So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, adrule : 196

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

What exactly was the issue with my posts? Just curious

Edit apparently gatekeeping and trans med stuff. That’s…a misinterpretation, but it’s okay whatever, lol

[–] CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 hours ago

what a way to start a drama over a fucking joke

[–] HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 13 hours ago

Drag is a perfectly fine user.

Drag is not a tankie. Drag is not a fascist. Drag is not a bigot, not a paedophile, not a scammer, not a rapist, not a billionaire, not any manner of individual that you should be directing your rage toward. Drag is a respectful member of the queer community, like you, like me, or like anyone else. That alone in my books makes a friend, and not an enemy. So what, I had to take ten seconds to connect the pronoun "drag" to what I already know about language?

I, personally, don't find it a major inconvenience to show a little kindness. Also, drag is cute, in my opinion.

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 19 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

For those not familiar with DragonFucker/Rider/Drag:

Dragon uses the pronoun "drag" in place of "I", "drag's" in place of "my".

They wouldn't say:

I like cheese. Blueberry isn't my favorite. I know what my heart wants.

They would say:

Drag likes cheese. Blueberry isn't drag's favorite. Drag knows what drag's heart wants.

Beyond whether or not they literally think they are a dragon, going to marry a dragon, beyond even using 'drag' as a custom neopronoun that normally replaces 3rd person pronouns...

They are using what they call their own custom first person pronouns, but this reads to basically every English speaker as constantly referring to themselves in the 3rd person by using their own nickname, akin to the royal 'we'.

Dragon has told me that they don't see "drag" as a nickname, but as a pronoun.

... I don't think they are trolling, in the sense of just doing something annoying to get a rise out of people, a voluntary activity one choses to do consciously.

Their grammatical behavior is consistent across all their posts, they don't only engage in it from time to time.

I've even had a few conversations with Dragon where I've attempted to explain that half of the hate they get and arguments they get into stem from people misunderstanding what they are saying, because of their extremely niche way of using pronouns.

They've told me, directly, that my understanding of how their pronouns work is correct, and that this proves that their pronoun/grammar style is thus not confusing, and that eventually everyone will just adapt and understand them.

...Despite the fact that I told them I had to do like an hour worth of research to figure out how this all actually works, which Dragon ... intially chastized me for, saying it was all clearly evident from their profile (it wasn't), and that I did not need to do that much research...

...even though I seem to be the only person I am aware of explaining Dragon's grammar/pronoun style in every thread we both happen to be in where most other people are just misunderstanding them and that leading to arguments.

Anyway, I've never heard of anyone using custom pronouns for "I" and "my" until Dragon.

Ever.

I myself am queer, have run in many circles with many lgbtqia folks, and I've even dated a queer person legitimately diagnosed with DID, and not even they would use their own custom first person pronouns for their alters, or the collective system of alters as a whole...

[–] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 1 points 2 hours ago

First of all, thanks for your explanation. That made everything clear. Secondly:

and I've even dated a queer person legitimately diagnosed with DID

What does DID mean?

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 7 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

I've seen some people refering themselves with their own name, though all of them is online and haven't met one irl.

Also if people watch We Bare Bears, Ice Bear always refering himself as "Ice Bear" and never "I". No one watching the show seems to hate him, however.

Personally i don't really care, not sure what's the fuss around Drag using it tbh.

Edit: it seems there's more to this story i'm not aware of after reading all the comment, if that's the case i might've mistaken the situation :/

Also now i do remember meeting someone that refer to herself in 3rd person.

[+] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

[removed by mod]

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 40 points 20 hours ago (6 children)

I knew Blahaj was never 'for' me, but I always felt comfortable here. Guess that's over. Ada and the admins have the right to cultivate the community they want to see on Blahaj, and I wish them the best of luck going forward.

I'm going to miss 196 and Femcelmemes, but... well, Blahaj isn't for me, since I don't acknowledge 'dragonfucker' as a gender.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 hours ago

Just as I don't acknowledge "dragonfucker" as a gender I don't acknowledge "god" as a gender type. There's a person around here who insists that they're a god and that they're pronouns need to be capitalized.

No one is a god. And no one gets to go around demanding that they're a god and that they should be acknowledged as one.

I mostly linger here on blah as a habit really. If I eventually get banned so be it. I have my line in the sand for what will make me leave but until that happens I'll keep lingering like a fart.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I'm sad that one user has caused so much trouble for so many people on here. I don't get the current situation at all, as it's small potatoes compared to the myriad of transphobes and tankies from other instances. I don't often block users, but I don't see how this issue isn't just tied to a single one who would be better off blocked.

I don't get how wider political discussions get roped into personal problems. If a person was a really nice "dragonfucker," I don't know if we'd be having this conversation. It's fine to dislike a person without seeing them as immoral or a political enemy.

I'll be sad to see you go, especially over this 😞

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 16 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t often block users, but I don’t see how this issue isn’t just tied to a single one who would be better off blocked.

That's the problem with precedents. Especially when the precedent is established with a user whose behavior is already quite... non-ideal.

I’ll be sad to see you go, especially over this 😞

Yeah, I'm not thrilled either. I enjoyed Femcelmemes very much. I hope your community continues thriving!

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 22 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

The comment defending "drag" as a pronoun (and banning people over it) even uses "they" twice. Apparently admins don't have to follow the ridiculous, made up rule. They can just ban anyone who calls it ridiculous.

[–] superb@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

drag explicitly doesnt mind people using they/them

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

It goes back and forth.

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 7 hours ago

I haven't spoken about a specific user in any of this...

[–] python@programming.dev 24 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

fyi, dragonfucker is banned from 196 too. I think the moderators are pretty fair in yeeting people for being rude, regardless of opinions on gender and the like

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

That's why I seem so lost on this whole thing

I don't think I've ever seen their posts or comments

Edit: I also apparently had them blocked as well.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Korne127@lemmy.world 24 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Ah lol, your heading is really ambiguous. This initially looked like you were supporting the ban and saying "goodbye" to them.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 22 points 19 hours ago

Sorry about that.

Guess it doesn't matter over-much. Just felt sad about it and felt the need to make one last post.

[+] nifty@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] juliebean@lemm.ee 19 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

For people who identify as other types, like other kin etc., that’s a sexual preference, and unrelated to gender and pronouns.

i'm not sure how your understanding of otherkin has glitched badly enough to where you think it's a sexual preference. what do you think otherkin is?

[+] nifty@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (3 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I still don't follow why you're calling it an aspect of sexual preference rather than identity. It seems like you don't really know where our understanding of the world comes from, which is important for contextualizing this conversation.

At a fundamental, neurological level, we can never really exist in objective reality. The world is nearly infinitely complex and impossible for any mechanical process to fully grasp, so all biological thinking machines need to simplify the world to have any understanding of it. This is a fairly post modernist perspective, but not one that says objective reality doesn't exist. Rather, I'm saying that we cannot experience the outside world based on our current understanding of neuroscience.

We have tracked how external stimuli are not only recorded into finite chunks, but further simplified multiple times as the signal travels downstream. It's a more efficient and lossy compression algorithm than anything we see outside of AI, which themselves copy what our brains already do.

All this results in a troubling conclusion about science and philosophy: it is all constructed, and it always will be. Bisexuality is a category we came up with; a form to simulate external reality in our finite brains. This is true for everything, no matter how objective we think it is. Even if we had a final Grand Unified Theory of physics, it would only be an imitation made of the untouchable rules of reality.

That is what queer theory teaches us about all attempts at understanding. The question of other kin isn't about which group we put it into, but about why we need to put them there in the first place. How does seeing it as part of gender identities or sexual identities help us understand it? How does that understanding help us live better lives or be better to each other?

I don't care for this drag character, nor do I think we should waste time worrying about such people. If they act like a-holes, it says little about their identity. No identity can make up for being an inconsiderate douche-canoe, and shitty behavior can come from anyone.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Rather, I’m saying that we cannot experience the outside world based on our current understanding of neuroscience.

This is an unnecessary constraint, just because we don’t know how to fully understand or explain something yet doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a basis in reality

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

The constructed simulation we live in gets constantly updated based on real world stimuli, but we often overwrite that stimuli with expectations. So long as it helps us get what we want, our perception doesn't need to be accurate. We sometimes can't see reality until it smacks us in the face; forcing us to accept it or die.

It's painful to face unfortunate realities, so we often refuse perceive them. This is not an unnecessary constraint, but a humbling truth. The only way we could ever avoid this is by becoming an omniscient god with infinite processing power.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t follow how any of that even applies, but really just because you can’t face a reality doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. In fact, one’s avoidant behavior implicitly acknowledges it’s true nature.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

All arguments about definitions are about what words should mean to best serve us. All ideas work this way, especially scientific ideas. They're all just tools, not objective or stable forms that we discover. The line between scientifically validated understandings and pseudoscience isn't sacred, but constantly in flux. This isn't a fault of science, but its greatest strength. We only make progress by testing limits and attempting to falsify what we assume to be true.

Using science to exclude other kin from gender identity overestimates our knowledge. I don't personally think it's just a part of gender identity, but related to some other aspect of identity. At the same time, science is barely starting to understand gender, and currently knows almost nothing about nonbinary identities.

There is no scientific explanation for drag, so anything we come up with is total conjecture. As a result, we should just accept our ignorance for now and move on. Doing otherwise is denying the limits to our knowledge.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, science is a tool, and it’s a tool for getting towards a fundamental truth or basis of reality.

Otherkin don’t need to be a part of gender identity to be accepted.

Species are species, species are not different genders.

We don’t know currently how to change someone into another species, but maybe someday we might. We also don’t currently have any understanding or consensus of how to define a dragon or make people into one, but maybe someday we might.

Tbh, I don’t care if someone gets hormonal or genetic therapy to change into whatever they want or identify as, but by definition other kin is not part of a gender.

That’s not gatekeeping, I am simply saying words like cat, tiger or dragon etc are not genders.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 hours ago

You might be right, but it is gatekeeping, and that argument itself isn't an argument I give much merit. People don't need hormones to transition, nor do they need to change their bodies. A consensus for gender isn't something that often works in our favor, even for binary trans folks like me.

The way we characterize species is wack. The whole origin of species is that we like to categorize. Evolution doesn't care about our classifications; only that the organisms can continue replicating. Classifications are just mental boxes that serve a purpose, not anything real. There is no spoon except in our mind.

Like I said, I suspect there is something more to other kin than gender, as they might be simply using the only language they have available. If there is to be another way to define them, it must come from them. When cishets try to categorize trans people, they often use the categories to constrain us, so I'll let the other kin handle how they're defined. Living without having a perfect way of labeling them is hard, but I won't be part of efforts to force them into a box.

Science can get us closer to fundamental truth, but like the speed of light, it isn't something we have any hope of reaching.

load more comments (2 replies)

[+] PugJesus@lemmy.world 15 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] isyasad@lemmy.world 13 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I think it's interesting that 4chan has invented "anon" as, functionally, a naturally occurring genderless neopronoun. I would argue even more genderless than xe/xim because while xe/xim was created in relation to gender, anon was created with no connection to gender at all. Xe/xim is "not he or she" whereas anon is he, she, they, xe, or anything else.
There's other words as well (homie, oomfie, bestie) that are functionally genderless neopronouns although these (and anon) are commonly used alongside gendered pronouns eg: anon posted his greentext on 4chan, I visited bestie and her dog.
Now I'm not recommending that anybody starts using anon/bestie pronouns or anything, cause if bestie wants to do that then bestie will have to deal with how awkward it sounds. But, I'm generally more partial towards these absolutely genderless naturally-occurring neopronouns over the relatively genderless constructed xe/xim. And I'm curious if anybody else has thoughts about these.

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 hours ago

My thoughts on the second point: I find that constructed neopronouns (particularly any of them that use the letter x) and bespoke pronouns (like "drag" as mentioned before) have an air of immaturity to them that make it difficult for me to take seriously. I also tend to find them aesthetically displeasing. I also don't think it makes sense for bespoke pronouns to be considered "pronouns" in the same way common, neo, and the aforementioned (what I'm now going to call) slang pronouns are, because by their very nature they refer to a specific individual rather than being a word that can be readily applied to a great many individuals.

As for my thoughts on the first point, I hadn't ever thought of those words as pronouns, but after thinking about it, it makes sense to me.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

The only reason why I’d say society doesn’t need to cater to individualized pronouns other than a set of agreed terms for flexibility and inclusion is so that every single time someone interacts with a person, they don’t have to work too hard to collaborate and cooperate.

Remember that everyone is trying to self actualize, and and any one person is not here to cater to just your preferences. Some people have limited mental capacity, so it’s just kinder to forgo imposing all of your self expressing desires on them.

If you can express yourself and live and thrive, then that’s all that matters. It doesn’t matter that you convince every single asshole that your pronouns should be whatever/whatever.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 6 points 17 hours ago

Well, that certainly is one of the paragraphs of all time.

[–] Squorlple@lemmy.world 10 points 19 hours ago

I cannot see any Lemmy account which the writer of the removed comment could possibly be referring to.

Hypothetically, if there were a user whom all but the admins/mods could conclude to be a troll, all users could individually block said hypothetical troll and advocate for blocking of accounts that come across at first glance, second glance, and even ten hundredth glance to seem to be trolls. This would allow the users to avoid the frustrations wrought by the hypothetical troll as well as prevent users from incriminating themselves within the admins’ and mods’ rules by not interacting with nor even referring to the aforementioned hypothetical troll specifically.

This is all purely hypothetical of course.

Again, I cannot see any Lemmy account which the writer of the removed comment could possibly be referring to.

However, I’m sure the admins/mods couldn’t knock you for gracefully advocating for wariness of nonspecific trolls in general if you happen upon a situation in which you think that warning may be particularly helpful.

You can also just block users whom you get bad vibes from for whatever reason, whether you believe them to be genuine or maliciously disingenuous.

Do admins have access to a tally of how many users have blocked a given account? This may give them an indication of whom the user masses consider to be problematic accounts.