hah, this one is funny!
Also, echoing @Imotali@lemmy.world’s comment below (unfortunately you can’t sticky comments on lemmy): comments that express hate towards any group are a violation of instance guidelines. BE NICE.
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.
God bless it I fucking love lemmy! 😄
👍
Fucking A right. n
You are amazing, brave people and deserve a place in society where you are loved . M
Thank you so much!
Bruh, just do your job/hobby. Mods acting high and mighty is a big part of what made reddit so toxic.
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.
Censorship and restraint from the government. This isn’t that, so the consequences are not covered.
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.
Free speech is about the government not being able to restrict your speech. Guess what? Lemmy isn’t the government.
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 happens when transphobes forgets that trans men exists lol.
I’d love to
watchforcefeed them a plate of their, “you will always be a woman” words.They exist? Thought they were a fairytale
I know three.
In fact, come to think of it, I only know two trans women, so I know more trans men than trans women.
I think it would have been fair to have a rule saying “no surgical modifications”… because doing things like facelift, nose-job, breast/buttox implants, cheek lifts, wrinkle removal, etc, are obviously unfair advantages (in a beauty contest) for those who have the money pay for it; and having a generic blanket rule like that would have accomplished the same thing they were trying to accomplish without being so blatantly transphobic… so a rule like what they have only proves that they are both despicable AND dumb. The entire notion of beauty pageants is outdated and stupid if you ask me.
Lol, you implement that and basically all beauty pageants stop existing. Which would be a good thing, mind you. But I’ve never met a pageant contestant in my life that isn’t … let’s say … heavily enhanced by medical procedures.
On the one hand, that might work. On the other hand, who gives a fuck about the rules in a contest with arbitrary standards?
I think it would have been fair to have a rule saying “no surgical modifications”…
How are you intending to prove that that? Only the bad surgery makes itself obvious.
Like any kind of contest, finding rules violations is hard and not foolproof. It’s like sports that forbid using steroids - competitors do regularly take those substances while training, then quit taking them for competition and go uncaught. Competitors who are discovered later to have been violating rules are stripped of titles.
That said, I don’t think it’s a very controversial concept that a beauty pageant shouldn’t be a contest about who could afford the best surgeons. Well - as I said earlier I think beauty pageants are absurd to begin with, but if they have to exist I don’t think it should be a contest between surgeons.
Though I would watch one that was a contest between surgeons. I imagine it’d start pretty tame, but the first time a girl with cat ears wins, were only like 5 years from the really crazy shit
This would be hilarious if it happened.
They are absurd and it’ll probably be a good thing when we’ve got past their existence. But the problem here is that proving surgery is essentially impossible. It’s quite unlike drugs that you can test for. Maybe implants you could test for but that’s just one thing, and I’m not sure that beauty pageants even have the kind of budget required for advanced tests.
One of the contest’s rules says you can’t participate if you willingly had a nude photo took in your lifetime. Good luck proving that (not even considering how it’s a honeypot for revenge porn to surface)
I’d be more interested in protesting the fact that it’s now legal to grope women in Italy.
The landmark decision involved a school janitor who jammed his hand into a 17 year old girl’s panties.
Pick the hill you want to die on.
What is protest part? Not sure it is malicious compliance either because contestant was not rebirthed as woman. Not that it’s possible unless you are buddhist.
