I don’t expect this to play particularly well here, and maybe I’m just being conspiratorial, but here goes:
I banned [email protected] from [email protected] earlier today- he literally posted a matt walsh youtube link and was being otherwise transphobic in a space where that gets you banned. (link)
one of jordanlunds removed comments w/ matt walsh video:
spoiler
the reason I put down was ‘trolling about neopronouns’ I stand by that, it was violating instance rules and was unacceptable behavior from a moderator of another instance.
Shortly after that I got banned from [email protected] for ‘trolling’. To be clear, jordanlund does not moderate [email protected], but the timing struck me as an odd coincidence.
The .world thread in question (link)
I was expressing my actual opinion/position on this, if anything the post I was replying to should be considered a rule 1 violation implying leftists are russian/under russian sway:
spoiler
The removed comments that I was banned (permanent) for were just me being earnest about my position, which you’re welcome to disagree with.
I don’t view protecting my rights as something worth sacrificing other people for, even if they’re on the other side of the planet. You can be mad at me or hate me for that, but I’m not trolling.
People replying felt it was reasonable to call me an idiot for example, yet another example of selective moderation. on .world.
I don’t have any conclusive proof that my banning Jordanlund and then getting banned are related other than the suspicious timing, I welcome clarification.
Anyway in the interest of neutrality and transparency I submit both my ban and jordanlunds for review.
It’s still using the terms JP chose to refer to them. Calling someone “zher” because they asked you to is basic manners.
Pronouns are a small set of incredibly generic words to simplify reference to an established subject, grammatically speaking. Adding to the pool complicates a part of speech that is meant to be uncomplicated. Neo-pronouns are a prime example of this increased complexity.
While referring to someone as per their preference is basic manners, not complicating what’s meant to be a simple, pared down system is as well. The mutual respect English-language compromise is, imo, acceptance of the already established non-gendered pronoun “they” by the referrer and the referenced.
Is increased complexity an actual problem?
At no point have I ever seen anyone suggest that it is impolite to be asked to be referred to in a specific way. I outright reject that it is bad manners to politely request to be referred to in terms you appreciate.
In regards to pronouns? Sorry, I reject your rejection. Neo-pronouns are essentially nouns, meant to add specificity to a system that is meant to be broad and generic.
And I have no idea why you would try to claim that neopronouns are rude as there is no social obligation to permit others to call you something other than what you prefer. There IS a social obligation to call people what they prefer however.
Your explanation really seems like you are throwing shit at the wall in hopes something would stick.
Not really. It’s pretty straightforward.
Pronouns simplify sentence structure in English.
Neo-pronouns add complexity to the concept of pronouns.
Making a part of speech complicated for your own gratification when it’s meant to be an easy, generic alternative to reusing the same noun repeatedly is an imposition.
Imposition is generally considered a bit rude.
Nah, you’re full of crap. There’s no social obligation to use common pronouns. There’s no obligation to make speech easier for anyone or to prevent repetition. You’re either very confused or are looking to justify rude behavior.
I’m neither. You’re stuck on what you think and can’t see that there is another, valid viewpoint that can accommodate everyone.
People used to call a woman Mrs or Miss depending on her marital status, wasn’t that complicating the communication of a simple system?
Yes.