Today, i couldnt upvote a post from anarchymemes@anarchist.nexus so i decided to check it out on my pc. i noticed that i was banned from the com even though i havent posted anything on the com nor the instance. i guess the reason for the ban is that i posted a meme to different comm a while ago. The meme is homophobic but i didnt know it when i was posting it. After finding out it was homophonic, i added a disclaimer to my post.
i dont think i deserved the ban, and i want to hear your thoughts.
Then you block them if you truly believe in freedom of association, not ban them from the comms you moderate. I gotta say, Trump and Bill are the punchline of that joke because Trump is the homophobe and that image probably sends him into a rage. It may be tempting to think, but the punchline is definitely not “tehehe gay”. It really seems you’d have to intentionally misconstrue the meme to interprete it that way in our current political climate and the context of the platform in which it was posted to.
So you would be happy to share an instance with Nazis as long as you blocked them? Kinda sus.
Also by OPs own admission: “ I added disclaimer because other people explained to me why it was homophobic” seems enough other people felt the same.
OPs response when learning it was homophobic was not to remove the offending content but to add a pissweak disclaimer?
Lol no. Block CSAM and Nazis. But a meme laughing at a hypocrit? Idk
What pissweak disclaimer? I added it so that other people would know about it. When I learned the meme was homophobic the post stopped gaining traction, and users already saw it. i think acting aggressive like that wont help anyone. Kindness goes a long way.
If enough people told you it was homophobic, why keep it up at all?
By that stage you were clearly informed it was problematic and your response was to continue to do so but add a “disclaimer” as if that makes the behaviour now okay?
If you want acts of kindness don’t continue to keep up homophobic content, because all that will do is get you hostility from the victims of homophobia.
Who is “enough people?”
The queer community is not a monolith and we do not all agree with this bad take. I sure don’t and I do not appreciate people speaking for me, especially when it reflects poorly on me through no fault of my own. Nor do I appreciate the abuse that mods have exhibited in this thread. The original situation could have been a misunderstanding and it could have been resolved here. Instead, the mods of that community have doubled down on the toxic abuse and rhetoric.
If you want to speak for yourself speak for yourself. You don’t speak for me or my community.
They’re own word were "I added disclaimer because other people explained to me why it was homophobic”, that implies multiple other people and as such the ‘enough’ was whatever number it took of those other people explaining it to OP for them to learn.
Good for you, you also don’t speak for me and my community.
I have watched friends die while an entire country cheered and declared it was God’s divine judgement. My family is still actively under attack, our lives threatened constantly, by fascists who claim the namesake of a religion whose tenets they actively oppose. I have lost people. Real people. They suffered unimaginably physically, mentally, and emotionally and died and aren’t coming back. Don’t you baby gays and false allies lecture me on homophobia. I have lived through shit you can’t even seem to imagine. I giggled at that dumb post.
Don’t waste the good will you have earned by dying on this stupid, hurtful hill. I’m happy that you have it good enough that silly internet jokes are the benchmark of homophobia for you. The cost for such a world was immense and it can be undone by careless ally attacks like this. Do. Better.
Please do better.
I have not seen people I know be killed for it, and I am sorry you have. But I have been beaten bloody many times in my life for my orientation. I have no tolerance for it, even in a ‘mild’ form. I am sick of being made into a joke or worse - jokes about being gay made my life horrible during the '90s and '00s and directly fueled a culture of violence.
My heart genuinely aches for you. I understand what you are talking about all too well. Society is fucking awful and terminally sick. But it’s critical to recognize that this is not that. The joke was not mean spirited or disparaging or mocking in any way. At worst, it was AI slop, which is a different kind of problem. Being included in jokes is not homophobic, and it would have worked just as well if Bubba happened to be Hillary’s nickname. This wasn’t a “Dave Chappelle is punching down at others expense” kind of joke.
Also, Trump and Clinton are Olympian class sluts who spent time in the same circles, and I wouldn’t bat an eyelash if those two really did fuck at one point.
It seems to me that the significant majority of people here in this thread at least, do not think the joke is innately/inherently homophobic, and that that is more or less a way that you can read it, if you choose to, but it still works as a joke without a homophobic reading.
And … that includes me, someone who has been … at least somewhat, depending on your criteria, victimized by actual homophobia.
Its not as cut and dry as you seem to think, to at least personally judge them in the way you are…
… sure, many people may have expressed their feelings one way, but many here have expressed them the other way…
… and it seems like a considerable mod/admin overreach to ban them for it.
Sure, people can not like it all they want, downvote, explain why they think its bad… but… banning for this seems extreme, needlessly censorious.
And shaming them and demanding an apology thus also to me seems wholly unwarranted.
literally read the article the OP edited into their post. also, maybe don’t tell queer people not to be offended over homophobic jokes.
freedom of association means a inviolable right to disassociate. furthermore, since I am a mod of the comm, and Anarchist Nexus is a Piefed instance, and Piefed has better blocking than Lemmy, if I block them they are shadowbanned from the comm anyway and their posts will not federate properly. this is why I had to remove my instance block of .ML so that certain ML users could post to !libjerk@anarchist.nexus.
Your own personal rights are not central to your acting as a moderator.
As a moderator, you represent the interests of the community.
I understand your position, but not everyone considers the matter to be equally unambiguous.
yes, which is why I discussed it with the active community over Matrix. would you like to make a guess on what they thought of the meme?
I was responding to your explanation as presented.
My own feeling is that not giving anyone a chance to take responsibility works against our interests of fostering inclusivity and responsibility. It is essential to keep open space for discussion with those who may be misguided or unthoughtful but are otherwise generally reasonable.
if you want spaces that remain open to a degree for liberals or tankies, then there is !leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com and !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com, both places where agitprop that you will often find in !anarchymemes@anarchist.nexus is not welcome. the only reason c/anarchymemes is open to the public is that current Piefed limitations do not allow us to also restrict federation of the community to trusted instances as well, so it has to be public in order for those from dbzer0 and quokk.au to post.
to put it in plain english, the whole point of the comm is to post memes that will piss off liberals and tankies. serious discussion of any kind is forbidden as there are preexisting communities for that. the sidebar quite clearly lays that out. we aren’t here for people who don’t share our values, and we aren’t here for anything more than memes.
Even if all of it is true, as you say, preemptively banning users who never posted feels very abrasive, even aggressive. I am afraid it may tend to engender negative sentiments about movements, by creating an impression that anarchists or leftists generally tend to be unwelcoming or uncompromising, just as might be actually the case for tankies. We want to maintain the appearance as a group of being open to discussion.
The question arises of whether preemptive banning is constructive, considering the power remains to ban someone later, as actually needed, as well as to remove objectionable content if submitted.
the user in question had upvoted posts in the comm in the past. they only noticed the ban because they tried to upvote again. the ban prevents them from doing that in the future.
May I ask, what is the harm in the user casting such votes?
Idk it seems like you are deiciding for me if you’re banning people from comms.
the fediverse is open and free to everyone. if you want to make your own c/anarchymemes, do so. you’re still free to associate with people who make homophobic memes if you want.
but you can’t insist another anarchists or anarchist groups let you do it within their circle. I suggest you try reading the AFAQ for a better understanding on what freedom of association means: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/