this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)

/kbin meta

4 readers
1 users here now

Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign

founded 1 year ago
 

@ernest how do I report a Magazin on kbin.social ? There is a usere called "ps" who is posting to his own "antiwoke" Magazin on kbin.social. Please remove this and dont give them a chance to etablish them self on kbin.social. When I report his stuff it will go to him because he is the moderator of the magazin? Seems like a problem. Screenshot of the "antiwoke" Magazin /sub on kbin.social. 4 Headlines are visible, 2 exampels: "Time to reject the extrem trans lobby harming our society" "How to end wokeness" #Moderation #kbin #kbin.social πŸ“Ž

edit: dont feed the troll, im shure ernest will delet them all when he sees this. report and move on.

Edit 2 : Ernest responded:
"I just need a little more time. There will likely be a technical break announced tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Along with the migration to new servers, we will be introducing new moderation tools that I am currently working on and testing (I had it planned for a bit later in my roadmap). Then, I will address your reports and handle them very seriously. I try my best to delete sensitive content, but with the current workload and ongoing relocation, it takes a lot of time. I am being extra cautious now. The regulations are quite general, and I would like to refine them together with you and do everything properly. For now, please make use of the option to block the magazine/author."

❀

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PenguinJuice@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

People are allowed to have a difference of opinion. You don't get to silence people just because you disagree with them. Please do not go down that dark path.

Believe it or not there are people who do not subscribe to certain views, bur that does not make them "hate mongerers" anymore than the extreme opposition. It's only extremists and people who try to silence others for their views that are assholes. You live in a great big world full of a lot of differing opinions and that's what makes it beautiful. Silencing opinions because of your personal beliefs is not acceptable.

No, we’re not going to let shitheads like this ruin our community.

[–] Cylusthevirus@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If your "certain view" is that trans people, other queer people, and/or anyone left of Tucker Carlson shouldn't exist, you've opted out of the social contract of tolerance and should expect to be shunned.

Tolerance is either a two way street or a suicide pact and I'm not here to watch people die so the worst dregs of humanity can spew their garbage.

[–] PenguinJuice@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Whoa, I would never wish someone wouldn't exist anymore, wtf? Most moderate people I know just don't like the behavior, they don't hate the people... I know assholes exist who actually want to kill people who disagree with them but that exists on both sides of the aisle.

[–] minnieo@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Most moderate people I know just don't like the behavior

what does that even mean? what is 'the behavior'? i'd like to see you try and tell me without generalizing literally millions of people

It's not "behavior", it's who they are.

[–] fosho@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

you could always ... you know ... not care. your life would be so much more fulfilling and meaningful if you stopped sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

[–] z500@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, because certainly this time around people are going to stop at side eye and clucking their tongues. Because it's nothing but a difference of opinion, you see.

[–] OKbinBuddyChicanery@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Transphobia, racism, etc aren't an opinion. They are hate speech. Full stop.

I am absolutely against silencing opinions. I am also absolutely in favor of silencing hate speech. Understand the difference.

[–] PenguinJuice@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Racism is disgusting but transpobia? I don't believe that's hate speech. People can not like something but not wish death on the person or outright hate who they are as a person. People are allowed to dislike certain behaviors. It's not comparable to racism and its definitely not hate speech.

[–] minnieo@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

transphobia literally = "outright hating who someone is as a person". are you okay???

[–] szczur@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But you do not disagree with someone doing or believing something. By defending transphobia you disagree with someone being one thing or the other. Because transphobia isn't based on disagreeing with what trans people are doing or believe in. It disagrees with their fundamental right to exist and wants to take it away. It's no different from racism or antisemitism.

That's the difference you seem to miss.

[–] 10A@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just as there is no "gay gene", there is no "transgender gene".

[–] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] 10A@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's true, and it's a good point. All of our behavior is rooted in our free will.

[–] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which of course brings up the question why you care if others choose to live differently than you, or if others choose to try to resolve their gender dysphoria by aligning their biology to match their brain's perception of what they should be? Or if they choose to enter relationships with other people of the same gender? How does that harm anyone?

[–] 10A@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

God does not make mistakes. That principle was widely accepted as indisputable until recent times. Say it with me now, God does not make mistakes. It's not something we're allowed to doubt or question.

I care because this is spiritual warfare. Everyone who rejects God is choosing to follow Satan, whether or not they understand that. It is our moral duty to love one another as Jesus has loved us, which means to make our best effort to lead each other to God.

Please read your Bible. I want to point you to a single verse or two, but so much of the whole book deals with these topics that I find it overwhelming to think I could choose just one or two verses. We're discussing what God has repeatedly warned us against. If you care about humanity at all, you have a moral duty to make your best effort to stop this madness.

That's why.

"Ah shit, I might have fucked up"

  • Jesus (Matthew 27:46)

But anyway, religion isn't rational, there's no way to reason or logic with someone basing their worldview on an elaborate schizophrenic delusion, so this is a dead end conversation.

[–] fosho@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

at the end of the day, you're just an asshole for telling other people who they can and can't be when it doesn't affect you AT ALL.

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

but transpobia? I don't believe that's hate speech.

Uhhh...no, that is hate speech. It's in definition damnit.

I'm going down this thread and holy crap did you 180 from normal conversation into downright bigot.

[–] hydro033@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What about when it's more nuanced like "I support trans people to do whatever they want, but I don't support transwomen in women's sports." Or "I am cautious about transitioning young children until we have a better medical understanding of gender dysphoria." Seems like many here would still consider my perspective to be "hate speech," which I, of course, find ridiculous.

[–] effingjoe@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

When you're discussing traits inherent to a person-- not things they do or believe, but things they are, it's almost certainly hate speech. A quick test would be to swap the inherent thing you're talking about with skin color, since that one seems obvious to most people. So, would you say that an opinion that you support people of color, you just don't support them playing sports with people that aren't POC, be nuanced opinion or hate speech?

As for your second hypothetical, that is a discussion for doctors and experts, and they've already had it, and that's why children can't get non-reversible procedures until they're 18. No one is transitioning children; they are blocking their development so they can have a choice on how to proceed when they're adults.

[–] hydro033@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

False equivalence. XY humans destroy XX humans in sports, it's why we have men's and women's divisions - women are a protected class. Allowing XY individuals in women's sports is not fair to women, and undermines the entire purpose of sport and a women's division. Look at it this way : men's division is really an open division, but we created a women's division for the purpose of fairness.

Second point, let's just say you don't know how much I know about this topic or these issues. The question of reversibility by using hormone blockers is still being debated. We simply do not have enough data to know if its safe. You cannot treat hormone manipulation as some simple process. There are many feedback loops involved in the HPG axes.

[–] fosho@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

regarding the sports issue, i can understand the argument that this situation could be abused for an unfair advantage. and eventually it most likely would be by someone. however i don't have any good solutions that aren't shitty. even an absolutely sincere trans person could still have an unfair advantage but i would never advocate discrimination by banning them from competing. either option is unfair to someone. it's a tough issue and one that has no easy answers.

[–] hydro033@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Agreed - I think relabeling divisions as open and women (XX) divisions is the best solution. Other solutions I have heard include only regulating things at high levels of play, e.g., championships and other events that have prestigious awards. Joanna Harper has advocated the latter.

[–] fosho@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

hmm - i like the idea of removing gender from divisions and instead using another criteria that better defines an individual's ability. that way when a trans woman goes to compete they aren't specifically put into a category for men but rather a group of people who have relatively comparable abilities. sortof like weight classes. i mean - it's still kinda shitty because now someone has to decide based on difficult criteria who belongs where, but i think that's a step in the right direction. i'm would hope that for trans folks, the idea that they are put into a gendered category is what is the most discriminatory rather than a skill/ability category. however, the end result would likely be the same just with different labels. maybe that's what matters most? i don't know. no easy answers.

[–] AmidFuror@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Your logic means men (not trans women) should be able to compete in women's sports.

[–] CynAq@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not nuance, that's just ignorance and a knee-jerk reaction to a very complicated issue which has to be left to experts, who, in addition to being normal people with compassion and love like most of us towards their fellow humans, know the most about their topic of expertise than any of us.

[–] hydro033@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is indeed nuance. Just because you're not well read or educated on the topic, doesn't mean I am not. I have been thinking about these things for years and years, and I do indeed have a formal education in biology. So, no, not a knee-jerk reaction, sorry. Again, I am all for letting trans individuals transition and exist how they want, and I am all for respecting pronoun usage, and whatever else - that is compassion towards fellow humans. I am just pointing out two aspects of this debate where I have my own thoughts that have some slight pushback on progressive perspectives.

[–] CynAq@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

If you were as "well read" as you think you are, you would know how much bullshit you're spewing right now. Especially about children getting the gender affirming care they need without any need interference from "well-mean" idiots like you.

Your "concern" is potentially killing young people, and you're here talking out of your ass, convinced you have compassion for people.

Nuanced opinions are worthy of discussion. That's not what I've seen on the community in question.

[–] HelixDab@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Disagreements" are for things like tax milage, or whether or not a school needs a new football field. "Disagreements" are not for things like, "jews should be gassed", or "trans people are all pedophiles".

[–] 10A@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago
  1. To be very clear, in my opinion, Jews should not be gassed (or otherwise murdered), and not all trans people are pedophiles (I don't know the stats, but I'd guess they're about the same as the rest of the population).
  2. Anyone who disagrees on the preceding two points has every right to openly speak their mind in a free society. And whereas their free speech rights are our own free speech rights, we must defend their right to freely state their opinions in all public forums. Free speech is not for ideas we like, but precisely for the ideas we dislike.
[–] szczur@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Disagreeing with someone having the right to exist is not an opinion.

[–] fedosyndicate@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] for it may easily turn out that [the intolerant] are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; [the intolerant] may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to [other crimes] as criminal.

[–] spicy_biscuits@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Exactly this why is this so hard for these motherfuckers to understand

[–] slicedcheesegremlin@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

complexity does not inherently make your argument better. "Slavery is is horrible and evil but free black people shouldn't have the right to vote" is a "nuanced opinion," but that doesn't mean it isn't racist and terrible.

I agree in principle but that's not a great example

[–] spicy_biscuits@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Look up the tolerance paradox and then suck my dick