yes, that’s why I put it in quotes. However given the diversity of culture and language there’s still going to be slurs that the predominantly English speaking mods will not be aware of, so users should be able to set their own filters.
deleted by creator
Op’s take is not reasonable imo- if you think threats are harmful enough to prosecute they should also be harmful enough to censor.
Maybe a more soft form of censorship, such as hiding them behind a cw and a “user was vanned for this post” label rather than outright removal, but you can’t just do nothing.
My personal opinion is that for “edge cases” like cisgender, I should be the one who decides what “slurs” I see or don’t see on the feed, rather than some shmuck twitter mod who watched a YouTube video or whatever.
The thing is, I dislike censorship in general. Corporate or government. Yes it’s the corp’s prerogative, but we’re allowed to criticize corporate censorship and hypocrisy regarding censorship.
I don’t get why people defend censorship by powerful/monopolistic companies run by billionaires while criticizing censorship by the government. They’re not that different.
My go to example for “we should have let them cook” is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGAS
The US government in 1962 regarded the project as a major threat due to the “tremendous increments in economic productivity” which could disrupt the world market. Arthur Schlesinger Jr, historian and special assistant to President Kennedy, described “an all out Soviet commitment to cybernetics” as providing the Soviet Union a “tremendous advantage” in respect to production technology, complex of industries, feedback control and self-teaching computers.
yeah maybe we should let them cook for a bit
deleted by creator
The obvious conjecture is that they were trying to commit fraud and get free copper
Stallman was right about everything
It’s so fucked up how the “know nothing” racist anti-papist freaks turned out to be correct and we actually did end up being oppressed by an unaccountable cabal of conservative Catholics (aka the supreme Court).
This is how Google started out, until like 2010-2015 it was wonderful. I think it’s just losing the seo slop arms race now tbh
Your original comment was saying that the term is inherently derogatory and offensive. I’m trying to explain that in this case I don’t accept the framework of a derogatory terms but rather derogatory usages. That’s like, my opinion. As a self identified tranny, who still identifies as such in a non porn context. As do lots of my friends on twitter.
Feel like we’ve already been over all this back when some people online decided “queer” is always a slur and started aggressively trying to police people from using it…
oh it was like, expressing desire to access the wheelhouse rather than questioning whether it exists D: sorry
Hm it might be good to have a conversation about cw policy on lemmy actually. If you post something I’ll upvote it
there’s other trans communities and other social norms online than r/mtf on reddit. People should be allowed to call themselves what they like imo, and you should probably try to make sure of the user’s actual stance before policing their language.
It’s weird, it’s like a four way conflict between trans women, cis crossdressers, well meaning cis allies speaking over the former, and transphobes.
I think people should be allowed to call themselves what they like personally. But they should be able to veto what others call them. But setting a single universal norm doesn’t make sense
Am I missing something? I thought you weren’t required to put a return address on postcards. Just put your username and email.