I haven’t banned you from any communities. I instance banned you. Which I did, because you implied that Arab folk are all sexist.
Which comes on the back of previous comments removed for transphobia, insults and posting swastikas.
I’ll be instance banning you again now.
You really need to listen to what you’re saying.
You’re arguing for the right to deny people their own identities in their own safe spaces whilst claiming that somehow, the real issue is letting queer folk choose the language that works best for them.
t would be fine if you said "He was kind of pushy about trying to make his point and although he clearly wasn’t coming from any hostile place,
He was repeatedly and deliberately gatekeeping people’s identities. I don’t know how to make that any clearer to you.
Whether or not any given person is a troll, it’s not an excuse to make people’s identities a reward for good behaviour.
If you decide that taking away peoples identities “because they’re a troll” is ok, then you’re telling the gender diverse people around you that you don’t see them for who they are, and that you’re just pretending to accept them as long as they behave in ways you find appropriate. Normalising the idea that we can decide other peoples identities is literally the goal of trolls, and so when you see a troll and decide that’s a good reason to invalidate people, you’re feeding the troll, and hurting the gender diverse folk around you.
I will respect a trolls identity, even as I ban them, because opening the door to deciding which identities are valid does nothing but hurt vulnerable people.
This was all explained to PJ, several times, and he doubled down. And tripled down. Whilst explicitly denying people’s identities.
He was coming from a hostile place, and refused to leave it, even when it was explained to him.
I mean… aren’t you positioning yourself as the arbiter of other folks’ validity and identity?
The fact that you’re equating the creation of protective rules in explicitly safe spaces as being morally identical to gatekeeping other folks identities makes me doubt your intentions. If you genuinely believe they’re the same thing, you’ve got a lot of work to do. And if you don’t believe they’re the same thing, but are comparing them to win an internet discussion, then you’re the one stirring up drama…
Is blahaj drama free?
I hope not.
We’re an explicitly protective, safe space for a minority group that is actively targeted by governments, political institutions, churches, and bigots in general
So of course we create drama. Bigots will make sure of it.
He was banned from blahaj for literally just showing up and saying reasonable things. If that’s against the rules of your instance
Nah. He was banned for repeatedly, deliberately, and knowingly breaking the rules. Whether or not you think gatekeeping someones identity is acceptable, blahaj.zone has rules against it, and his response to it was to deliberately break the rules and stir up shit.
A lot of people feel like, if they think something reasonable, they’re allowed to say it, and it’s weird and controlling for some other person to say that opinion is the incorrect opinion and demand that they not say it within certain spaces.
Tough shit. When someones “reasonable” opinion involves positioning themselves as the arbiter of other folks validity and identity, they’re doing harm. When they choose to repeatedly and deliberately do that in a safe space for those folk, they’re repeatedly and deliberately doing harm and breaking the rules.
All of which to say, even if you’re a gatekeeper like him, who thinks that you have the right to tell other people their own identities, if you come in to a blahaj community and do it, you’re breaking blahaj rules. If you choose to knowingly and repeatedly do it, whilst then complaining about it in various meta spaces, then you’re breaking rules and stirring up drama.
Drag is banned from blahaj. Gatekeeping people’s identities and pronouns is still against the rules.
And if it was a single comment, you’d have a point, but it was ongoing, repeated and deliberate arguments in a space that had explicit rules against what he was doing, rules that he understood. And rather than following the rules, or posting in other communities, he brought it up over and over again, arguing that he has the right to decide other people’s identities.
And when banned for it, he made sure to keep adding flames to the fire.
Whatever else he is, he is not drama free.
Except research conducted by men like Sam Parnia rules that out and shows that conciousness persists after death.
That’s not what he showed though. What he was saying is that brain death isn’t the hard on/off line that we think it is, and that in some cases, it’s possible to restore some brain function in a brain that had been declared to have died.
Only problem is that even if the person is barely clinging onto life there’s still the issue of conciousness being strong and present where none can exist.
Sam Parnia quite explicitly talks about “restoration” of brain function. This does not mean that consciousness exists independent of the brain, he’s stating that he believes we can return consciousness to some brains that we believe are beyond that point, and the boundary at which the brain/consciousness “dies” isn’t quite as clear cut as it seems.
He also claims that the experience of consciousness might not be centered in the brain, despite interacting with it, but at this point, he is no longer backed by research or medical experience, and is just theorising.
Which is to say, the research and experiences he talks about do suggest that our “time of death” and treatment of brain death as a binary yes/no situation may be incorrect.
However, it doesn’t say anything new in regards to life after death, souls, or anything along those lines, and Sam Parnia’s talk in these areas is supposition rather than evidence based.
“acting” your age says everything. If you’re acting, you’re not living authentically. And sometimes that’s just how it is. But if you’re aspiring to a life that involves confining yourself so that you can live on other people’s terms, maybe you should dream bigger.
I think you have the wrong community…
Feel free to remain sus :)
Yep. And you’d be right to be sus if I used a new account with little history to make implications about another user
That’s exactly my point! In an infinite timelines story, there is nothing that has special meaning over the others, making it boring, because it’s all irrelevant!
Asks the week old account…
.blahaj admins/mods will ban you from every space they control
I don’t moderate any communities outside of blahaj.
It’s not a “common practice on blahaj”. It’s just how lemmy does instance bans.
I generally don’t community ban people, I tend to instance ban them, because if they’re breaking community rules, but not instance rules, it’s up the community mods to deal with, and if they’re breaking instance rules, they get an instance ban.
And when you instance ban someone, and choose to remove their content, that’s what it looks like in a modlog. It’s not because I’ve gone and selected a whole bunch of community bans. It’s just how lemmy works
Apologies, I copied and pasted the answer below from another reply I made elsewhere in this thread
==
I’m not talking about about the possibility of real infinite dimensions. I’m talking about sci fi, and stories, which is the context of the OPs question.
In a “real” scenario, the experience that matters is the one I’m having, not the one other versions of me might be having.
But in a story, there is no “true” timeline, or a more “real” timeline. They’re all being retold to us indirectly, and the choice of the version of the person retelling those experiences is arbitrary by the author. It doesn’t matter what perspective the author chooses, because every other outcome also happened, the author just didn’t tell us those stories.
I’m not talking about about the possibility of real infinite dimensions. I’m talking about sci fi, and stories, which is the context of the OPs question.
In a “real” scenario, the experience that matters is the one I’m having, not the one other versions of me might be having.
But in a story, there is no “true” timeline, or a more “real” timeline. They’re all being retold to us indirectly, and the choice of the version of the person retelling those experiences is arbitrary by the author. It doesn’t matter what perspective the author chooses, because every other outcome also happened, the author just didn’t tell us those stories.
Except for the fact it makes every decision, every moment of tension and every event that occurs irrelevant, because an infinite number of universe exist in which the events occurred and in which they didn’t occur.
Don’t talk about whales