she/her
Yeah from memory most of our instance bans are gatekeeping and transphobia (and spam) which are the things we are the strictest on. We also notice that many transphobes are also bigoted or inflammatory in other ways as well, which makes sense as you wouldn’t notice someone with bigoted views unless they were very willing to voice those views.
I don’t think this is terribly meaningful. Do you take into account unmoderated communities? Some communities and mods are also more ban happy than others, so one instance can have communities that very rarely ban and ones that ban a lot, and how big those communities are will also vary.
A more meaningful analysis would try to measure the impact of ban-happy communities by adjusting for their size/activity or would compare individual communities.
Edit: Some communities or mods also get harassed a lot and therefore need to be more ban happy (like womens stuff), but I don’t think accounting for that would be within the scope of what you’re looking at, but it’s worth being aware of.
*wives <3
I think many of us just stay away from locker rooms and public bathrooms as much as possible because we want to avoid being stared at or getting into uncomfortable situations with others making a scene. I’m no athlete, but I try to not go to public bathrooms and I plan my life accordingly. I’ve gone a few times and it has been problem free each time, but people do look at me as they go by because I don’t pass.
How safe we feel going into a locker room is gonna depend on who we go with, where we go and how tolerated we are in that area, how confident we are, and to what degree we pass.
If someone I know invites me anywhere which requires going into a locker room I’m likely gonna tell them no. Maybe I’m overly anxious and it would go just fine, but I’m not interested in rolling the dice with how people are gonna react.
Edit: I do go to the gym, but like most people post covid I show up in my gym wear. I don’t think there even is a locker room there.
all states are authoritarian
Not in the same ways. You support dictatorships where workers have no power, nor the means to eventually hold power later down the line. I support neither capitalist regimes nor dictatorships pretending to be socialist.
To get rid of the state, all property needs to be collectivized, which both gets rid of class and the state itself.
Yes.
There’s no “promising to abolish” anything, the state gradually withers away with respect to class withering away as property is sublimated and collectivized.
No marxist can describe how this will happen. The dictators in charge do not have incentives to give away their power, nor are there other mechanisms in place that can bring about socialism. It’s literally just propaganda. Inequality in china is not withering away, there’s just a growing middle class the same way we had a growing middle class in other places where industrialization happened. The state owning and running things does not equate to socialism. It could, if there was democracy of some kind rather than oligarchy supplemented with very minor political participation from a fraction of the population.
I am a Marxist, yes. I became one after engaging with history, theory, logic, and practice. The fact that poor logic and false history doesn’t sway me doesn’t diminish my points. I haven’t seen any ethical arguments being brought up here.
Your auth states commit all the evils of capitalist empires and yet you still defend them. That’s not exactly ethical. Authoritarianism can’t be ethical in practice because of the incentives the people in power have to keep their power, and the things they do to keep it. “Communist” states are far more authoritarian than most liberal democracies, which is why I call them authoritarian. I call you authoritarian because you defend them and wish to implement similar oligarchies/dictatorships elsewhere. This is not to say I like liberalism, just by comparison your system is in many ways worse. Unions are way more suppressed, people are less active politically, and there are no big benefits to make up for it. Genocide is still happening, billionaires are still being produced, freedom of speech is still suppressed, etc. Like yeah we can sit here and compare metrics and see both capitalist and marxist states are doing good and bad in all sorts of different ways. Both systems work to a point. I don’t care. I want actual democracy. I want actual freedom. I want actual socialism, or at least a system which can produce socialism unlike your auth vanguard states.
I will be blocking you after this.
Edit: To me the big mystery is why defend these states? Why aim for vanguard states? Can’t we aim for something better rather than something that has “succeeded”? Why do we have to choose between liberalism and marxism when we can instead try to work towards actual socialism?
The revolution comes, comrade :3
I will not be an enemy of existing socialism or of the working class of those countries.
You already are, auth
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The workers have no meaningful power or ownership over their workplaces, so it doesn’t matter how much is publicly owned. I personally will never accept the marxist redefinition of socialism, nor will I ever accept an authoritarian vanguard state.
I do not want to continue this debate, tankie. It’s never productive for anyone.
They are not socialist in the slightest. That requires the workers to own the means of production, which they do not.
Edit: To expand on this companies are organized the same way as in capitalism because they are capitalist. Workers at the bottom, management in the middle, and rich capitalists at the top.
Love the font!
Edit: Just gonna redact. This is a venting post so my comment is kinda mean in that context
Yeah they didn’t show previous comments (the actually relevant context), just the one where the user bargains.
I understand two of you were mostly behind the move. Perhaps those two should step down and new mods be brought in. Kind of hard to trust you after all this.
Disappointing
That’s true! I meant more as an example of a community that because of its nature has to ban more than other communities!
Also it occurs to me that I have no idea if rimu is looking at instance bans, community bans, or all bans. Instance bans will typically also include community bans which can inflate the numbers if all bans are counted in the data
Edit: in fact it’s all weird. if you instance ban someone early before they can participate much they technically get very few community bans, whereas if you ban someone who has participated a lot they’ll get lots of community bans as well (when you are instance banned you get banned from all communities you’ve participated in on that instance). an instance that is more trigger happy will have fewer community bans than an instance that is slow to instance ban
Edit 2: And then there’s temporary bans! I dunno if those have been counted