“Hey so I know we’ve been doing a genocide but look, we’re being really nice when we bomb innocent civilians homes by letting them know we’re going to bomb their homes.”

This (a) doesn’t excuse literal genocide and (b) is just a “nicer” version of exactly the thing they’re appalled Hamas just did. You don’t get to cry foul if you’re going to retaliate with a tit for tat play.

They are terrorists. That’s literally what they are. The fact that attacked an evil fascist state’s city doesn’t change that.

“Carnism” that’s the difference between vegans and non-vegans.

Only vegans view their diet as a lifestyle and shit on everyone else who isn’t vegan. We’re not “carnists” we don’t give a fuck really except that we hate vegans. Why? Because you lot are the pushiest, most openly judgemental, arrogant pieces of shit to walk the earth.

This “barter” economy as a primary means of exchange never existed. It’s a myth and a lie created by capitalists (actually by one Adam Smith) trying to rationalize the adoption of coinage and currency in ancient civilization.

In fact barter economies tend to arise predominantly in capitalism during periods of economic instability. Ie: after natural disasters, in war torn countries, etc.

The proper term you are looking for is “gift economy” and it is how the world worked before capitalism. I want something from you so you gift it to me with the implicit understanding that if in the future the roles are reversed I give something to you of relatively equal perceived value.

It was actually pretty rare that gifts were paid back in full in one transaction and often larger gifts were paid back through a series of transactions.

You were allowed to say it. I’m allowed to remove it. Welcome to the world. Don’t like it? Leave.

But also: nobody in the world actually likes the idea of absolutist free speech. The founding fathers certainly didn’t believe in such an idea.

“The idea of being transgender” it’s not an idea anymore than you think about being cisgender. It’s a false dichotomy created by cisgender people who fail to understand the issue or fall victim to the “gay agenda” rhetoric of right wing media.

A better way to phrase it is no trans person thinks of themselves as trans. A trans woman thinks of herself as a woman. A trans man thinks of himself as a man. So there’s no “idea” of “being transgender” unless you’re a cis person who thinks they know what they’re talking about.

It’s like the phrase “differently abled” only able bodied people think like that.

They can say what they want without restraint or restriction. They are not free from the consequences of their words.

They can say what they like. We can ban them if we don’t like it. That’s how free speech works in a consequentialist society (modern Western society is a synthesis of consequentialism and contractualism).

This is free speech. They get to say what they please. They are not free from the consequences of those words however. I, as a private citizen and not a governmental actor, can censor them.

You’ve not said anything rule breaking, let alone transphobic enough to be banned. Saying unpopular things will not get you banned/comment removed.

I’m just enforcing the rules of this instance. Specifically hate towards any specific group (which includes rhetoric designed to oppress) is against the rules.

Sorry, not sorry. In fact, I took great joy in removing the transphobes from this comment section. I only removed egregious errors.

In a way you could say I’m maliciously complying with the instance rules.

Both. I choose both.

This is my job: to make perfectly clear what is and isn’t allowed. In no uncertain terms I will make sure this place is as free from transphobia as possible.

Yes. If you could prove transgenderism exists. See because you attach an -ism to it you are (in English) saying “the ideology of transgender individuals” which is “we exist” which is not an ideology. It is a fact. You can disagree with facts all you want but it doesn’t make you smart.or intellectual… it makes you wrong.

Yes it does. Your position requires you be able to prove definitively they are “not biologically women”

If you cannot your entire argument falls apart. That’s unknowable. You cannot know they are biologically women so using that term is just a smokescreen for bigotry… and shows you lack an understanding of human sexing (which is objectively not a binary)

I think (and I’m cis so, shrug) this is a reasonable idea until further testing.

Though we also have evidence from Lia Thomas being about average for prior (cisgender) winners of that event that show even after they don’t have a competitive advantage.

Prove they’re genetically not a female. You can’t without genomic testing. And forcibly testing for so many people (literally everyone who claims to be a woman) is both unethical no matter the reasoning and logistically impossible.

Therefore you can’t prove they aren’t a woman.

I banned them. And transphobia is against the rules of this entire instance (not just this community).

Them’s be the rules of this entire instance.

This is a much better write up than I expected from this comment section… you deserve at least hotdog for this effort.

Nope. Frankly a karma system would be such a terrible idea for Lemmy. We just need more mod tools, which is a downside of Lemmy being a new platform that grew really quickly.