’ argument.
Hardly.
Pointing out the inherent issues in a view that someone holds, is basic arguing.
People have opinions all the time without fully realizing every potential implication. That doesn’t mean they subconsciously endorse every possible adverse effect their political preferences might hold.
If you can’t point out the gotchas that a person might not have noticed in one of their adopted beliefs, what else is left when it comes to changing someone’s mind?
Insults?
People can be racist, transphobic or any manner of discriminatory, entirely without meaning to. And if they aren’t realizing what they are doing, someone has to point it out.
Are you suggesting people just suffer with it until they wise up?
I am suggesting that ad hominem and non sequitors are the tools of non-serious people who are more interested in performative commenting than having a conversation.
Usually when two people are fighting, if a third person comments against one of them, it’s pretty safe to assume they’re on the side of the guy they aren’t commenting against.
Sometimes being able to have discussions is a privilege. A lot of people just want to exist safely in a space without having to justify this or that. Blahaj seems to be such a space and there are other spaces for people to go if they do want debate and discussion
I am actually on your side with respect to full on defederation being too much in this case, but this is a comically naive take.
There are many situations were “debate club” is not an efficient way forward.
It might be worth leaving your own regional echo chamber and getting more real world experience.
Hey, how about you go swallow a hand grenade after pulling the pin?
I hope you fall into a pit of used syringes covered in shit. Actually, if you were standing next to such a pit, I would push you into it. Go join a Nazi instance if you’re gonna talk like one.
Ah, I see you’ve taken the moral highground.
Stand among a people who get murdered and erased left and right and tell me if honor or morality matter
Nothing says you’re against murder and erasure like gleefully explaining how you would kill somebody.
I’m not against murder or erasure of fascist, homophobic, bigoted dipshits. I’m against the murder and erasure of vulnerable minorities who have historically been oppressed by the aforementioned bigoted dipshits. In fact, as an egoistic anarchist, I condone murder of fascists, homophobes, and bigoted dipshits. Bash back, motherfucker!
Also, odd choice to defend some dude JAQing off about if transgender people have the right to exist in their own space free of harassment.
Ah.
This you?
Oh yes, very keen of you.
You scrubbed through my post history and found my only post (which I was hiding by mentioning it in my comment in this very thread). Another example of the Blahj admins using ‘transphobic’ like Israel uses ‘antisemetic’, as a cudgel against everyone not towing the party line.