this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
1158 points (97.7% liked)

196

3634 readers
1671 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

  • Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
  • Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
  • When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
  • Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
  • Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
  • Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
  • Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
  • Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
  • Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
  • Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
  • Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
  • Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
  • First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
  • Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
  • No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
  • Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
  • Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 day ago (24 children)

Supporting Gaiman is supporting a rapist; it will negatively impact a couple people directly.

Supporting Rowling is much worse.

[–] dandelion@piefed.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

such incredible insight, Rowling as an anti-trans activist is engaged in a genocidal movement which has of course a much larger scale of both number of people harmed and the severity of that harm

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I hate Rowlings and her stupid and dangerous ideas, but I don't think it is genocide? Or is it some pro iseaeli stance that makes you say that?

I'm asking because I think it's important to not use genocide for eveything bad because it just waters down the words meaning, and in the end when there is a "real" genocide people will compare it to lesser evils.

Not saying you're wrong, but I would like to know the reason behind you saying it!

[–] DrivebyHaiku@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago

Genocide is technically a process and a sliding scale. It exists by degrees. It may seem hyperbolic to classify some actions as genocidal particularly when they are slow or the number of deaths do not seem absolute but it is still genocide.

What defines a genocide via international Convention is any of five acts intended to diminish the population of a cultural community. None of these have to be a totality of the group it can be only in part. The important thing is victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly. The five acts of genocide are :

  • Killing members of the group

  • Causing them serious bodily or mental harm

  • Imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group

  • Preventing births

  • Forcibly transferring children out of the group

While a number of countries are full five for five in regards to trans people you only really need one to qualify. Things like the lack of reporting of Trans deaths, the removal of services needed by the group including medical care or critical mental health resources as is happening with the closure of LGBTQIA+ specific crisis support in the US, the labelling of Trans people as pedophiles or removal of children from the custody of supportive parents into state custody by labelling gender affirming attitudes as "child abuse", the forcing of trans people to endure security risks because of laws that often get them arrested for following them such as bathroom bills... All of these are genocidal measures they just aren't fast acting.

While it may seem like the point of the word is to be splashy and attention grabbing that need not be the point of it. The cultural expectations that genocide need only be wartime type measures of systematic elimination is a disservice to a lot of other genocides that are happening globally.

[–] dandelion@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

First of all, yes, I think some people find it controversial to use the term "genocide" to refer to what's happening to trans people. Part of the debate about the term "genocide" is whether it can apply to non-ethnic groups, for example. I would argue the spirit of the term does apply to any group, but some people disagree. I'm not sure why it's so important for the term to be limited to ethnicity, I tend to think these arguments are not in the spirit of validating or recognizing very real oppression and violence intended to completely eliminate a certain group.

The motivation to use the term "genocide" is that the anti-trans movement has explicitly stated as their goal the total erasure of trans people:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-speaker-transgender-people-eradicated-1234690924/

During his speech on Saturday, Knowles told the crowd, “For the good of society … transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level.”

Knowles subsequently claimed that “eradicating” “transgenderism” is not a call for eradicating transgender people and demanded retractions from numerous publications, including Rolling Stone.

Erin Reed, a transgender rights activist and writer, tells Rolling Stone that it’s an absurd distinction. There is no difference between a ban on “transgenderism” and an attack on transgender people, she says: “They are one and the same, and there’s no separation between them.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/matt-walsh-supreme-court-erase-trans-ideology-earth-1235192666/

“We are not gonna rest until every child is protected, until trans ideology is entirely erased from the earth. That’s what we’re fighting for, and we will not stop until we achieve it,” he said.

Specifically, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention has described the anti-trans movement as genocidal:

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/red-flag-alerts/red-flag-alert-for-the-anti-trans-agenda-of-the-trump-administration-in-the-united-states

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security condemns the anti-trans agenda of the second Trump Administration and warns Americans that the recent spate of executive orders, which are in line with a genocidal process against the transgender community that has been emerging in the United States for over a decade, are meant to pave the way for greater state repression against all individuals and other groups in the future.

...

The Lemkin Institute believes that current anti-trans hysteria within the government is meant to serve three purposes within a wider genocidal process. First, the Executive Orders constitute the paper marginalization and ‘paper persecution’ of an identity group that has recently gained rights and greater acceptance in order to lock in evangelical support for the Trump administration. Second, the executive orders create a fictitious ‘cosmic enemy’ that will justify radicalization of government in general, leading to ever-more power for the executive branch; and third, the executive orders, over time, aim to normalize the destruction of identity groups by desensitizing the public to state-sponsored persecution of people based solely on their identities.

Taken together, the Trump Administration’s executive orders related to trans people would effectively destroy, if fully implemented, trans people as a group, in whole, to summarize the text of the Genocide Convention. The orders begin the process of removing a trans presence from collective life and preventing trans people from existing as themselves, forcing them back into invisibility and isolation. This attack on trans identity is reminiscent in the US context of the Native American Boarding Schools, where the goal was to “kill the Indian … and save the man.” Not only would the effort to deprive trans Americans of gender affirming care constitute a form of torture (and medical malpractice) with terrible mental health repercussions, but also such measures are a common phase in genocidal processes and generally lead to ever greater persecution.

Trans people in Florida prisons are being forcefully detransitioned and forced into pseudo-science conversion "therapy", I don't think it's hyperbolic at this point in time to say the intentions of the anti-trans movement are genocidal, and I think the movement is largely succeeding in their goals.

So far necessary medical care has been denied to trans youth in many states, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that discrimination against people on the basis of "gender dysphoria" is legal. We already have data that the ban of gender affirming care (and in some cases, forcing physicians to detransition trans youth) has significantly increased the rate of suicide attempts among those trans youth.

We are also seeing tools used in previous genocides, such as "social death" where the concept of being trans is eliminated from the law and thus on a social and legal level trans people cannot "exist". Laws in some states have already achieved this (which results in trans people never being able to fix their birth certificates or update their legal documents, for example), and now the federal government is operating under executive orders that establish the same (making it impossible for trans people to have accurate passports or federal documents, for example - but the policies impact much more, including forcing male TSA agents to pat down trans women and vice versa).

So the methods and goals are all genocidal, the only problem is that trans people as a group are not a national or ethnic group, so this would fail a narrow definition of genocide that way.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

It's just utilitarianism. Utilitarian generally seems to piss off a lot of lemmites though; I thought people would have a more negative reaction to it here.

(Btw I agree the number of people harmed is larger but I think it's debatable whether or not the (per-person) severity of the harm is larger.)

[–] dandelion@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

the anti-trans movement's achievements like taking away gender-affirming care have directly been shown to result in increased suicides, as far as I know Gaiman's actions have not directly killed anyone, while Rowling's advocacy does directly support a movement that results in deaths - I think the per-person severity of harm when a trans person self harms, attempts suicide, or succeeds in suicide (not to mention when anti-trans bigots rape, torture, and murder trans people) are all worse AFAIK

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's true that Gaiman's actions haven't directly killed anyone, but I'm not sure there are enough victims to definitively say that getting raped by Gaiman would cause less propensity for suicide than Rowling's advocacy against trans people. But... I suspect you are right.

[–] dandelion@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 hours ago

yeah, I agree with you - the harm is severe, it's just with such a small population we can't show the concrete harm the way we can with a trans population where deaths are already happening (but that doesn't diminish the actual harm to Gaiman's victims, which I would say is extreme).

[–] chocosoldier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

utilitarianism: for when you need the worst possible take delivered in the most insufferable manner using the least amount of critical faculty to answer the questions nobody asked.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

All that true and it works ™

Now we just need people to listen to our hot takes and we're set.

[–] chocosoldier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

funny thing is the last time i bothered thinking about utilitarianism was when i was reading about the zizians using it to justify murdering just whoever they pleased. i'm not convinced it works, it's a school of philosophy for stupid pedants who want to feel smart and justified in whatever they already think.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

well the zizians were obviously insane, nobody likes them. The rationalists disowned them, just like they disowned FTX.

As a moral philosophy, I am not certain about utilitarianism. But outside of morality, if you're going to have preferences, you might as well do the math.

load more comments (21 replies)