1202
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Imhotep@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So I thought I would look at the modlog in this thread

A comment was removed starting with

Not really seeing [...]

by @Whirlybird@aussie.zone

Heavily downvoted sure, but what rule is it breaking?

[-] Imotali@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They were banned for transphobia. Finish that comment. Don't cherry pick their words. Transphobia and bigotry are against the rules here. As a cis person, I don't get to decide what is transphobic; trans people do.

[-] Imhotep@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't think they got banned? not sure

I didn't post the whole comment precisely because it got removed by a mod.

In my view, the moderation of a forum should be based on rules, not on individual's judgements.

[-] Imotali@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I banned them. And transphobia is against the rules of this entire instance (not just this community).

[-] betheydocrime@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I think the issue is that there is no such thing as a "biological woman". Manhood/womanhood is an issue of gender, not sex, and gender is something that we collectively made up whose meaning varies from person to person and from culture to culture. The only person who is capable of saying "Person McFaceface is/is not a woman" is Person McFaceface.

Even if we were to interpret their comment to mean "sex", that isn't a simple binary yes/no kind of question. There is no single trait that determines maleness or femaleness, and lots of people have traits indicative of both sexes or of neither sex (or they were born that way then surgically altered shortly after birth), and sometimes those traits are so hidden and so internal that the person themself doesn't know about it.

[-] Imhotep@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago

But do you think it deserved to be removed? You could have answered that directly to the commenter

IMO, this is too strict.

[-] betheydocrime@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Yes, I do. This is a space where trans rights and trans people are respected. That means that their existence is accepted as fact, not debated in the comment section.

There are numerous places and resources available for that person to educate themself, if they had chosen to do so before commenting. Instead, they chose to comment from a place of ignorance. We have no obligation to offer them that education here.

[-] Imotali@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm just enforcing the rules of this instance. Specifically hate towards any specific group (which includes rhetoric designed to oppress) is against the rules.

Sorry, not sorry. In fact, I took great joy in removing the transphobes from this comment section. I only removed egregious errors.

In a way you could say I'm maliciously complying with the instance rules.

[-] Imhotep@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I got that yesterday, why the encore?

use that tiny amount of power you say you enjoy so much and ban me. This good people circlejerk is of no interest

[-] Imotali@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You've not said anything rule breaking, let alone transphobic enough to be banned. Saying unpopular things will not get you banned/comment removed.

this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
1202 points (89.6% liked)

Malicious Compliance

29 readers
1 users here now

People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.

======

======

Also check out the following communities:

!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS