this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
991 points (98.2% liked)
196
6932 readers
2206 users here now
Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
Moderator Guidelines
Moderator Guidelines
- Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
- Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
- When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
- Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
- Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
- Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
- Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
- Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
- Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
- Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
- Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
- Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
- First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
- Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
- No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
- Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
- Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.
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
I wish this was their logic.
What they fear is that they are wrong about sexual orientation being a choice. So if their child was never exposed to anything gay, they then can act straight and be quietly depressed about why other people aren't like them.
I've questioned my brother in law on this as he acts this way. Instead of any epiphany on his part, I made a reference to watching black people on tv not making a white person black which led him to come up with the dumbest and racist take of all black people having some frontal lobe defect? I have zero clue where he came up with this but I suspect whatever braindead source for his anti gay rhetoric is also pushing the anti non white rhetoric. He also argued from the point of someone who was regurgitating information he half understood instead of a point he'd actually thought about
That shit comes from phrenology.
Nah, this is just basic biological racism. It wouldn't be phrenology until they were making arguments that the shape or the lumps on his head made him stupid/insane/an insatiable raping machine/some other dumb bullshit.
Somehow, biological racism isn't nearly as stupid as phrenology.
No, it is just as stupid, racist, and grounded in as much verifiable science but this is a rectangle/square conversation. Phrenology is a subsect of biological racism.
True, but the situation described was that PoCs have an internal defect making them "lesser", not that the shape of a person's head can determine their abilities or characteristics.
I have no issue with limping them together generally, but the specific situation is not phrenology.
I hate phrenology, for the obvious reasons, but also because it makes people scared to death to discuss any kind of bone structure differences between regional groups.
I remember when Elizabeth Warren was getting flack for lying about being part Native American. The "high cheekbones" comment got a lot of derision, despite being a fairly tame comment outside of the lying.
Not saying it's useful in a biological sense, just in colloquial speak.
The problem with phrenology is linking bone structure with behavior. But it's stupid not discussing bone structure for a pseudoscience.
That analogy was never going to work on anyone though...
It works out the same. You can choose to be gay as much as you can choose to be black. You choose to be gay as much as you choose to be straight.
It isn't the media you consume that makes you into what you inherently are.
The people this is targeted at don't believe that though, so what's the point?
The point is that the conversation needs to happen to point out when they are being idiots who gobble down this rhetoric of anti gay, anti poc, anti woman bullshit.
And I'm not doing it for him as much as his daughter and my daughter. They need to know that hating people isn't the only option. Being gay is ok. Not being gay is ok. Being different is ok and it's up to us to make sure people are not treated as if they are lesser because they are different. People in a position of privilege need to use that to help, not hinder those who have issues in our society.
By virtue of genetics, I'm a white guy who can't tan. People automatically listen to me more than some other members of my family. They took more after my maternal grandmother's side and get greeted with Spanish before English in our area. I have an obligation to speak up when people act a fool especially now that it's become government policy to hate and ignore sound science.
If you have an obligation to speak up, your obligation surely is to speak effectively. So if you're trying to convince children who are hearing from others that being gay is a choice and an immoral one at that, this analogy is unlikely to do anything.
This is my point: it's an analogy that only works if you already agree with its conclusion. If you're trying to convince kids at risk of being turned into bigots, you're better off just exposing them to positive representation and positive talk. Getting there via an argument that only works if they don't believe the bigotry is ineffective - or at least, it's no more effective than just saying "being gay is OK," while being less direct. And a smart kid who is hearing "being gay is an immoral choice" will realise that this analogy doesn't contradict what they heard from their dad or their friend and may become harder to convince due to having heard a shit argument.
Although his argument doesn't go in that direction, you're mixing apples and oranges and splitting hairs.
In other words, he is NOT saying that being racist is bad and therefore being homophobic is also bad, he is not going on the moral ground.
What he is saying is that you cannot choose your skin color because it is a deterministic genetic fact that precedes any capacity for volition: your genes determine whether you will be black or white, not any decision after your birth. And he is extrapolating this to homosexuality, something that is in fact anchored in very solid evidence. There's a reason he talks about choice: you can't choose to be black because that's only "decided" or determined by your genes, and the same goes for homosexuality (although I should say that there are also nuances; homosexuality also has an environmental component).
Sure, that's not what I understood him to be saying...
I'll be more clear:
One does not choose to be black. One does not choose to be gay. One does not choose to be white. One does not choose to be straight. One does not choose to be left handed. One does not choose to have a learning disability.
These are decided by our genetic makeup and other factors outside of our control.
People do not choose one day that they want to be attracted to women instead of men. Or everyone. Or no one. Attraction is not a chosen thing just like the melanin of their skin. It just is.
This is not a moral question.
Edit: Now, on top of that information, denying that and saying people are lesser because of things they cannot control is morally fucked and deserves to be called out on. Especially when they use a set of moral standards that they do not keep and does not say what they profess it says. It's just hatred under the guise of morality.
If I can just interject here. My hangup with the analogy is that being black doesn't inherently change your behavior when placed amongst white people (in a vacuum. Obviously racism makes that moot.) But being gay would absolutely change your behavior compared to the straights you're around due to attraction.
I dont think that's what was getting his brother confused, but maybe it was part of it. I'm honestly at the point where I'm giving up on analogies, because people either get hung up on useless details like me, or they willfully ignore the entire premise.
I can clarify a few things.
Being gay doesn't mean you're attracted to every single person of the group for which you're attracted. ... Just like straight people aren't attracted to every person of the group for which they are attracted so plopping a gay(affectionate) in the middle of a bunch of straights(affectionate) is going to do nothing (in a vacuum as you described).
The brother in law in question believes in the manosphere christian nationalist drivel that our area has been peddling for decades. The Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, oan listening type who doesn't think about anything beyond what he's told. Zero understanding of anything beyond surface level if it doesn't fit his narrow understanding of the world
Self reflection isn't his strong suit. Nor is researching information and looking for sources.
True, but my point was that it was a higher likelihood than zero. Pedantic I know.
Yeah but it also detracts from the point instead of focusing on the main issue at hand, it causes people to go down rabbit holes looking at minutia. Like focusing on a scratch on a fender when the engine is on fire. While it's something that is true, it's not the important part of the conversation.
Based.
I hate all this "for my mental peace I won't try to change someone's mind as they won't change anyways", as yeah, it's true and all that that they won't change themselves, but you will be able to at least change other people or prevent other people from falling into those bullshit.
You mean that they deny genetic determinism? Well, that's totally not true.
They deny that sexuality is genetically determined, yes.
Also I think that is true, in that there is a statistically higher chance of younger brothers being gay than older brothers, which is unlikely to be due to genetics (and more likely due to womb environment). Anyway, the basic idea that sexuality is not a choice is important to teach people, and a better place to start than what's in the post.
Well, you have a fair point, I think.
Almost certainly. I followed right wing media for quite a few years (a good amount of them were by proxy, thankfully) and the anti gay/PoC/women narratives were all mixed together more often than not.
Not even that far. It's about "purity". Heterosexuality, manliness, virginity, whatever they associated with purity is extremely fragile and mere mention of any "impurity" may sully it, because the more pure you are the more bragging rights you have.
In islamist circles for example, some are obsessed with drinking from cups no alcohol has touched.
See also: the "one drop" rule
lol, know what they call “purity” in genetics? In-bred 😂
Usually because the worst anti gay of them are indeed tempted because they're closet gay and think the rest of humanity feels the same way.
Yes. There was a study done with people that said they were straight and exposed them to gay porn. The ones that said they were homophobes had the most reaction from their penis.
That is another part of the issue. They believe if they have the urges and the chose to closeted then it is a choice. They see it as a strength of will but it is really self hatred.
I really can't understand why they are so hung up about this. Just suck some cock, it's fun!
They fear the social rejection they're dolling out on everyone else.
Just like thier daddy and grad daddy. Like a MAN!