28
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
28 points (88.9% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
1554 readers
139 users here now
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Can someone explain to someone out of the loop what's transphobic about his post?
Saying that the topic of "caring about transgender and LGBT issues" is promoted by the bourgeois is clearly not intended to indicate they respect those communities concerns.
The "men in women's sports" thing is just straight up transphobic, sexist misinformation.
It shouldn't need to be explained, but using "trans" as a label to attack a woman to delegitimize her sporting victory is just a hot mess of issues.
This entire train of conversation seems bizarre to me. While I don't know the intention, the topic is being promoted by companies. Fervently. And having to embezzle "biological" from the sentence doesn't leave a good feel, either.
This feels more like an ideological war than an factual war.
Are you referring to the topic of "lgbtq people deserve rights", or are you referring to "the boxer is a woman"? And when you say "embezzle biological from the sentence", what do you mean? I think I know, but I would like to be clear.
To be entirely clear: Imane Khelif, the Algerian women's Olympic boxer, is a cis, born, biological, genetic, assigned female at birth, raised as a woman, anatomical, woman. Trans women are also women, but in this case she is not a trans woman, so the whole thing is just multiple levels of awful and gross.
All controversy surrounding her is factually inaccurate, transphobic and sexist, which is quite the combo.
Lgbtq rights and respect are entirely an ideological issue. I don't think anyone argued that it wasn't. Lgbtq rights are human rights, and human rights beliefs are intrinsically ideological.
They're not being promoted by companies, they're being leveraged or "exploited* by companies who have realized that human rights are popular.
The objective is to get money from people. What other objective do you think a company would have? Do you think they're trying to promote being trans for some reason?
What has some Algerian boxer to do with all of this? I feel like I'm missig 27 layers of hate.
Middle of the image you're responding to, when they refer to "allowing biological men to compete in women's sports at the Olympics".
Said Algerian boxer became the center of claims that she was actually trans and competing against women unfairly after she punched another boxer in the face, like boxers do, and the other boxer had to drop out on account of "face all messed up".
See my previous comment for a breakdown on the validity of that claim, and maybe some understanding of why it's just a big pile of ignorance and hate.
I see. Okay, so I checked WTF you're all talking about and it seems like an XY woman wrecked a XX women, which I also feel is bullshit considering the massive biological difference. Not sure what that has to do with a phobia of any kind, though.
swing and a miss. Remember that big part where I talked about how she's a woman in every possible sense of the word? Read that again.
You're looking at the hate and then just believing it. Don't.
Okay, I re-checked and it kind of holds up but not totally.
https://www.reuters.com/sports/olympics/boxing-two-boxers-who-failed-gender-tests-world-championships-cleared-games-2024-07-29/
Frankly, to me that issue isn't worth pursuing. It's easy enough to check, and seems to generally have nothing to do with transsexuals anyway.
I like to keep away from manufactured outrage.
Couple things: a statement relating to unspecified testing about one failed test to Russian state media is a pretty far cry from "it kind of holds up".
I'm glad you avoid manufactured outrage. In this case, the manufactured outrage is from the people falsely claiming a woman is secretly transgender and spreading misinformation, like in the original post you seem to not have a problem with.
You don't see what accusing someone of being transgender to undermine their win has to do with transgender issues?
Also, "transexual" is not the preferred nomenclature. Transgender is. The former is an older, dated term and is generally best avoided.
Going by their username, I don’t think they have any compunctions about using dated terminology.
You are taking what they said out of context
First, no, I'm not. I said that having read the full context of the comment.
Second, what context do you think would make what they said not transphobic? I don't think there is one, so even if taken out of context, which it wasn't, it would be as I said.
How is what they said transphobic? They said the transgender topic is clearly promoted by the bourgeoisie, which is true: mass media are owned by a bunch of rich people in bed with the government and in the past years the transgender topic has been push all over the news. In case you didn't notice he made an example that they went as far as putting lbgt flags on government buildings. That was a direct reply to someone saying that the bourgeoisie were promoting transphobia. They were answering back and giving their opinion. If you attack this person over this i'm lead to believe that your bad intentions are way worst than his alleged transphobia.
In and of itself, the allegation that the only reason people might want to do some sort of show of solidarity or support for a historical marginalized community is because it's being pushed by non-specific monied interests for non-specific reasons is transphobic.
So is the notion that it's in the public discourse only because of big money. I'd argue it's because there's been a massive transphobic pushback against civil rights by religious fundamentalists and conservative groups. They run for office on culture was issues, so transphobia is a campaign issue.
When was the last time a civil rights issue was pushed by the bourgeoisie?
When was the last time someone said "this is being pushed by the bourgeoisie and big money" about something they approved of?
Putting up a flag at a government building is an extremely low bar to saying something is backed by powerful money.
Just going to skip over that bit? Echoing an entirely fabricated claim that someone is trans as an attack on that person is clearly swinging some transphobia around.
Replying to someone and sharing your opinion doesn't make your opinion not transphobic if it's, you know: "a transphobic opinion".
As I said, I read the context. Saying trans rights are part of a bourgeois conspiracy isn't better when it's in response to someone saying transphobia is part of a bourgeois conspiracy. It's a transphobic opinion regardless of why you're sharing it.
What, pray tell, are my alleged "bad intentions"? Should I ponder what your bad intentions are for jumping in to defend transphobia, unprompted, weeks after the fact?
They are not saying that it's the only reason, they are pointing out something and it happens to be true, they are pointing it out because someone else mentioned the argument.
This had me to read his original comment again and i have to admit i misunderstood something, i thought he implies that the bourgeoisie were doing both: promoting it and pushing transphobia. (which seem what they are doing)
I guess his reply sounds kinda cold but i still feel like you a bunch of old men yelling at clouds, if you care about the topic and are concerned about it you should go spend your time and resources against actual transphobes and not chasing after people comments like the inquisition.
Dude, I replied to a comment on an image post. You're the one who resurrected a month idle conversation to defend transphobia and call recognizing transphobia "the inquisition".
Why do you give a shit what other people talk about?
This thread is pinned in this sub
Okay? That doesn't obligate you to res a dead thread or act like anyone in it cares as much as you seem to.
Alright, that's enough.
Index is allowed to comment in old threads, anyone is.
Sure, never said they weren't. But comparing a conversation that stopped a month ago to the inquisition justifies pointing out that the conversation ended a while ago, so maybe people aren't going after someone as they seem to think.
Telling people talking about transphobia that they should spend their time doing something else invites an observation that the conversation had seemingly moved on, and they're the one bringing it up again.
Now that it's been explained to you, can you explain to us what was so hard to understand that you needed it explained to you?
The "intentions" everyone seemed to be reading into the post. Outsiders can only take the statement on face value.
The part at the beginning up to the middle
Don't also forget the ending as well. The whole FUCKING thing is transphobic
The part about the firefox plugin?