ada

ada, 1 year ago

I came off my bike as a teenager and broke my funny bone! So it sticks out now and is easier to bump, and the weird tingly pain it causes if so much worse!

ada, 1 year ago

Transgender. Self deprecating humour, but your subject is a familiar feeling for so many of us :\

ada, 1 year ago

Is there a word that means “a hatred of gay people”, rather than “a fear of or aversion to gay people”?

No, because that’s just semantic wiggle room to give bigots a way of excusing their bigotry.

For example. “I don’t hate gay people, and I’m not afraid of them, so I’m not homophobic. I just don’t want to see them, and they shouldn’t be able to get married”. It’s a statement that is clearly biased against queer folk, and that’s the issue that needs to be addressed. But discussions like the one you’re suggesting just lead to irrelevant arguments over exactly what type of bigotry is being displayed, rather than telling the bigot to get bent, which suits the needs of the bigots fine.

ada, 1 year ago

I see what you mean. I guess it’s hard though because currently they can already say that

And you’re right, they do. But I’ve got little interest in providing them with more nuance to explain why they want me to have less rights than them.

whereas if there was a word that meant hatred of gay people, they would have to admit they are that thing instead

No, they wouldn’t. They would just say that they don’t hate queer folk, because they don’t want to hurt/exile/kill them etc. They do this already.

"I don’t hate gay folk, but… "

I don’t know what we can say to people who aren’t hateful but just afraid of the idea of homosexuality.

In all my years, I’ve never encountered such a person. If they do exist, then they can just explain it to their therapist in full sentences as needed, rather than normalising some forms of bigotry.

Even if someone is “afraid” of gay folk, that’s still their problem. It’s something they need to work on, rather than pushing the mental cost of working through their irrational fears on people that are already unfairly targeted by bigotry.

ada, 1 year ago

certainly someone could claim to be just afraid of homosexuality while using that as a cover for actually hating it or being prejudiced against it or homosexual people

It’s not that someone “could” do this. They already do. They will come up with a million excuses as to why they’re not bigoted/prejudiced.

You know the cliche “I’m not racist, but…” That’s the phenomena in action.

doesn’t exactly fit the hypothetical I described

And that’s the core of my issue with your whole question.

You’re trying to solve a hypothetical scenario that doesn’t occur in any meaningful way, with a solution that makes it easier for bigots to display their bigotry with less pushback. It doesn’t solve any real world issues that can’t already be addressed by conversation with a therapist, and it does it by creating further opportunities for bigots to pretend that they aren’t bigoted.

ada, 1 year ago (edited 10 months ago)

And there it is! It’s my fault you hated folk like me when you were younger, and also my fault for not educating you.

Folk hating on me and trying to take my rights away is something I live with every day. According to your framing here, the fact someone didn’t take the responsibility for educating you, whilst folk are trying to remove the rights of folk like me is somehow the real issue, and somehow it’s actually you that were wronged.

Do the work, and own your responsibility in the whole affair. It’s on you to undo the harm you do to others, not on the people you are harming. Don’t palm the responsibility on to the people you were throwing bullshit at.

ada, 1 year ago (edited 10 months ago)

They aren’t hateful

Yes, they are. They may have been taught to be that way, but however they got there, that’s how they ended up. People indoctrinated in to hate still spread hate. And it’s not the duty of the people targeted by that hate to educate the people oppressing them. They may choose to do so, but that’s their choice. There is no scenario in which the hateful is owed education by the people they’re hating on, even if the hateful person simply “doesn’t know any better”

Here’s an analogy for you, if you go into a forest and find a stick and hit some animal with the stick the animal will respond defensively. It started off scared but not it considers you a threat.

You’re the person with the stick in this analogy. You may have been told that carrying the stick is ok, and you may not have known better, but either way, you were the person walking in to the forest and hitting things, but the difference is, you expect the critters that you were hitting to tell you that it’s a bad thing, and you’re upset at the critters for not educating you, instead of being upset at the people who told you the stick was ok in the first place.

I’m adding on to this. Fucking look at MLK Jr. He encountered both hate and ignorance sometimes together and sometimes just ignorance. You never once saw him preach “go be an asshole”

Outreach isn’t a duty, it’s a choice, and unless you’re a dick, it’s not something you expect from every member of the vulnerable folk you’ve been hating on. And on top of that, if the actions of one or more people you personally don’t like impact your acceptance of an entire vulnerable minority group, then, well, you’ve still got work to do, because you’re still carrying that stick.

ada, 1 year ago

And now other queer folk are telling you the opposite. So you stop using it on the people who don’t like it, rather than arguing with them that they should like it because your friends do

ada, 1 year ago

What you said, but I’m just shy of 50 and I run rather than cycle

ada, 1 year ago

I mean, I get it. I hate the damned things. I can’t deny their utility, but they’re just not worth it

ada, 1 year ago

None. An instance that federates with everyone will end up defederated themselves, because they’ll end up full of bigots and trolls

ada, 1 year ago

I actually want to see the actual, real range of human opinion and ideas

I can do without unfiltered bigotry relentlessly aimed at my community. That got old years ago.

There’s plenty of places I can find unfiltered bigotry. That’s not what I’m looking for here

ada, 1 year ago

It strikes me that there is the potential to use trusted remote servers as a means of recovering the lost data. I mean, nearly every lemmy instance except lemmy.ml will have copies of the missing data, and given the hugely redundant availability of that data (including the ability to compare from multiple sources to establish/verify trust), using that data to rebuild missing content seems like it could be useful functionality.

ada, 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

Ok, there’s your instance, instance A, that hosts your personal account. There’s the instance that hosts the community, instance B, and a random instance that your content has federated to, but doesn’t host you or the community directly. This is instance C.

If an admin on A (instance A mods can’t remove this post) removes your post, it gets removed on other instances too, including B and C.

If an admin or community mod on instance B removes your post, it gets removed on other instances too, including A and C.

However, if an admin on C removes your post (a moderator on C can’t), then it is only removed on instance C. Instance A and B and any other instances the content has federated to aside from C, continue to see replies, edits, votes etc

ada, 1 year ago

One final point. My example above only works if there are no mods for the community on instance C.

If there is a community mod on instance C, that moderator can remove the post and the removal will federate, even when an admin removal on instance C will not (unless that admin is also a community mod for the instance B community)

ada, 1 year ago

Not quite. An account on instance C that has moderator privileges on a community hosted on instance B can’t take any direct actions against instance B content.

All that can do is remove it in instance C. However, because they’re a moderator, that removal will federate to instance B, which will remove it there, and then federate that removal to any instance that the post federated to originally.

ada, 1 year ago

Improve my Spanish. It’s low stakes because I was going to be doing it anyway, but this makes it a formal goal :)

ada, 1 year ago

Nah. They knowingly and deliberately house hate groups. They get actively defederated.

ada, 1 year ago

Cool pun

ada, 1 year ago

This was pretty much my experience too

ada, 1 year ago

No one. I spent it in Buenos Aires with my partner. Best Christmas in a long time

ada, 1 year ago

Who is “everyone else” in this story?

The only place I know that days Happy Christmas is the UK

In Australia, it’s merry

ada, 1 year ago

Either way, happy and merry Christmas to you :)

ada, 1 year ago

So in this instance, you’re posting to a group on lemmy.ml. The way groups work is that the instance the group is on boosts any posts made to that group to users who are subscribed to the group. Lemmy.ml does not have access to your block list, so boosts it based on its own federation list

Authorised fetch fixes this problem in the wider Fediverse, but Lemmy lacks a proper implementation of it at this point AFAIK

ada, 1 year ago

But opening up that definition

It’s not “opening up” a definition. It is the definition.

But opening up that definition means we need another way to refer to people who are physically transitioning, because there are meaningful differences in their experiences and needs.

No we don’t. Not everyone who undergoes medical transition undergoes the same journey. Some folk want surgery, some folk want HRT, some folk want both, some folk want one but not the other. Some folk want to micro dose, some folk want to replicate cis hormone levels.

There is no meaningful catch all term that summarises the needs of all of those folk. Trying to find a single term to capture that spectrum leads to a single narrative of what medical transition looks like, and makes it harder for people to transition on their own terms.

The language we need to talk about these things already exists, and is improving and changing with time. Nothing is gained by returning to the old days of binary terms and all or nothing language.

there’s nothing inherently gatekeeping about it;

Yes there is. It’s defining folk who medically transition as being a different class of trans folk. We’re not a different class. We all of us have unique needs, and the language should focus on those individual needs, whether they’re medical, social or other.

Defining “trans” to be narrower than the wider definition is only wrong because we’re attached to the current definition

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in my original reply. I’m a binary trans woman, who medically transitioned with all of the bells and whistles, and so I get lumped in with people who genuinely believe statements like this.

I actively, loudly and strongly disagree with what you’ve said here, and I hate that people often assume I share beliefs like that. Defining the term trans to be narrower than it is is gatekeeping, end of story. It denies people the right to their own identity. That is inherently bad. People define for themselves, even in a hypothetical scenario where bad faith actors try and fuck it up