lemmy.blahaj.zone defederates feddit.uk

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.

Show Context

219 comments

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.
  
  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.
  
  Did you have an actual counterpoint in there?
  A little linguistic color hardly disqualifies a point. And if you can't see the relevance of my analogies, that's your problem. I'm not interested in dumbing it down even more.
  
  If you can't understand my point then I'm not going to draw you a picture.
  
  No. I got it.
  You think a single insult buried in a logical argument disqualifies the whole thing.
  
  The comment thread started with a person explaining the importance of discussion in winning over allies and avoiding creating an echo chamber. You implied that their suggestion was making trans people less safe.
  That does not follow, it isn't an attempt to address their point. It is a non sequitor.
  It is simply changing the conversation topic by accusing the person of a harm in order to make them defend themself rather than addressing the topic at hand (i.e. Creating an echo chamber is bad, conversation is good).
  You think a single insult buried in a logical argument disqualifies the whole thing.
  You're not engaging in a conversation. A conversation requires a good faith effort to understand the other side. Using logical fallacies to discredit the other person is not something done in good faith. It isn't a single insult, it's the rhetorical tactics that you're using.
  It's possible that you don't realize what you're doing. Maybe you grew up on social media where this kind of thing can appear acceptable (or, at least, gets upvotes because its outrageous behavior).
  Or maybe you're a little older and wiser and know exactly what you're doing, but think that the ends justify the means. So you're just getting some good shots in on the other for your side and ignoring the human being on the other end.
  Either way, it's toxic.
  
  Using logical fallacies to discredit the other person is not something done in good faith.
  I agree, and yet:
  Ah yes, the evergreen 'If you disagree, I'm going to imply that you're transphobic/against trans people' argument.
  Boiled down, what you're saying here is that I'm trying to tell someone they are wrong about something, and that it relates to transphobia.
  But you've framed it such that because it is about transphobia, I can't possibly have a point. Or that the mention of transphobia, is meant to guilt trip you into agreeing with something that doesn't hold water. But that's just an excuse to bring out an emotional retort, when there isn't a logical one.
  Paraphrasing what someone is saying until it feels like nothing but a personal attack, is not something you do in good faith. What you should be doing, is separating out any logic and emotion in what someone is telling you. Discarding or responding to one or the other, or both, as applicable. You got some hateful, purely emotional responses that you can and should dismiss, by mine wasn't one of them.
  Just because someone is trying to inform you of an issue in your behaviour or views, does not allow you to dismiss them out of hand. Unless you are perfect, there is a chance they have a point.
  Telling someone they engage in a behaviour, or hold an opinion, that is transphobic, is never pleasant. But that the person themselves doesn't intend to discriminate, does not make the argument itself evaporate. And that some are too militant to present even a shred of logic, doesn't mean none of the people who confront you on the same subject have a point.
  In fact, by engaging in this fallacy, you failed to follow another piece of your own advice.
  A conversation requires a good faith effort to understand the other side.
  You were so sure this part wasn't happening, you completely failed to start off doing it yourself.
  
  You implied that their suggestion was making trans people less safe.
  No I didn't. I said so. Because it IS so.
  And I didn't lead with that. I lead with explaining that we can have both safe places, AND discussion. That this isn't a zero sum game.
  Safe spaces are not a bad thing. Echo chambers are only echo chambers if the people inside them don't move in and out as needed. Which at least I do, do.
  Discussion is good, but it cannot be mandatory, as those who cannot, do not want to, or are not ready to engage in it, can be harmed by it.
  Stepping into the ring of rhetoric every day, is not good for you. Especially if you're forced to do so just to be granted validation on your basic right to exist. That there's a place to go in-between battles to recover, is a good thing.
  
  Safe spaces are not a bad thing. Echo chambers are only echo chambers if the people inside them don’t move in and out as needed. Which at least I do, do. Discussion is good, but it cannot be mandatory, as those who cannot, do not want to, or are not ready to engage in it, can be harmed by it.
  Yes, I agree.
  If a Blahj user can't move into an echo chamber (Blahj communities) and out of the echo chamber (the rest of the fediverse) then Blahj is, by this definition, an echo chamber. A single person choosing to remove the option from every Blahj user to leave the echo chamber would be bad.
  An example of such a behavior would be if the single person defederated another instance from Blahj, preventing the Blahj users from being able to choose to access the external discussion.
  A safe space would be, for example, a Blahj community on a Blahj server. This is a good thing, because it gives people the ability to access a safe space. It becomes a bad thing when that safe space is ran by people who want to isolate their users from the greater social media landscape 'for their protection'.
  Users can choose which communities they subscribe to. Blahj users could choose to avoid Feddit.uk or they could choose to read Feddit.uk. Now they can't.
  
  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.
- 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.

219 comments