Like it or not, it is a widely known fact that the exact things you said are instance bannable.
The instance rules as they exist are explained in multiple places, and it is our choice as users to either follow them or stay away. If we choose to do neither of those, banning is the only real tool an admin has with current lemmy development. If there were other options available, and the instance ban was applied as a first step, I’d say PTB (though it would be PTA in this case).
Seriously, I get that the world as a whole, and each given language has to figure out what is and isn’t a gender, what is and isn’t going to become part of the consensus of a language. I have my own opinion about that line, but this isn’t the venue for that.
But that instance, they have drawn their line, and did so last year, before the events in these screen shots. It’s like travelling to another US state, there are going to be some laws that differ, and it’s the travelers responsibility to follow them even if they disagree with them, or there are consequences.
I get it, I do. But, I’m sorry, this is absolutely on you.
The problem here to my mind is that this was a ban for a “thought crime” and it was on another instance. OP always uses peoples preferred pronouns, even if he thinks they don’t make sense, as in this case, so he hasn’t broken any instance rules afaik. Is there a rule about not being allowed to even discuss neopronouns? On another instance? That is getting very dystopian imo. Unless someone can point to a rule that says you can’t even discuss the topic of neopronouns, then this is clearly a case of over-reach imo. PTB
The rule isn’t about discussing anything, the rule is about making directed commentary on the validity of other users’ gender, which serves as a honeypot for more hateful behavior. Ada has been explicit and open about this and Pug is not the first to receive a preemptive ban for off-instance action.
The instance rules as they exist are explained in multiple places, and it is our choice as users to either follow them or stay away.
I literally have not posted in any Blahaj comm in months.
It’s like travelling to another US state, there are going to be some laws that differ, and it’s the travelers responsibility to follow them even if they disagree with them, or there are consequences.
But I’m not the traveler here. These comments were not in Blahaj.
YDI
Like it or not, it is a widely known fact that the exact things you said are instance bannable.
The instance rules as they exist are explained in multiple places, and it is our choice as users to either follow them or stay away. If we choose to do neither of those, banning is the only real tool an admin has with current lemmy development. If there were other options available, and the instance ban was applied as a first step, I’d say PTB (though it would be PTA in this case).
Seriously, I get that the world as a whole, and each given language has to figure out what is and isn’t a gender, what is and isn’t going to become part of the consensus of a language. I have my own opinion about that line, but this isn’t the venue for that.
But that instance, they have drawn their line, and did so last year, before the events in these screen shots. It’s like travelling to another US state, there are going to be some laws that differ, and it’s the travelers responsibility to follow them even if they disagree with them, or there are consequences.
I get it, I do. But, I’m sorry, this is absolutely on you.
The problem here to my mind is that this was a ban for a “thought crime” and it was on another instance. OP always uses peoples preferred pronouns, even if he thinks they don’t make sense, as in this case, so he hasn’t broken any instance rules afaik. Is there a rule about not being allowed to even discuss neopronouns? On another instance? That is getting very dystopian imo. Unless someone can point to a rule that says you can’t even discuss the topic of neopronouns, then this is clearly a case of over-reach imo. PTB
The rule isn’t about discussing anything, the rule is about making directed commentary on the validity of other users’ gender, which serves as a honeypot for more hateful behavior. Ada has been explicit and open about this and Pug is not the first to receive a preemptive ban for off-instance action.
So yes to thought crime then.
I don’t think that comes off the way you think it does.
I literally have not posted in any Blahaj comm in months.
But I’m not the traveler here. These comments were not in Blahaj.