this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
58 points (96.8% liked)
Out of the loop
13906 readers
1 users here now
A community that helps people stay up to date with things going on.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You’re misrepresenting the situation a little I think. She’s saying that if you want a super duper safe space where no one challenges your agenda in any way, you can use the protocol to build your safe space but that they will not alllow people into banning anyone just because they disagree with their views if they are not breaking the rules.
Nazi is super overused these days so it is a meaningless label: I have been called a nazi despite the fact that I’m not white, I do not believe in national socialism and do not approve of the methods and ways of the MAGA movement all because I say that not all MAGA says is incorrect. I’ve also been called a transphobe because I think transgender identity in some cases might have a neurological cause due to a significant amount of evidence for it and that it is important to research it but trans activist think its an excuse for ErASuRe.
This idea that there is knowledge we should not obtain because it could be dangerous (all knowledge is dangerous! It’s literally one of the oldest tropes in mythology), or that we need to protect people from ideas is so absurd and irrational that it really makes it hard to have discourse with people who generally speaking are on your same page. It feels as though there is a small very vocal online group of people who want to turn the world into a Fisher Price paternalistic dystopia.
All community spaces will eventually have to deal with the paradox of free speech, where maximizing free and open expression will result in less diverse opinions when minority voices are drowned out by people who invalidate them.
Keeping black people out of media, women out of trades, or homosexuals out of the military, are never called cancel culture — the label seems to only apply when silencing a racist/homophobe/misogynist/transphobe.
And, the human experience is neurological. A neurological condition is still a physical condition because our brains are physical things that control our bodies.
Also, checked the modlog. To quote you:
I think the bit about cancel culture is a bit of a straw man argument because that’s not what we’re talking about here.
Look at my comment, again. Maybe someone is in favor of strong immigration laws, which I think is a totally valid opinion. If you define as Nazi anyone who agrees on any point with MAGA, you would probably call for that persons banning from the site under your paradox of free speech. But that’s only because your interpretation of Nazi is so loose that it doesn’t mean anything anymore. And with my example of being called transphobic, like you and someone else took it in entirely different directions than I even implied. I simply said that I believe it needs to be understood if it has a neurological cause or not in the sense of: is there a tangible neurological difference? Answering that question might help with understanding how to better help the population that suffers from gender dysphoria. I never implied or alluded to that if it was neurological it invalidated anything, much like I don’t think that ADHDs neurological nature means anything different other than we learned how to better treat the condition.
There's a massive world of difference between "i believe in strong immigration laws" (which in and of itself is usually exclusionary on a racial basis) and "maga had some things right"
Especially when they have roided up rentboys literally breaking into peoples houses without warrants and disaappearing them.
There is no way in hell you cannot tell the difference- it's a disingenuous tactic that is pathetically transparent and that is why you're getting called a nazi. For running with nazis.
oh well done. That's sure to get your message across.
It’s irrelevant, the message was never going to be let in.
Cancel culture is relevant to the discussion about free speech and censorship.
A strawman argument is when someone fabricates a persona for someone, and debates that false idea instead of addressing the argument being made.
Most of my comment was about how maximizing free speech for all participants in a community will inevitably require limiting free speech for some.
But, instead of addressing that, you're talking about the definition of nazis and an overreach on moderation. I'm only saying moderation is required, not that I agree with all censorship.
Nor did I say calling transexuality a neurological trait invalidates it, I was clarifying what it means to have a neurological condition because the way you talk about it leads me to believe you haven't done very much research on the subject.
To bring you up to speed, transexuality was previously considered a mental health disorder until a better understanding led to its reclassification as gender dysphoria or gender incongruence. Gender dysphoria is an umbrella term, and results from a number of different known causes, any combination of psychological, hormonal, neurological and genetic. Research on the subject is ongoing with recent broader acceptance, including neurological studies. PubMed has a few at least. You can look those up for yourself if the subject interests you.
Edit: It's not my paradox of free speech, it's a well known philosophical concept. Here's some links.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/#ConTolPar
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415463/
Exactly you’re not debating my point at all, or at least it didn’t feel to me like you did but rather that you talked through me and went with something else that’s not really what I’m talking about in my original comment.
My point is not moderation is not required or wanted or needed, but rather that in this particular situation, Jay (Bluesky CEO) is overtly stating that she’s not going to allow people to be banned based on opinions that are not breaking the rules. There already is moderation, but they are not gonna crack down on people because they said something (and this is a hypothetical scenario though I think it’s also relevant; to be honest I don’t know the original comments that started the controversy) that some might consider transphobic based on their narrow interpretation of what is or isn’t an acceptable view point about transgender topics. This is the example I gave about myself, I’ve been called transphobic simply because I’ve suggested that it might, in some cases, have a neurological cause. And Ive read a few studies about the subject hence why I bring it up in the first place. I in fact was banned from a board here because of it, this is what Jay says she will not allow to happen. Which is healthy, and honestly the paradox of intolerance is not apodictic truth, and I’m becoming more and more convinced that it is actually more harmful through mechanics similar to the Streisand effect. But that’s neither here nor there.
If it seems to you that Im uninformed it’s more about me not wanting to put a lot of effort into comments and English actually being a second language. Most of my views are informed, if I’m not informed about something I usually don’t have a view until I become acquainted with the subject.
I assumed your closing paragraph was the summary of your take, as you built an argument on how aggressive censorship is turning the world into a "fisher price paternalistic dystopia." You described personal anecdotes about over-moderation and purported that limiting free expression could stifle ideas. In response, I debated that moderation and censorship are required to safeguard free expression for voices that might not be heard.
This latest controversy with Bluesky is part of an ongoing issue with moderation, where users want Jesse Singal banned, a journalist who publicly supports free speech and open sharing of ideas while harassing anyone who criticizes him behind the scenes. Bluesky users say he circumvented their blocks with screenshots of their posts, where he makes rebuttals they can't see, exposing their user names when he's well aware many of his followers are bloodhounds. A number of journalists critical of him have said he has either tried to sue, smear their reputations, or get them fired. This relates to my point on parodox of tolerance— which is not true, because a concept can't be true or false, it just describes the phenomenon at the basis for this controversy.
About the original statements: Bluesky's response was condescending without adressing the issue. Yes, Jay Graber has championed users ability to curate their experience, but in practice their moderation has been lacking with regard to racism and transphobia while others have been banned or had critical posts deleted when they don't violate the TOS. For instance, after Charlie Kirk, when people celebrated his death without calling for violence. Thus, why I brought up the disproportionate views on cancel culture.
With regard to your opinion on gender dysphoria, I did read the messages you were banned for. As for English not being your native tongue, while I understand the struggle, I can only respond to what you say.
No one is disagreeing that gender dysphoria can have a neurological cause. It's just weird to point it out and suggest it hasn't been researched thoroughly enough, when transexuality was considered a mental disorder for most of it's history. Only recently have more factors been uncovered as research teams look for a broader understanding. So, while you may have have researched it, I don't believe you've done a very good job of it.
An edit because you brought up ADHD: This is a great analogy in favor of early gender affirming care because, while ADHD is neurological, it can't be cured and can only be managed.
Please be aware that the entirety of the human experience is neurological. Just because the underlying factors are not well understood doesn't support any argument against improving the lives and health of trans folks. Nobody needs to suffer just because we don't yet understand.
I’ve never said the opposite. It’s just a matter of, seeking knowledge which could result in finding ways to ease suffering. That’s exactly my position 100%.
BTW, the nazi label for "national socialism" is a complete misnomer. Hitler formed cartels instead. It's one of the most frustrating things about political debate that so many folks equate socialism with Nazis
I know it’s not the same thing hence why I didn’t call it socialism and added the “national” to it.
Thank you.