kilternkafuffle [any]
he could have changed the tone of his message considerably by saying “This appears to me the most trans-positive space on the internet”
He literally said “I have seen”, which has the same meaning. Either way, not prefacing your statement with “IMHO” shouldn’t lead to a ban. And other users were banned in this thread for essentially “showing undue deference to a mod”. I know mods have to deal with shit, Atheismo bless them, but it’s like they develop a cop mentality.
You can ask to be communicated with without downplaying or talking over trans voices.
Sure, but what does that mean in practical terms? For example, I can’t tell who is trans and who is not - there are no ID badges and I’m not going to creep anyone’s post history before replying. Someone says they’re trans and posts a 10 page rant - how do I know that’s representative of what other trans people are experiencing? How do I know this post isn’t a troll/a joke/someone having a bad day? How do I know this isn’t being upvoted by bots to create infighting?
This isn’t real life. You can’t see anyone’s face. Maybe I saw their username before, maybe that was someone else. Trust is earned, not given.
It doesn’t help that OP (and another similar post by u/cofabulously (sp?)) are only speaking for themselves. Are other mods/admins on board? (A resignation makes it seem like there’s trouble among the admins/mods.) Do they have an official message for everyone? Does a trans sub have a joint statement they can endorse? Something that’s prepared, polished, and CONCISE?
From the out-of-the-loop perspective, everything’s going fine, then someone yells “THIS PLACE SUCKS, I’M SICK OF YOUR SHIT” and when you ask what happened they chew you out for not knowing and then when you question them again they ban you.
I believe them that there’re apparently targeted attacks on trans people behind the scenes (though I still haven’t seen anyone define the problem any more precisely than “transphobia”)… but you have to tell people what’s going on if you want them to know about it.
I must be missing something too, because from some angles it looks like someone’s just using their powers to ban everyone that is “unable to see things” the way they see them.
Banning people for something that even hints of wrongthink is antithetical to building a community
Yeah. WTF are you on, mods?
I want to be on the same page with you guys. I want to hear what the trans experience here is like (especially because it seems night and day compared to mine). And I get there’s trolling/brigading that requires counteraction.
But you’re banning users who joined when the site was first founded for asking for a bit off context? Not everyone knows/sees the same shit as you.
Check yourself. This is awful for the large inclusive place we all want to have.
You guys are being shit at communication - and then attacking people for asking to be communicated with.
Sounds like they were one of the organizations (doing various Republican legal/PR shit) involved in the march, not quite “Google paid people to storm the Capitol”. But this bit of involvement is pretty damning:
They paid for robocalls to encourage folks to march to the Capitol building to “stop the steal.” We all know what happened next.
“I’m calling for the Rule of Law Defense Fund with an important message,” the robocall stated, according to Documented. “The march to save America is tomorrow in Washington D.C. at the Ellipse in President’s Park between E St. and Constitution Avenue on the south side of the White House, with doors opening at 7:00 a.m. At 1:00 p.m., we will march to the Capitol building and call on Congress to stop the steal. We are hoping patriots like you will join us to continue to fight to protect the integrity of our elections. For more information, visit MarchtoSaveAmerica.com. This call is paid for and authorized by the Rule of Law Defense Fund, 202-796-5838.”
I think this is one of those areas of discussion where for me there’s a huge difference between a “hypothetical, ideal situation” and my current, specific one.
You’re totally right! Hypothetically supporting having conscription in an ideal society is different from supporting it in a specific place and time.
I’m an immigrant from the Soviet region
Ich auch, aber wohne in der Staaten. Vielleicht verstehen wir einander deshalb )
But I just don’t wanna pick up a fucking gun for this ex Third Reich country that massacred my relatives.
The problem here is of course not conscription in Austria, but rather, like with everything else in life, the dissolution of the Soviet Union! Or, more abstractly, anyone having to move to a place that they aren’t willing to fight for. I’d see no problem fighting for (denazified) East Germany, for example.
My perception of boot camp and stuff was always that of a giant hazing ritual, which while I’m sure it’s necessary it just feels off.
Yeah, war sucks. But if society is gonna do war - then everyone must have a chance of being hazed. What should happen in a democratic/free society is that people hate being hazed enough that they vote for politicians who avoid conflict and resolve differences so eventually no one has to be hazed.
What happens now is only the poor (and bullies) get hazed. That’s both unjust AND there’s no negative feedback loop for the rest of society not to engage in war.
people that wouldn’t make that connection for it basically just cause suffering for no reason
Yeah, sure, not every worker suffering under capitalism becomes a socialist either. But if everyone has to serve customers at some point, everyone will be a bit nicer to customer service workers, you know?
I would hope the draft wouldn’t be a problem or a necessity in a socialist country because most people in it would be aware that the collapse or takeover of it would be a very bad thing.
That’s a thought contradictory to the one above - is everyone conscious of the condition of their society or not? In a utopia, we’d all know when to fight a war and when to boycott one. But I think even in a socialist society the average person would shirk responsibility if left to their own devices - or even if only a minority would shirk responsibility, you’d be creating inequality down the line if you allow that minority to escape paying the costs that everyone else is paying.
Ofc it’s different if it’s a social work year and not army training, but that still leaves the question of what the army should be comprised of.
True! I guess the logical of democratizing war ultimately means dropping all exemptions (except mental/physical disability) - everyone must have an equal chance to serve. That doesn’t mean everyone has to be drafted into soldering, but everyone must have a chance of being drafted by lottery, so that every demographic is represented. An added benefit is every citizen is a potential soldier - every community has veterans capable of resisting oppression by force.
If your country is actually in danger, then you vote that ~50% of all eligible draftees have to become soldiers next year (and 50% do social work). If war is not on the horizon, then it’s only some 5% (and 95% do social work). Actually teaching everyone to fight would pose problems - it’s like giving everyone a hammer.
when the state is overall right wing, it’s just an extra opportunity to pour nationalistic propaganda into impressionable young people.
No more than at school. And just as at school, when it’s you and your peers going through it, you can see through their bullshit better. With a professional army, the young people who already fell for the propaganda are isolated in a bubble.
I think societies like Israel’s have militarized cultures. Conscription is not the linchpin of propaganda, it’s just one aspect of the system.
