For context, it was about the recent Vaxerski incident, where I shared my personal opinion about the whole gender stuff. I wasn't even trying to be hurtful against anyone, just shared my 2 cents in an already ongoing conversation.

Sure, ine might not agree with my opinion, and I don't agree with others, and this is totally normal. But at least we should be able to have sane and respectful conversations where no one is insulting each other, or anyone else... without having a mod intervening into the conversation

So to all the mods out there: Your personal opinion does not give you the right to delete comments and block users, just because their opinions don't align with yours!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] missingno@kbin.social 34 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Refusing to treat people with the barest minimum of respect is not a "personal opinion", it's behavior that no space should tolerate.

[+] ad_on_is@programming.dev -21 points 7 months ago (2 children)

barest minimum of respect

what's that even supposed to mean? If I talk to someone like I do with everyone else, without changing my tone/or opinion based on whatever race/religion/identity they go by, then I certainly am treating everyone with the same amount of respect.

We've lived for millennia now, and I don't recall a single book where a person of the past was mentioned in addition with their pronoun, in the sense of "____ was a writer/artist/mathematician in the late 1800s who went by they/them"... etc.

We're introducing unnecessary complications into an already complicated society we live in.

[–] ZeroCool@slrpnk.net 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Have you ever wondered why that is? LGBTQ and non-binary people existed in the 19th century too, they just weren't safe to live as they chose to publicly. And when it was mentioned in literature it was typically couched in euphemisms of the period. I understand that you'd clearly prefer all these people go back in the closet rather than be inconvenienced by having to acknowledge their existence, but are you really daft enough to think this is something dreamed up in the 2010s? For fuck sake...

[+] ad_on_is@programming.dev -10 points 7 months ago (2 children)

ok, then what about the 16th century, 5th, 2nd, 100 B.C, 200 B.C?

[–] ZeroCool@slrpnk.net 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, homosexuality and non-gender conforming individuals have existed throughout human history and across all cultures with varying social attitudes toward them. You know, you're quite opinionated for someone with no demonstrable understanding of the topic, but I suppose that explains a lot.

[–] ad_on_is@programming.dev -4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're talking as if transgenderism and homosexuality (and their problems) emerged in the 19th century. That's why I asked you about the other centuries?

Pederasty was a socially acceptable thing back in 600 b.c amongst the Etruscans, for example.

[–] ZeroCool@slrpnk.net 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I neither said nor implied any such thing. You brought up books written in the 1800s which is why my initial reply specifically focused on the 19th century. You're either dumb or you're here in bad faith, but based on your last sentence, being a weak attempt to shift the conversation from LGBTQ and non-binary people to pederasts, which is straight out of the right-wing playbook, it's safe to assume the latter. So we're done here.

[–] ad_on_is@programming.dev -5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

lol, right-wing playbook... dude, I'm anything but right-wing

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Man. I really wanted to support you, but you're making it very difficult.

You're offended by an accusation of being right-wing instead of listening to what they (the person) haslve to say. In turn, you just linked gay people to pedophiles - perhaps unintentionally, but damn, man. That's actually bigot talk. Now, I'm not saying you are. But again, take a step back and reflect in how you approach these themes. Otherwise you'll be making more harm than good.

[–] JaymesRS 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

This wiki page, not itself as an original source but as a collection of original papers in the references for you to peruse at your leisure is a great starting point. But your question is a bit like the “Did you know Aristotle never said ‘Thank You’? Mostly because he didn’t speak English.” Joke. You are expecting modern accommodations and language in texts from a different era that would have used unfamiliar forms or language like ancient Egypt that had a 3rd gender “sekhet”.

[–] JaymesRS 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

What’s up with people changing their names after marriage or adoption too‽

Why does everyone refer to her as Marie Curie instead of Maria Skłodowska? It’s just soo unnecessarily complicated to have to use a different name than the one assigned at birth.

[–] ad_on_is@programming.dev -4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And yet no one is referring to Kim as Kim Kardashian West, but still Kim Kardashian.

[–] JaymesRS 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Because that’s how she’s told people she prefers to be called, that’s how she still brands her social media.

People respecting somebody else’s choice for how to refer to them is literally the example that is the worst for your argument.