Ada

Friendica, and to a lesser extent, misskey and it’s forks

Faux outrage isn’t playing around though. They’re not doing it for fun, they’re doing it for social capital.

As an instance admin, if I regularly see reports for a local community that break community rules but not instance rules that sit without action for 24 hours or more, that’s when I’ll get involved with the community to try and get more active mods.

If the reports are for posts that break instance rules, I’ll action them whether or not there are local mods active.

This is all an interesting hypothetical to you. To me, it’s my lived life. Trust me, I’ve done what you’re talking about. I was active in /r/changemyview, and I’ve spent a lot of time having this discussion with people on social media.

And in that time, not a single person has changed their perspective or view on the topic. Because they already had a view, and despite the ostensible goal of the sub, they’re largely not open to changing their view. They may want to, but they’re not actually willing to change it. Because ultimately, people arrived at their “concerns” through emotional manipulation, and that can’t be undone by “rational discussion”. Like sure, maybe you’re the single exception, and in my 5+ years of having this discussion, you might be the first to genuinely change your opinion. But even then, after 5 years of normalising the idea that my rights are up for discussion, as if it’s actually ok for people to want them removed because of their “concerns”, I’d have a single changed mind in 5 years.

But you know what else I’ve done in those 5 years? I’ve told every other person that I’ve had this discussion with that it’s actually ok to debate my rights, that whether or not I deserve rights is based on how well I can debate and argue. And I’ve given the bigots driving this whole discussion exactly what they wanted, which is to make myself a target.

Fuck that.

So what does it say about me? It says I’ve got more lived experience in navigating this topic than you ever will, and I’m no longer willing to see “civil discussion” on the erasure of peoples rights, in the pointless hope that it will actually help us. Because it doesn’t.

That argument would be torn apart pretty easily

Sure. The argument can be torn apart. But that doesn’t change anything. What changes when you make those sorts of arguments is simply that it gives a green light to pushing back against marginalised people.

If argument being torn apart was enough, the argument against trans folk in sport wouldn’t even be an argument. But it is, because there is a political interest in creating harmful narratives about trans folk, and using exclusion from sport as a wedge to normalise exclusion in other areas. Which is exactly what is happening.

So if you’re ok with that sort of question, I think you need to spend a bit more time looking at the context those questions exist in. Why is it now that people want to suddenly talk about trans people in sports. It’s not because the trans folk have been doing anything different. It’s because there is an explicit motivation to create a culture war, with trans folk as the targets. You shouldn’t be ok with being part of that.

I’m not asking you to argue about it. I explicitly don’t want people arguing about it, which I was hoping my previous comment would make clear.

There are people out there that were raised a certain way that want to change or perhaps have questions due to ignorance on the topic. By being combative, you’re doing more harm than good for something you clearly care about.

If someone turns against all trans people because they encounter a single angry trans person, then they were just looking for an excuse to justify what they already felt.

And it’s not my job to play nice with the people trying to erase my rights in the hope that maybe, just maybe, they’ll stop what they’re doing! That doesn’t work. That has never worked. Every single civil right gain has been made by pushing back.

So thanks for the advice, but I’ll keep pushing back

So, you’d like to argue for the validity of excluding a vulnerable group, in the middle of a world spanning hate campaign against that exact group?

All I read in these threads is effectively “WAAAH I don’t WANNA pay!”… Without realizing that the payment gave them something significantly more secure.

I’ve never used Plex, but the thing that stopped me from looking at it isn’t that it’s a paid service. It’s that it’s partially centralised, and starting to become hostile to its user base. This current change, locking down a previously free feature being an iconic example of that.

My partner and I fund two decently sized fediverse instances and a matrix instance mostly out of our own pockets. We do that precisely because we have both actively chosen to move away from centralised, user hostile social media platforms. And whilst Plex isn’t a social media platform, it is centralised and becoming more user hostile, and I won’t pay for that.

(And to be clear, I’m front of house, I’m not responsible for setting up our instances security :P)

So, you’d be ok with someone arguing that maybe a discussion about racism is warranted, because sometimes, a bit of racism is warranted?

Or is that only ok when it’s trans people?

'cause if you want logical and consistent, that’s something you need to ask yourself. Why is it that folk are quite willing to discuss the erasure of rights of just one class of people, when it’s not something you’d even consider talking about with most other groups?

There is no consistency in that desire, it’s not driven by a desire to be logically consistent. This is driven by political interests and think tanks trying to create social divide. It’s not a co-incidence that you just want to consider the logical merits or trans folk, right now, at this moment in history.

Until you’re willing to face the reasons behind that, and the impact your social context has on you, you can’t be logically consistent.

What do you want changed then?

Also, if you come in expecting to debate for the removal of trans rights, you won’t last long

Put it behind a reverse proxy!

I guess I haven’t noticed that. The non technically literate folk I know use smart TVs, or can download Jellyfin from an app store. Then they just use the URL when the app asks for it.

There’s no other configuring to do on their end.

As long as the technical person does all of the setup on their end, the non technical person only has to enter a domain and port in their jellyfin client.

You are the only moderator of both communities you moderate, so it sounds like a display bug

The right being lost isn’t the right to play sports. It’s the right to equality.

And it’s great that your for something that isn’t going to happen in our lifetimes. But in the mean time, trans people have to navigate the situation we do have.

at what point did i suggest rolling back rights for anyone?

When you said we should accept our removal from sports, and that we should be open to exclusion from the ability to use bathrooms in public.

As I said though, this conversation is an example of why you don’t see the behaviour you’re asking for. It’s because the responses always look like yours.

not everyone is able to follow the same news sources and some people who only get infomation on social media are subject to waves of propaganda news articles.

I very much understand that. However, this conversation is a classic example of the fact that even being told those statistics and having the context made clear, doesn’t actually change anything.

You may not have a desire to engage with those people and thats totally understandable, but there should be some people who are allies, who are able to engage in those types of conversations

There are. Lots of them! It’s why I am defensive with you, because despite the existence of folk like that, you don’t see them, and instead categorise trans people as largely being “all or nothing”. You are part of the group you were just talking about. The group that isn’t exposed to the right content, and instead, only knows what they see in an actively transphobic media and social media environment.

And as I said earlier, you won’t shift your opinion, you won’t ease off and stop fighting me, to become one of those people that helps trans folk. Instead, you’ll fight me, for daring to take issue with your framing of the situation, whilst blaming me for it at the same time.

Right now we are literally having everyone’s rights rolled back because thats how fascists like Trump act when you stand up to them

That’s our common ground right there. Yet instead of talking about that, you’re suggesting that actually, giving in and being ok with some of those rollbacks might be ok, as long as its trans people!

If you want allyship against facism, focus on the facism, rather than demanding that your allies capitulate to it

there is no suggestion being made here

Yes there is. I asked you what you think compromise looks like in real world terms

You replied with this

So a specific compromise would be when someone says that they accept transwomen as people deserving of respect and dignity, but i dont think they should be allowed to compete in professional sports as women, you dont call them a bigot or refuse to engage with them. Its saying "could you think of a way to esure womens safety that doesnt assume all trans people are sexual predators? " when they say women should be able to feel safe in locker rooms.

That is quite explicitly a suggestion. Or rather, two suggestions.

In this suggestion, you use the word “women” as if it doesn’t apply to trans women. ie, you say “women’s safety” when you clearly means cis women’s safety. Dangerous, because it normalises the attack on trans women that they aren’t women. And dangerous because it implies that trans women are a risk to cis women, when in fact, trans women are more at risk of sexual assault and violence than cis women are! There is danger here, but it’s not coming from the trans women, and framing it as if it is, and as if that is something that should be compromised on is dangerous to trans people.

There is no compromise, when that compromise involves having our safety ignored, and our rights rolled back. That’s not compromise.

Your statement seems to imply you think i disagree with you

You do. You are suggesting that trans people should offer to exclude themselves and give up our rights, because demanding equality is too much.

I am expressing concern about how other peoples actions will cause more negative pushback

Giving up some of our rights, rights that everyone else has, to appease the folk who enjoy those rights, when we are the ones more at risk of violence, and exclusion is not a viable middle ground like you seem to be implying it is.

Your framing of that as “all or nothing” means I very much disagree with you. You may think trans folk deserve rights and dignity, but you don’t believe trans people deserve the same rights as cis people