174
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by sovietknuckles@hexbear.net to c/the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] raven@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In the first sentence I also acknowledged that you were correct in a literal sense, but you did do some editorializing. As for whether I think dronerights was being trans/nbphobic I'm still not sure because there is more evidence than I stated with and it leads into some topics I don't feel equipped to make any sort of judgement on, as I alluded to in the last sentence.

I don't think trying to explain myself was uncalled for when the circumstances made me look like I was intentionally and knowingly defending enbyphobic behavior. Not being perceived as a trans/nbphobe here is actually really important to me.

[-] combat_brandonism@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Not being perceived as a trans/nbphobe here is actually really important to me.

kinda surprising tbh given how many words you're writing to defend enby erasure here and that you're still doing it!

all for what, to defend the honor of an obvious shit-stirrer who's been banned for a while now? seems like you don't need much motivation to cast doubt on what your trans comrades here are telling you. putting you back on block now

tldr cissues

[-] raven@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm sorry that nuance requires so many words I guess, but when I just got my ass handed to me for using too few you can kind of understand it right?

"If you use they/them...you'll never gender someone correctly."

Explain how that's not reactionary.

You demanded that I explain a specific thing out of context.

https://lemm.ee/post/12418057

Oh look I was right, dronerights was not expressing nbphobia it the way you presented it.
You editorialized it and I recognized that it didn't make sense in context, and challenged it on that basis. I had read every single comment and post by dronerights because I thought it was interesting and if what you said it had said was true I would have remembered it.

I acknowledged my part in being unclear and maybe I suck at explaining myself but you're making no effort to listen to what I'm actually saying, when you have literally no good reason to think I'm being disingenuous. I'm open to self crit here but I also know that I'm not doing the thing I'm being accused of and If I'm wrong it's out of ignorance not malice.

[-] combat_brandonism@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

holy shit read the fucking thread in the post you linked, the top comment re-explains what I've been saying in like four words

the 'nuance' you and it are circlejerking over is just more words saying the god damn thing

THIS IS STILL ENBY ERASURE. SELF CRIT YOUR TRANSPHOBIA CISSIE

[-] raven@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Me, three comments up this chain:

If a person's preferred pronouns are they/them that is valid and those are the pronouns you should use.

Dronerights, replying to that same top comment:

I agree.

Please stop painting me a fucking transphobe. It's a huge stretch to suggest that I think any pronouns except they/them are acceptable but I still went ahead and spelled it out for you

[-] combat_brandonism@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

lmao what a willful misreading of that thread, transphobe. 'I agree, [more enby erasure]' does not shorten to 'I agree'. Especially when there's more back and forth from a nonbinary person there again saying the exact same fucking thing I've been here, with dronerights behaving exactly the same way there.

clearly its ban was justified and I'll be surprised-pika when you catch yours too

stop being transphobic if you don't want that label, cissie.

[-] raven@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

You might have noticed that I'm not dronerights and I'm not responsible for it's comments, particularly ones made after my initial post, but that "I agree" is uncontestable proof that the specific form of NB erasure you're accusing me of supporting was your misreading.

this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
174 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15917 readers
11 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS