davidagain

Interesting. I like it enough to give it my upvote.

Why unupvote it? Do you normally do that? Is it a principal? Or was it just that one?

As I said elsewhere, it would be unusual for a vast number of folk to not contain annoying or argumentative people, but I worry about tarring a whole category by always bringing up examples of bad behaviour and mentioning the category as part of it.

For example: "There was this manager shouting at all the women that they needed to keep in shape to impress the customers, but he was obviously badly unfit and overweight and dressed really shabbily." OK story. But "Fat middle aged guys who don't lift a finger to try to live healthily can be so annoying when they dress badly and then shout at women that they sold keep in shape and to impress clients." Not OK, makes it about the category of people.

But, clearly I wasn't there and I didn't know that you were criticising a drawing!

It sounds like you had a bad experience and whilst I very much don't want to generalise from it, I also don't want to belittle it.

Monsanto paid a bunch of scientists to "discover" that Glyphosate, the patented active ingredient in their RoundUp weedkiller is safe for humans, but the article was ghost-written by Monsanto employees without acknowledgement. The article claimed that Glyphosate does not cause cancer, but The World Health Organisation found that it does. Some people have trouble figuring out who is lying between the company making vast profits and the organisation tasked with keeping people healthy across the globe. RoundUp is used a LOT on genetically modified foods made by guess who to be "RoundUp ready" - resistant to RoundUp. These genetically modified foods were also found to be safe initially, but guess who funded that research who are only now, 25 years later, found to be ghost writing the articles instead of letting the scientists do their own work and draw their own conclusions.

Did you downvote your own post?! The scores are +0-1 when I’m seeing it (and the-1 isn’t me).

Considering there was a 17 hours gap, it’s quite possible that someone had the time to read and downvote it before you saw it.

Yeah, but on my instance, anything you post automatically has a +1 from yourself, which you must have removed.

Your takes on trans people and intersex people seem to all be from concern trolling media and third hand stories. Trans people are like witches that hand out curses that cause harm? I think your skepticism alarm should be going off.

For the record, molesting children is absolutely not OK under any circumstances. I forget what the statistics are, but I remember that the number of incidents of trans people being sex offenders is far lower than you would expect from the prevalence of trans people and of sex offending in the general population.

It seems to me that you were fed a lot of negative stereotypes of trans and intersex people when you were young, and I worry that you are interpreting finding the lack of evidence of any of this in the real world now that you are older as a change in the world when it might be wiser to take it as evidence that the negative stereotypes were always sensational, overblown and inaccurate.

Did you downvote your own post?! The scores are +0-1 when I'm seeing it (and the-1 isn't me).

You're right about me not meeting an unreasonable trans person. All the trans folks I know or have known in real life are fantastic people who I have a lot of respect for and have gone through a lot of shit from other people. I think it's worth me doing my best not to add to that and definitely value them as they are.

(Some people who are bullied go on to be bullies, but far, far, far from all, and statistically, yes, there should be some trans people who are unreasonable or bullies, and I think I've encountered an unreasonable trans person on lemmy, but I will only ever criticise the mean things they say or their politics, never their gender or presentation.)

Generally, I don't understand why people think that trans folk haven't had enough criticism, "explaining", social rejection, etc etc etc.

attributes malice to your words, and refuses to change their perspective when you try to explain, while demanding an apology for what is essentially an innocuous comment as if you killed their cat.

You see, that's where I find it much easier than you. If I accidentally offend someone that I really didn't mean to, especially if they're in a marginalised group that has had plenty of shit thrown at them for it their whole life, I find it very easy to apologise, back down, maybe try to explain that I didn't mean it the way they read it, but being careful to very clearly restate my apology for the offence I caused afterwards if I do.

You would rather tell them that they were wrong and that you were right, and you're prepared to argue it long and hard. I find that completely unnecessary, because I don't need to win if I didn't mean to beat them in the first place.

I have difficulty backing down in lots of scenarios but accidentally upsetting someone I didn't mean to isn't one of them.

Well, yeah, I know how to behave.

Not how to back down when you didn't mean to upset people, though.

Thanks for answering.

I'm completely with you on the .ml and the phobias things, but I think your comments about what gay guys wear is an obviously crass comment, that might get a laugh in your friendship group after some specific experience, but I think you should absolutely know not to post it as a general comment out of politeness if nothing else.

The .ml mods take offence at anything even mildly critical of Russia, China or North Korea (or communism of course): You're not the asshole, they are.

The people taking offence at you asking them to be considerate and put phobia triggers behind spoilers: You're not the asshole, they are.

The people taking offence at you apparently "jokingly" calling a whole category of people out for their clothing choices while you apparently socially enforce gender stereotypes, in a space designed as a safe space for the frequently bullied, frequently misgendered, frequently clothing criticised trans community? I'm afraid this time, you are the asshole, and an apology and retraction would have been better than being defensive, doubling down and arguing that they ought not to have taken offence.

Who were you criticising or joking about each time?

Authoritarian regimes? Nasty. OK to criticise.

People triggering phobias? Nasty. OK to criticise.

Gay people wearing non gender conforming clothes? Not nasty, just different. Not OK to criticise. Not OK to joke about. Gay folk and trans folk have had everything about them criticised and made fun of their whole lives. It was always going to land badly.

Not that you asked for my opinion, and sorry to butt in, but that's what I think.

What were the exact things you said on which communities, that got you “dogpiled”?

I'm also interested in the answer to this question.

Step on an eggshell about gender identity that rubs someone the wrong way

You are vilified and immediately banned from lemmy.blahaj.zone

I've never found it hard to avoid offending trans people. Just don't be a dick, be respectful instead.

I liked this short exchange as well ^w^

It made me happy. Thank you.

I didn't memorise the numbers, lol! I just remember there being a surprisingly large number of MAGAs claiming to be American who were outside the US and specifically a lot in Russia.

Xitter turned off the feature pretty quickly, but also a lot of those specific accounts that got outed as non-Americans disappeared thereafter. I suspect they came back with new usernames!

I found the whole thing amusing because I always thought it was pretty braindead to think you were "making America great again" by voting for Trump, who anyone could spot a long time ago was going to be very damaging for the USA, and Xitter accidentally outing MAGAts as foreign actors was a fun example of rightwingers being to stupid to implement their biases without shooting themselves in the foot.