Not many people know it, but penguins are excellent brick layers and if they were smart enough, ostriches and emus would make excellent guard birds! Also, kiwis are just adorably awkward, so they’re there to keep the morale up 😉
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.
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.
This makes no sense in reply to my comment. Free speech is about the government, changing Lemmy instances won’t change the fact that Lemmy is not the government. My opinion, views, etc have nothing to do with this. As far as free speech is concerned a community would be free to remove trans positive comments if they so chose.
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).
Friend, I appreciate your mod efforts, and I support 100% what you’re doing here.
Having said that, I think there is a misalignment in terms of free speech definitions.
What I think you’re saying is that people are free to express themselves, and the government (in the U.S., Italy, Argentina, wherever) will not censor you for that. However, a consequence of that is that you can ban them. Fair enough.
But people are not referring to the free speech in the country, region or whether. They’re specifically referring to the exercising of free speech in the community you are moderating. You’re saying that “there is free speech here,” then it follows that transphobic comments should be allowed (something I wouldn’t like because fuck transphobes.) But since you remove comments that don’t align with the community, then the community doesn’t have free speech - and that’s okay. I’m just referring to the contradiction: “you’re allowed to say what you want, but I will ban you if you say this or that” - welp, that just means that “this or that” is not allowed.
I think that’s what the other commenters are saying. They’re not criticizing you for removing comments. They’re calling out that removing comments (as a consequence of speech) and claiming that there is free speech, well no, technically it isn’t.
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.)
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.
Just to play devils advocate, wouldn’t that mean it’s okay to criticize the idea of transgenderism if you don’t criticize the people who are transgender (although not really sure if that’s even possible)?
Yes. If you could prove transgenderism exists. See because you attach an -ism to it you are (in English) saying “the ideology of transgender individuals” which is “we exist” which is not an ideology. It is a fact. You can disagree with facts all you want but it doesn’t make you smart.or intellectual… it makes you wrong.
“The idea of being transgender” it’s not an idea anymore than you think about being cisgender. It’s a false dichotomy created by cisgender people who fail to understand the issue or fall victim to the “gay agenda” rhetoric of right wing media.
A better way to phrase it is no trans person thinks of themselves as trans. A trans woman thinks of herself as a woman. A trans man thinks of himself as a man. So there’s no “idea” of “being transgender” unless you’re a cis person who thinks they know what they’re talking about.
It’s like the phrase “differently abled” only able bodied people think like that.
That’s the thing about choosing an instance, it’s his house, his rules. At least with Lemmy it’s like you can move out to the next building, Reddit is like living in jail nowhere left to move.
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.
You have a lot of learning to do about enlightenment. Gutei cut off a motherfucker’s finger to get him a little closer to enlightenment. Violence is inherent to true enlightenment. When the enlightened meet the buddha, they will kill the buddha.
Friend, I’m going to try to be gentle, and honest, and I hope you will listen with an open heart and mind.
I came out to myself, and my wife and kids about a week ago. I was born with the mind, the spirit, the personally, the essence, whatever, of a woman 37 years ago. I have been living as a man, conforming to society’s rules for 37 years. It took me four days, two hours at a time, to feel 40% of the way you do, just by waking up.
Note: I don’t know what gender you are. I don’t actually give a flying fuck. The point is, if you want to go sit in a sauna with your peers, you can. I can’t. All the normal experiences you had, weather you was born as a girl, and was annoyed that your mom made you sit still so she could fix your hair, or as a boy playing catch with your dad or working on the family car, you got that. You got to go to prom wearing what you want. Hell, you can go take a shit at the mall without people giving you dirty looks.
I can’t.
Trans people don’t want to insert themselves anywhere. Society wants to exclude them from everywhere. It may seem pointless that it’s just some beauty pageant, but imagine you have this beautiful car you built, by hand. You even had to so much custom shaping and fabrication, but goddamn is she pretty. Let’s take her to a car show, shall we? Wait… You can’t show off the car you’ve literally spent years on? After all this time, after you spent all this money, all this time, hiding away. You are scared. This isn’t a mass manufactured car, what if you get made fun of? It’s fine, it still has the shape of a car, and it’s so pretty, and you are so proud!
What… it isn’t allowed? It is a gorgeous car though… They say it isn’t actually a car, just a bunch of shit someone slapped together. You can’t just take a Ford, strip it down to it’s frame, rebuild it peice by peice, and still call it a car. You cheated, and it’s wrong. Hell, for good measure, they tell you you can’t even register to drive it. It now sits in your garage. Collecting dust.
If you don’t understand my allegory, you are you, the car is your true sense of self, your “transgenderism” if you must call it that, the car show was gonna be the pageant but I spaced out and it became representative of society as a whole for a minute…
You are absolutely right that we want to be accepted. You’re accepted. Why can’t I be like you? Why do I have to be scared my step brother is going to beat the shit out of me just because I have to take a piss? You can go to the store and just… Grab a gallon of milk without having to worry about some bigot stalking you and hurting you just because you wore yoga pants because you think you have a nice ass. I’m nervous to step into my own backyard to have a cigarette without an entire man-costume on. You can literally put on whatever the hell you want, step outside, and and shout at the top of your lungs “I’m here!” And nobody will bat an eye.
If I put on whatever I wanted, stepped outside, and met you for the first time, pleasant as can be, your preconceived notions would be that I’m some weird bundle-of-sticks-word that need to go inside and has no place in society.
Okay, I’ll make it simple since your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired: your bias is keeping you from allowing people to be themselves. The fact you don’t see a problem with an entire subsect of people being excluded from an event shows that you are a disgusting person that shouldn’t be allowed in public.
Yet you feel the need to tell them how they should act?
If they wish to participate, it’s their right to attempt to join. I just think it’s wonderful that the pagents clear policy of hate is backfiring so publicly.
Is that it that “activists want to insert themselves and their cause into every possible area of society“ or is it maybe that trans people are actual living breathing humans who are a part of every possible area of society, and they have the right to exist and live their lives in peace, same as you?
The only people in the story that are “forcing” anyone are the bigots who are actively attempting to ban trans people from competing, but they’re doing it poorly. Not surprising, since most bigots lack critical thinking skills.
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.
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)
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
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.
I stare at Linux source code very often looking for vulnerabilities.
I unironically have printed pages out to sit down with.
The idea of having the whole kernel printed… is… fun. Lol. How would your organize it for reading? Different chapters that are the directories of the kernel code ?
I’d love to hear more about this - do you do it professionally (for preventative reasons), as a side hobby, or as an attacker for malicious/selfish reasons? No judgement, genuinely curious as it takes a certain personality type to do this kind of work and I find it really interesting.
MacOS and iOS have Darwin as their base, which is really a mutt. Apple started with the NeXTSTEP kernel, which was a mix of 4.3BSD and Mach, then folded in some FreeBSD, other open source components, and some in-house code.
It’s Android that uses the Linux kernel as its base, and the millions of phones makes it a juicy target.
FreeBSD is not Linux. Linux is a kernel and Apple uses Mach, a different kernel. They do both share that they’re POSIX, but OS X is actual, factual, UNIX, and Linux has never paid the money to qualify.
Well of course I could go look at the source code. We had to write a hello world Linux module in college. Was just being lazy and thought some expert might give a quick synopsis.
Though based on your reply, I’m guessing they are more different than I imagined.
My bad I’m conflating bash and Unix. From my end both apple and Linux use bash so they have the same underlying base…but I realize that’s not accurate, and even unix and bash are not synonomous.
I think they just stare at it, hoping the vulnerabilities come to them in a moment of revelation. A Linux Joseph Smith, the kernel playing the part of the Golden Plates.
I’m sure there was a dress code when she signed up for the job. She agreed to it. Instead of realizing how childish she’s acting, she just doubles down and whines on the internet. Really a snapshot of people these days.
fwiw I think pink hair should be perfectly fine but there are some rules with dress that are a good idea. I don’t care if you wear a dress, slacks or have rainbow hair but generally I prefer people I do business with to wear stuff.
Then there’s food safety. Things like hair nets and prohibiting certain jewelry and outfits in food processing plants is another example of when sometimes it’s ok to limit personal expression for the sake of others’. A server though? No such reason. Maybe a hair net if they brought food to your table or were also a chef.
Literally none of the things you listed here count as modifying your body? As a reply to “nobody should have to arbitrarily change their body for their employer,” “sometimes there are practical clothing and equipment requirements” is practically a non-sequitur.
Which is cool, except the subject of this entire thread has nothing to do with modifying body parts so it’s also fair for the responder to be referring to attire rather than actual body modification.
If that was the dress code when I signed up to the job then absolutely, that’s what I signed up for. If they changed the dress code however then I will challenge that.
These expectations are the problem, if I agreed to sell my soul because I didn’t want to read a several page agreement while installing a free program, should they get it? Fuck no. Also, as somebody who’s worked all sorts of different positions: these rules are unenforceable, in a lot of cases. If a business hires you, they will try to keep that asset. A lot of times managers do not care what you wear until you’re someone they don’t like. Especially if you work in food service, and make a standard industry wage (that is, not shit!!) Push that envelope. Your coworkers will too, maybe.
Exactly. Like there can be safety concerns and such, but not to the extent that some places push it. Like my neurologists infusion center doesn’t care about tattoos, piercings, or hair color unless they might get caught on things or are NSFW. So all piercings must be small, smooth, and not hoops. Even gauged ears are fine as long as they have solid plugs. And most people are smart enough to only put NSFW tattoos in easily coverable places. Employers thinking they can just blinding dictate your entire appearance is absurd.
Well, as a customer facing role, they have good reason for the requirement. She is representing this business. They have the right to represent themselves a cartain way.
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.
Doing something to playfully point out the silliness of the policy…or she could sue. Seems like she did the less extra of those two options.
I have a friend who was upset he couldn’t wear shorts to the office while women could wear capri pants…he found women’s capri pants in his size and wore them. I guess he’s extra as well?
Yeah, the only concern is whether the hair style could cause issues (notably a lot of hair can be an issue in some jobs), and even than you can manage most of the time.
If playfully poking fun at authority by demonstrating how the intended consequences of petty rules can be subverted creatively irks you, you’re in the wrong community, hun.
Maybe people with opinions like this are the ones who need to calm the fuck down. Okay little Miss. CryBaby? I have a sneaking suspicion that this comment isn’t the worst of your red flags either.
… I can’t tell if you’re serious or not. How is that at all the same thing? He wore a costume to a costume party. This girl wore a costume to her client facing position while working. There’s no universe where this is the same thing.
Donning anti-conformity attire, or a silly loophole around it, is still conformity. That was the point he was barely making in your clip. He should have shown up in his normal clothes. This girl should have just kept her pink hair.
How do you not know that Dr House is the villain in that show? Im this clip his own colleague calls him out for it. This clip clearly shows how biased and judgemental he is without basis. He fucking abuses pills in this scene. THAT'S A CLUE.
Dude, ew. House is not a role model. Looking at his anti-social assholery is entertaining. But he is not a good or even reasonable person most of the time. He is a high functioning sociopath.
“Ms. Extra” spends her own time and money entertaining people while thumbing her nose at those corporate slugs. I think people who make other people happy are probably not throwing a tantrum.
Does anyone younger than a boomer even care about hair color? I’m 37 and while pink hair might stand out to me, that’s only because of the rules written by those with sticks up their backsides, half a century ago. Ultimately, I don’t give a damn.
She’s Ms. Extra because she’s resisting bullying by an incompetent employer?
It’s not wholly unreasonable for a business to have some kind of appearance standard for front-of-house employees. But it is unreasonable to hire people for those positions literally sight unseen, and it’s a stupidly written policy if pink hair violates it while ridiculous wigs do not.
Besides, it’s 2023. Brightly colored hair is hardly an outrageous and rare sight to see. No one is going to stop frequenting a business because they were greeted by someone with pink hair.
No one is going to stop frequenting a business because they were greeted by someone with pink hair.
Some will but you didn’t want them there in the first place, any profit the company makes off their purchase was going to be negated into the red by taking up employee time with stupid requests and complaints.
They don’t have the right to control what you do to your hair. They do have the right to put someone with a more professional look in a client facing front house position.
On one side companies sometimes have policies on the appearance of their client-facing people due to wanting to project the kind of image some customers expects (humans in general are pretty superficial in passing judgement, even when they’re supposed to be hardnosed professionals, so some client representatives will have their judgment - which in the ideal world would be entirelly done on professional grounds - affected by the appearance of the front of the house personnel) rather than because people inside that company actually care about it.
On the other side, this stuff is widelly abused in the highly hierarchical structure which is the typical company to very visibly demonstrate the power of management through making the most visibly free-thinking employees comply (or leave, they don’t care: the purpose is for it to be seen by the rest so as to induce them to “do as they’re told” and even create an environment of peer pressure for compliance, the kind of environment were you have things like for example “a culture of unpaid long-hours”).
Businesses have the right to not be represented by someone with pink hair if they don’t want that to be their image. If I show up at work dressed up like a clown I’m probably gonna get a talking to. I don’t understand what the controversy is.
She had pink hair when they hired her. No one at the company bothered to engage with even a Zoom call to screen her appearance, so they are gonna do what now, exactly?
“More professional looking” has historically been used to justify racism and sexism.
Looking like a professional means looking like the person who knows how to do this job, whatever it is. Professionals come in all sizes, shapes, and colors. If I have a different mental image of “looking like a professional plumber” to “looking like a professional nurse” to “looking like a professional accountant,” that’s my bias and shouldn’t dictate who can be those things. Nor how they can wear their hair except for safety.
It’s not like she’s unclean, or doing her job poorly, or harassing the customers.
We’re not talking about racism. Nobody has pink hair naturally. This individual made a choice to appear a certain way. If that is contrary to the business’s image they are trying to project then they have every right to terminate her or at least put in a back office role, not front house client facing.
Also how does not fall under dress code? Basically the same thing and nobody finds that controversial for the most part.
Transcription for the blind: Storefront with two paper signs taped to the window. Left sign says "Since the supreme court had ruled that businesses can discriminate…NO SALES TO TRUMP SUPPORTERS. Right sign says “We only sell to churches that fly the pride flag” and has an illustrated image of a pride flag and a church.
-Transcription done by a human volunteer. Let me know how I can do better.
There’s a contradiction here. The Supreme Court ruled that Speech can’t be compelled, not that you could bar certain people from a business. You could decline to decorate a cake with “MAGA”, but not decline to sell a cake to a Republican, for example. What those signs are promoting is still illegal.
Forgive me, but I don’t believe political affiliation is a protected class–protected classes are the only things people can’t discriminate based on. So like, race, sex, religion are protected, but democrat/republican/green party aren’t protected. Businesses can legally discriminate against non-protected classes. It’s just usually a bad business strategy to turn customers away.
Edit: the second sign is definitely more questionable, as it does specifically discriminate based on beliefs. I was mostly focused on the first sign.
Really well written, you did a great job of conveying the inertia you and your team must have felt without making the reader feel bogged down, I really enjoyed it.
An amazing story, and just downright perplexing. It is a shame you never found out what on earth was going on in the CTOs head. I would love to understand the thought process (or lack thereof) that went into that.
If I had to speculate and GUESS, based on information I know now and if I give the CTO the benefit of the doubt and assume he was competent (contrary to what I saw), I would say they were having trouble canceling the contract with the third party consulting firm we were hired through. I also think they might have been quietly moving their operations out of state to another infrastructure originally belonging to another company they bought or merged with that had their own IT team and wanted us kept out of the loop. Hiring us might have been a way to reduce our compensation and get us under an NDA regarding the move. When hiring us failed they were able to re-negotiate the terms of the contract with the consulting firm for half of what it was. Again, just a guess.
maliciouscompliance
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.