by “online spaces” i was referring to forums, message boards, subreddits
type of language was slurs. reclaimed slurs specifically - slurs no one uses for themselves were banned outright.
Never “I am an internet troll and I am leaving lemmy because of these words are banned”
someone literally made a fork of lemmy without the filter so this has absolutely happened.
“I am hurt by people using those words and want them banned”
i am confident this would occur if the filter did not exist.
I don’t think it’s the most effective way to change people’s behaviour or anything.
it’s not the most effective way to change bigots. it is, however, an effective way of changing people with predjudices of which they are unaware. for example, if someone used a certain slur as normal speech and was forced to replace it in practice (while writing) they are being forced to think about alternatives and if confronted multiple times may eliminate the slur from their vocabulary entirely.
for those who would refuse to just find alternate vocabulary… well, let’s just say this site is better for everyone when those people go elsewhere.
never in the form of somebody saying
this is not true. i’ve moderated online spaces and plenty of people send messages asking for certain language to be disallowed. and even if it were the case that no one spoke up, a lot of times people just straight up leave online spaces when they are uncomfortable. im sure i could find hundreds of instances on reddit alone
that’s a good question. i think if you are under the care of a clinician, it can be a great exercise to push yourself. if you aren’t, i would just be very careful to not go overboard. be realistic about what you can and cannot do at the moment because pushing yourself too hard can make the challenge backfire and worsen your mental state.
so i would say yes, it can be good but if you’re doing it on your own make the “challenges” very small so that they are achievable without being overly stressful. like you mention social anxiety, so a challenge might be to make small talk with someone or to call someone on the phone. and then once you’re able to do whatever challenge with less anxiety, you can move to something slightly more challenging (and so on)
this is not the hill to die on. it is not that hard to use other words. and even if there were zero other reasons, keeping fascists away is enough.
as a marginalised person you should know that a slur you reclaim may be extremely offensive to someone else in the same grouping. take your example: a lot of people have reclaimed it but there are others still who have been hurt by that slur and are very sensitive to hearing it. this is true for many slurs.
if someone you were close to irl was like “hey, that word makes me uncomfortable” you would stop using it around them. because it would be disrespectful and hurtful for you to continue to do so. sure, people on the internet are strangers, but does that mean you potentially subject marginalized people to harm just because you don’t know them?
true but i don’t think they are actually trying to describe sexual orientation. this is a legal definition, for the language of the acts it is proposing to change. so it basically is saying “when you see ‘sexual orientation’ in the act, we mean ‘homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality’”
sidenote - i almost never see bills in such plain english. i was surprised because i have read a lot of legislation and much of it is so d e n s e (often, i imagine, to prevent regular people from understanding)
definitions of bisexuality vary from person to person. for some people it would cover the entire queer umbrella, for others it is two genders, for others still, two or more.
my wondering if it is too exclusive is not because of the definition of bisexuality (whatever it may be defined to be) but because if someone identifies as pansexual, for example, they may be more readily discriminated against post- (potential) enaction of this law (because the law does not explicitly include pansexuality). also, as zeroaesthetic mentioned, asexuality exists.
perhaps an alternative would be something like “The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, and other related sexual identities”.
(from the bill) this: “Both LGBTQ people and women” and this: “LGBTQ people, especially transgender people and women” are phrased so strangely. i know what they’re getting at but the first one makes it seem like LGBTQ excludes women and the second makes it seem like there are not transgender women.
this provision is good:
No negative inference.—Nothing in section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to support any inference that any Federal law prohibiting a practice on the basis of sex does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition, sexual orientation, gender identity, or a sex stereotype.
but i can"t help but wonder if their definition of sexual orientation is too limiting
SEXUAL ORIENTATION.—The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality
Linux has made a huge impact on the server market, but the same can’t be said for the desktop market — and for good reason. Despite making strides in the last several years, it’s still tricky for the uninitiated to use, and the user interfaces of the various distributions remain far inferior to those of Windows or Mac OS X.
this is a blatant lie that i wish would die already. there are plenty of distros that make life very easy for new linux users. not only that but there are plenty of DEs that mimick Windows and Mac interfaces. people change grandparents’ computers to linux all the time and report that they don’t even notice the difference.
Why exclude cis people in the first place?
people who experience gender as binary are simply not part of the group being examined. if you were collecting data on the number of people with green eyes who are left-handed, you wouldn’t want responses from people with brown eyes who are left-handed because they aren’t the group you’re looking into.
this survey already gets a ton of responses. if anyone could take it, the author would have a helluva lot more work to do
Shouldn’t it then be the “gender pronoun census” or something like that?
no because that wouldn’t encompass the scope of the survey. it also asks about how one describes one’s own identity in english (ex. agender) and titles (like “Dr.” or “Mrs.”)
the author says they don’t call it a nonbinary survey because they want to be as inclusive as possible (so that they receive responses from anyone who qualifies instead of people thinking they don’t simply because they don’t identify as “nonbinary”)
fascinatingly, the author of the survey seems to deal with a lot of cis women objecting to the survey, because this is included in the FAQ (formatting is copied, not mine):
I’m an adult human female!
Great! If you feel like you can honestly check the required checkbox at the beginning, then you are welcome to take part and your responses are valued.
Yes, I confirm that I don’t really fit into just one of the two boxes of “always, solely and completely a woman/girl” or “always, solely and completely a man/boy”.
A lot of you describe experiences of not identifying with your bodies, feeling like you don’t have any internal experience of gender and feeling negative emotions when people treat you like a woman, etc. These are stories that are very common in this survey, and this is a place for you to voice them if you would like to. …
If you stick to describing your own feelings and experiences and avoid making sweeping judgements or insulting me, your identities and titles and pronouns will be represented in survey results. This is because a lot of gender-critical and radical feminist women seem to experience gender in a way that isn’t fully described by the restrictive gender binary, and often in a way that is very similar to nonbinary people’s experiences. (Based on their submissions to this survey over several years, anyway.)
this goes back to why “gender survey” is a good name. there may be people who consider themselves “female” (for example) but don’t feel like a “woman” at all and instead think of themselves as totally genderless. they may never call themselves or think of themselves as transgender or nonbinary but as they do not experience gender as being “completely a woman”, they would qualify for the survey. i actually know more than one person irl to whom this applies.
it is called “gender census” because it is a survey about identity in regards to gender. the survey identifies other forms of gender outside “man” or “woman” and the frequency of usage of certain terms. the purpose is to have actual data to point to about the way nonbinary indivduals indentify and how they prefer others to refer to them.
Back in 2013 I noticed that there was a lot of confusion about the language used by nonbinary people to describe themselves. This title was the best/most popular among gender non-conforming people, the real nonbinary pronoun was that, no one who is really genderqueer calls themself x… And I thought, no one is basing any of this on anything reliable, are they?
people who identify completely as men or women are excluded because they have nothing to do with the data being gathered. we already know that the majority of women in a group of 5,000 would use she/her/hers in english but how many genderqueer people in a group of 5,000 use she/her/hers? we know about certain sets of english pronouns but are there nonbinary people using terms that are uncommon? have terms that first showed up a few years ago now risen in usage?
tweeting the offending students’ names was extremely shortsighted. in the article from january they mention that she said, “I want to know that I have two sections to teach next term and indefinitely”. this implies she does not have tenure, which means a move like this could easily cost wolf her job.
she also said this, “At worst, [leaving my class] points to the possibility of unconscious and unacceptable biases, the reinforcement of white supremacy and/or Indigenous specific racism and misogyny”. the bias is absolutely unacceptable but surely if she believes that at worst it is unconscious bias, is her doxxing the students a just action?
i would say look into who is doing the reporting and if the site is just quoting another site. often news media will use other news media as a source so it can be important to track down the original because it might have no sources at all (or have sources that are tools of US gov’t)
for china specifically, it is important to get your news from people who actually know what is happening there. if you cannot read chinese, there is plenty of news media that comes out of china in english. here’s two sites:
i have only ever heard it referred to as “the fediverse”, which, as @AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml pointed out, is more grammatically correct. i’d also argue, however, that regardless of grammatical correctness, “the fediverse” is the term of common usage and is therefore “correct” for that reason.
omfg i didn’t even realize at first that this is on CGTN’s channel :rolling on the floor laughing:
one of the comments says this:
This video is funny but it is true! I actually caught BBC lying a few times in the past. For example, in one of BBC’s report about Belt and Road Initiative in Kazakhstan, the BBC was trying to demonize China by saying that the Chinese companies only hired Chinese workers and not the locals, in the interview the BBC reporter asked the Chinese foreman (in Mandarin) whether the workers were locals. The foreman replied, “yes”. But the BBC translated the foreman’s reply into “no”. Then the BBC commentary (in the background) began demonizing China for not giving the locals job opportunity. And I don’t think it was an error in translation because it is really hard to confuse “yes” with “no”.
i can’t find the video to confirm but this would not remotely surprise me.
although i love the idea of a tarot inspired collection and love the renaissance nods, i dislike most of the looks. there’s nothing really exciting about them. tarot as a source would allow one to be very imaginative but i don’t see that here. there are some beautiful pieces but others are incoherent
seconding liking manual. it’s way better than automatically marking as read, imo. because then you can come back to it later.