Ah yes, the infamously transphobic instance, lemmy.blahaj.zone.
No I think they’re putting words in OP’s mouth because I recall some drama where Blahaj members accused sh.itjust.works of being a transphobic instance
Hexbear et co literally have called Blahaj a transphobic instance, numerous times. Lunacy.
Like many right-wing fascist-simps-in-arms, plenty know some buzzwords to get people riled up, but don’t know when and where to properly use them.
can someone give more information about SJW and Blahaj? I know there was something about !noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works and ADA @ blahaj where the noncredibledefense mod was being dumb, but was there more drama than I know about?
I moved here because of .world being controversial and I don’t wanna move again :/
Would you say the nazis were socialist because they called themselves “National Socialists”?
Anyways, pretty much any time I see trans people talk about that instance, they complain about all the transphobes that gather there (probably to be transphobic to trans people) and mods/admins do nothing about. If an instance is full of transphobia, seems pretty fair to call it transphobic instance.
Gotta love the tankies and China, just because the ruling “party” of China has the word “Communist” in their name doesn’t mean they’re not an authoritarian dictatorship lol
Literally doesn’t even matter what they call themselves. Russia and Iran are blatantly capitalist, authoritarian states yet they still support them, lmao. They’re idiots, not even the useful type.
No, i wouldn’t. I was saying that lemmy.blahaj.zone is a trans (and lgbtq in general) inclusive instance.
I must admit, i don’t know much about the userbase, so i’m not immediately doubting that it could have issues, or outright transphobia. I was just pointing out that the user in the image immediately accused the OP and the instance in general of being transphobic, despite the instance literally being for trans/lgbt+ people.
It has nothing to do with “transphobia.” It’s just a way to slap a label on someone you disagree with, out of nowhere, to engage a tribal and reality-free way of thinking where they can be the good guy and you can be the bad guy.
if you have damning evidence of blahaj’s unchecked transphobia, i suggest you post that rather than comparing the largest trans instance to the literal nazi party. otherwise put down the hearsay stick.
I never compared blahaj instance to nazis. I compared the argument that the name having “blahaj” in it to meaning the instance is inherently free of transphobia to the stupid argument that having “socialist” in its name means nazis are socialists.
I haven’t had any personal problems and certainly wouldn’t make sure a comparison. Also just realized why its seemed so dead: apparently they defederated with the instance I’m using recently. Seems like they’re at least trying something.
Is the unopposed transphobia in the room with us right now? I don’t see it in the meme communities I’m subscribed to there.
I don’t really pay attention to which instance I’m in and don’t really see all the much transphobia in general, but like I also don’t read through the comments on the types of things that would attract transphobia (things like talks about banning trans people from participating in sports, for example - no meme communities). Just pointing out what the argument is of those who have beef with blajahzone.
have a discussion with person i disagree with ❌
call them mentally ill ✅
love this place
I’ve probably only forgotten to take my HRT like a couple times in the last few months. I did accidentally miss my allergy medicine a couple days ago. Never have gotten any medication for ADHD though - my mom was against it when I was a toddler and a doctor tried to prescribe it and I haven’t bothered trying it on my own. Getting a new diagnosis as an adult seems annoying and expensive.
In interactions with authoritarians, I’m often reminded of Jean-Paul Sartre’s description of anti-semites.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Tankies follow the same underlying basis for their justifications of authoritarianism as every other stripe.
Handy that your client shows that it’s a 4 days account
The meme I sent in the original pic
The longer you live the more you learn all countries are bad in there own right.
Hence me becoming an anarchist ahah
As someone from Switzerland it pisses me off how some people see our country as a utopia. We still have massive inequalities and suffering. People may not be dying on the streets, but they are sure as hell dying preventable deaths behind closed doors.
Gotta imagine how horrifying life is in other countries where they see a greener pasture across every other field but theirs
That may be true but that also is not an excuse to commit crimes against humanity
An excuse? Every country on the planet has committed crimes against humanity we’re already doing it.
new accounts
As in they’re getting banned a lot or they’re trolling/sockpuppeting, or both.
From (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)
No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect an initial a posteriori claim from a subsequent falsifying counterexample by then covertly modifying the initial claim.[1][2][3] Rather than admitting error or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, the claim is modified into an a priori claim to definitionally (as opposed to evidentially) exclude the undesirable counterexample.[4] The modification is usually identifiable by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as “true”, “pure”, “genuine”, “authentic”, or “real”, which can be used to locate when the shift in meaning of the claim occurs.[2]
Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an “ad hoc rescue” of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[5]
Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.” Person B: “But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge.” Person A: “But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
