MindTraveller

joined 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Nobody has made a case for why cats are carnivores and pandas aren't. It's just that pandas have been eating bamboo for a long time, and these people were all born before synthetic taurine became widespread. It's refusal to change, they think the world is and always will be the way it was when they were a kid. The world moved on without them and they haven't noticed yet.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 23 hours ago

Realism is racist. Reality is a colonial construct created by rich old white men.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

And the creature is Adam Frankenstein

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Don't most rockets use hydrogen oxygen reaction? Separating hydrogen from oxygen requires only electricity, which we can produce renewably.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Obesity isn't a social inequality problem, except in the sense that obese people are more likely to be poor, and to suffer obesity due to stress, poor nutrition, and addiction. Obese people are not oppressing anyone. If you want to talk about food waste while people starve, then talk about the corporations throwing perfectly good food in dumpsters that they put a padlock on to stop homeless people from dumpster diving.

Sure, obesity was a sign of privilege and oppression 200 years ago, before modern agricultural practices such as the use of pesticides and heavy machinery. These days, there isn't too little food, there's too much. Starvation isn't a problem of natural scarcity, and certainly not a problem of people eating too much. It's a product of artificial scarcity, wherein good food is thrown away because people can't pay for it. Your political theory is two centuries out of date. It's time to stop hating fat people.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Sorry, that's my fault. I was in such disbelief at your first comment claiming Obvious_Troll was real, I just had to share it with a friend. She hadn't heard of the Fediverse before, and when I explained it to her, I used you as an example of a fediverse user to explain the concept of users being from instances, and how administrating an instance works. Well halfway through my explanation, she heard "trans instance" and signed up for your instance. Then I linked this thread, and she realised you're a power tripping admin who doesn't read posts before replying to them. She asked me where she should make an account, and since she likes Star Trek, I told her to make one on startrek.website. If she had commented with the first account she made after hearing about the fediverse, the account would have been an hour or so older.

Most people would be glad that your bizarre posts are so confusing they're bringing more people to the Fediverse as their friends tell them about the weird drama you start. But I guess it's an issue of ego for you, so you have a good reason to be mad that new users are joining Lemmy because of your antics.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I said the user didn't exist five times in this post. I just counted all the times I said "fictional", "fake", or "made-up". And then you left a comment saying Obvious_Troll is an aussie zone user, the transphobic troll uses neopronouns, and I'm transphobic for calling them a troll. Multiple people told you that Obvious_Troll doesn't exist, and your response was that I must be mistaken about Obvious_Troll not existing, because you defederated from Hexbear. What??? Why do you keep insisting this person is real, and why do you keep insisting they're trans? What quality of this fictional troll telling trans people to kill themselves repeatedly convinces you that they're a trans person?

EDIT: Sneaky, sneaky. Editing your comment after I replied, so it would look like I didn't answer your question. If you want me to answer a new question, ask it in a new comment. Don't go back and change history to make yourself look better.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

This post isn't about the instance the fictional troll is from. I made a post with a transphobic troll in it, and picked a username, instance, and post name that fit with the message. I picked a silly name for an obvious troll, a silly post title for a post about abstaining over Palestine, and a silly instance for the troll to be from. I didn't really think any deeper about the association than "Troll needs an instance, I'll pick the one known for having trolls". And when you asked me to redact the instance, I did, and the post remained up until you deleted the community. I always followed the rules and did as you told me on Blahaj. This post isn't about the instance redaction, that has always been a non-issue. This post is about you seeing a meme about a fictional transphobic troll and assuming they're a real, trans, person. Which has now happened twice! Why do you keep assuming every transphobic troll you hear about is trans? It's weird.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure. And I did remove the instance name as requested, and the meme stayed up until the entire community it was posted in was later deleted. This post isn't about the instance censoring. This post is about the initial decision by Ada that Obvious_Troll must be a real, trans lemmy user, which has now happened twice, because Ada claimed Obvious_Troll is real again.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (3 children)

That's after I said the name was fake. Ada started out thinking Obvious_Troll was a real person, and only realised they were fake when I said so. Then she changed her request to censoring the instance instead of the person. You need to read the screenshot bottom to top, because Lemmy puts more recent private messages at the top. I know it's annoying.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago (5 children)

The meme was about how transphobia is bad. You asked me to censor Obvious_Troll's name because I was framing Obvious_Troll's transphobic opinion as bad. You decided the fictional transphobic troll is actually a real trans person I was attacking, so you asked me to censor their name. Come on, I explained all of this in the post body which you keep quoting, and there's you in the screenshot clearly stating that I'm "encouraging dumping on that person", who is the fictional transphobic troll. I can understand you not remembering something that happened a couple months ago, but I explained it all in the post, and you can see it. Can you... do you lack the ability to tell the difference between facts and fiction? Is that what's going on? I'm just bewildered by this conversation. It's like you're only reading one in every 10 words and just jumping between random conclusions.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

I still have a copy of the meme. I didn't want to post it here because I didn't want this thread to be an argument over politics, but I see we're already derailed with Ada claiming the meme actually happened. This is the meme:

See? The username is Obvious_Troll. This has nothing to do with any aussie.zone user. The troll's pronouns are not a topic of discussion in the meme. As you can see in the screenshot of my conversation with Ada a month ago (actually probably two months now, that's an old screenshot), we were talking about a Spider-Man glasses meme. This is that meme. The person in the meme doesn't exist.

 

I've told this story on Lemmy a couple of times since being banned from Blahaj Zone, and I'll tell it again.

I once posted a meme to a Blahaj community I moderated in which someone named [email protected] was attacking a trans person. ~~It was a political meme, and I'll try to avoid saying what the political viewpoint was so that this thread doesn't get derailed~~. But as part of the meme, Obvious_Troll was being transphobic, and the reader was expected to agree that transphobia is bad and Obvious_Troll is... an obvious troll. The username wasn't actually important to the meme, I was just including a picture of a Lemmy comment and had to include a name, so I made one up.

Ada then messaged me to say that the post would be removed unless I redacted Obvious_Troll's name. Ada said that Obvious_Troll is a real, trans lemmy user, and I'm not to attack them. There is nobody on hexbear named Obvious_Troll, I made that username up.

Read bottom to top:

So Ada defended a fictional transphobic troll, deciding they were trans for some reason. The troll's username was not the point of the meme, the point was what they were saying. So I made up a nonsense username to support the point of the meme. I don't think anyone would choose the username Obvious_Troll unless they wanted to be seen as a troll. As near as I can tell, Ada defended Obvious_Troll because they were from Hexbear, and Ada seems to think every Hexbear user is trans. Even a made-up one who wants to be seen as a troll and who harasses trans people. Why did Ada hyperfocus on the instance name, and not notice that the username was ridiculous? I don't know. I don't understand it.

Blahaj is intended to be a safe space for trans people. And Ada's intention with asking for redaction of this fake made up name was, somehow, to protect a trans person. And that's good. But it's really weird that Ada thought the way to protect trans people, is by defending fictional transphobic trolls.

EDIT: So, the discussion got derailed not by politics as I expected, but by Ada claiming Obvious_Troll is a real person again. Here's the original post in which Obvious_Troll is being transphobic and the reader is supposed to agree that transphobia is bad:

 
 

(I will explain more about the drama surrounding Flying Squid if people don't already know about it)

 

The community /c/[email protected] was removed by the instance admins two weeks ago. The community contained only memes and discussion of the ideas of soulism. There were no attacks against anyone. Here is the admin's explanation of the situation:


https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/9875313

Transcript:

ADA:
The post you linked to by MindTraveller is an active misrepresentation of events by them

Traveller and I are not “in agreement” about much of anything. Their politics are very far removed from mine

This is the text of the message I sent advising that I was shutting the group down.

After consideration, I’ve decided that non voters does not really fit the stated goals of blahaj zone. Your motives for creating it seem based on a personal vendetta, and whilst your views are genuine, nothing constructive comes from the community. All it does is create division, because its sole purpose is to target others, without really focusing on any progressive ideas or discussion of its own.

At the moment, it’s causing more harm than good to the overall community.

I’ll leave the community open, so that if you choose to set the community up on another instance, you will have the opportunity to direct them to the new location.

Given the post which you linked, (which I had not seen until now) I will be removing Traveller and the new community, because once more, the goal appears to be to create division

The goal of blahaj zone is not political. The goal is to allow trans people to have a space where they can exist on their own terms, without having to pretend to be someone they’re not. My own political views are closer to Links/LibertyHub than nonvoters or its ilk. Yet as long as there is no bigotry or gatekeeping, then trans people with politics at odds with my own are welcome. It’s why we have an “armed queers” community, despite my own strong distaste for gun culture.

It is communities/posters that exist primary to create division, without adding anything positive back, that have no place here.


This comment contains only one side of the discussion I had with Ada about Non-Voters and Soulism, here is the full context (top is newest, bottom is oldest):

Transcript:

ADA:
Hey there. After consideration, I’ve decided that non voters does not really fit the stated goals of blahaj zone. Your motives for creating it seem based on a personal vendetta, and whilst your views are genuine, nothing constructive comes from the community. All it does is create division, because its sole purpose is to target others, without really focusing on any progressive ideas or discussion of its own.

At the moment, it’s causing more harm than good to the overall community.

I’ll leave the community open, so that if you choose to set the community up on another instance, you will have the opportunity to direct them to the new location.

MINDTRAVELLER:
Thanks for letting me know. I don’t mind if nonvoters is gone. It served its purpose. The guy who was banning trans people and calling us liberals for not wanting to die is no longer in power. The Blahaj community is no longer divided. We achieved unity. And sure, some people are whining that they have to get along with others now, but the tide is against them. I’ll see if there’s a way to lock the community and prevent new posts. I want to keep the most recent post visible so in two months when the transphobes start whining about Kamala I can link that post and tell them “called it.”

MINDTRAVELLER:
There we go, all locked up. No new posts or comments.

MINDTRAVELLER:
Also, your mention of constructive politics gave me an idea. I want to create a soulist community on Blahaj. Something like https://www.reddit.com/r/Soulism101/. That place has been a ghost town since the APIcalypse, but the soulist movement has been going strong on Discord. It should have a place on Lemmy too. Plus, it would dramatically reduce the number of people mischaracterising soulism on the fediverse. The only attacks shall be against capitalism, the cisheteropatriarchy, the state, and reality.

ADA:
That sounds like a much better fit!


Non-Voters was completely locked up, and I made a post explaining the decision to close it, which both Ada and I agreed on, as you can see in this message log. In Ada's later public comment, she says the post was a misrepresentation of events. She said that she and I did not agree. However we can clearly see in this chatlog that when Ada told me the community was closing, I agreed to close it. And when I asked to open a new community not focused on any form of criticism of others users, she agreed too. If I had not agreed to do as Ada said and close the community, there would not be a post from me announcing the community's closure. So the idea that Ada and I did not agree to close the community is nonsense.

At the time that /c/soulism was removed from lemmy.blahaj.zone, I had in fact already been unbanned from /c/libertyhub by the community's mods. Ada cites division as the reason for the removal, but there was no division at this time, except between some Liberty Hub users and their own mods. Here is the log:

Transcript:

MINDTRAVELLER:
Hi, I’d like to appeal my ban on Liberty Hub. I never broke the rules, I only complained about LOC’s overly strict moderation style. I was banned with the reason “off topic”, which isn’t a rule.

KITTENZRULZ123:
I unbanned you however know that you have broken the rules, if you make me regret this act of leniency I will reban you.


At this time, the division between Non-Voters, myself, Liberty Hub, kittenzrulz, and linkopenschest had been resolved. Non-Voters had never been a community specifically designed to target Liberty Hub, and in fact linkopenschest and kittenzrulz both had posts on the community that engaged with the concept in good faith, and which I did not remove. They were never banned from the community, and they decided to reverse my ban from the community. So the three of us had been engaged in a good-faith disagreement from the start, minus one impulsive ban that was reversed, and we had already set our differences aside. I became an outright ally of Liberty Hub when they decided to relax their excessive bans, and they were exploring the possibility of treating me the same way.

Here is where I diverge from pure fact to analysis and speculation: Since division still existed between the users of Liberty Hub and the mod team, and the users perceived Ada as an ally of the mod team and of myself (because I was cooperating with everything Ada told me and getting along well with the LH mods), Ada panicked. The fact that I was getting along with everyone and making compromises was causing the conspiracy theorists to target Ada. So Ada manufactured a drama between her and myself to make it clear that she did not approve of me, even if I was agreeing to do everything she told me. The unity, compromise, and reconciliation was a bad look for Ada in the eyes of the tinfoil hat people. Ada chose to regain the tinfoil hats' favour by inventing a fake disagreement between herself and me. That's the reason /c/soulism was removed, despite hosting zero offensive content and never even having one of its posts or comments reported by anyone. Ada needed to conjure up a fight from nowhere to look good to the conspiracy people.

 
 
 
 
 

The community c/[email protected] states in the sidebar it's a community for leftists and post leftists, but if you actually look at the posts the mods are making, it's almost nothing but trolling and telling people not to vote in the general election.

This rhetoric is especially dangerous to trans people, who this instance is supposed to be a safe space for, and West Bank Palestinians. If the USA elects a fascist president, there is guaranteed to be multiple genocides of society's most vulnerable groups, in addition to what the US is already doing in Gaza.

The mods on Liberty Hub openly troll their users and ban people for advocating left wing or harm reducing positions. The only action that is allowed on the sub is advocating political inaction in the face of genocide, taking a centrist position with regards to open fascism.

This community has absolutely no place on Blahaj Zone and should be removed by the admins.

 

Remembering how if you didn't realise the full stop was part of what he wanted you to say, he'd just yell at you over and over and over again

 

"You do, you know," said The Lady. "Everyone has gods. You just don't think they're gods."

- Terry Pratchett

 

Episode 4 did Obi-Wan Kenobi completely dirty. In the first three movies and The Clone Wars, we see that he's an honourable, compassionate, brave person. He killed Darth Vader and left him for dead. By all rights, he should have continued to fight for the rebellion instead of moving to a desert and being alone for 20 years.

You expect me to believe after being a general in the Clone Wars and defeating multiple Sith, Obi Wan proceeded to do absolutely nothing while the emperor oppressed everyone? As soon as he heard Darth Vader was still alive, he should have hopped on his ship and gone to kill Anakin! The version we see in A New Hope is an old loser hiding from his own mistakes in the desert.

Obi Wan is supposed to be determined, a warrior, someone who always accomplishes what he sets out to do. Not a coward! I grew up with the original trilogy, and these new movies completely ruined my childhood. Why did George Lucas feel the need to crap all over us Obi-Wan fans who loved his original three Star Wars movies? And all in the name of sUbVeRtInG eXpEcTaTiOnS


This is a joke about The Last Jedi.

view more: next ›