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.
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.
That’s a binary you’re either confused because you think there’s an social obligation to follow stylistic writing choices (not using the same term twice) or you are looking to justify being rude because you would prefer not to honor the other person’s request to use their preferred term when addressing them. After someone has politely asked you to call them “x” there is no way for you to call them anything else without being rude
Your “other viewpoint” is the part that’s rude. It directly contradicts a commonly held view which is you should call people by their preferred term.