This post is bait, but for anyone passing through, afterwards he told people he rushed to pick them up because he was worried that if anyone else did there might be violence. Being concerned that your ally is so trigger happy that they would be glad to have reporters assaulted just for daring to get close to help them does not make anyone look good, but he was legitimately concerned for people’s safety. That’s the kind of leader we should be looking for. Not someone who’s obsessed with posturing and would not help on the chance it makes them look weak.

I guess this section seems to indicate otherwise: “Like everyone else, you see issues in your environment - but unlike most people, you actually try to understand them and find solutions. And for that, you get nothing but pain.”

But I will take you at your word that you were more commiserating than directly agreeing. The internet in general is leading to more tribalism, sure, but I’m not seeing it any more on Lemmy than I am elsewhere. Mostly seeing it as it relates to politics. Would you mind sharing where you’re seeing that? Have you noticed specific communities or instances or topics? I follow a variety of content and it’s mostly pretty chill people with some political vitriol sprinkled in for novelty sake.

I don’t know if you’re a guy, but honestly really amazing display of allyship right here. Regardless, congrats on explaining things so succinctly. This is exactly correct.

But their comment objectively is less productive than the “angry posts”, because their comment was against the rules and deleted and not engaged with, whereas the “angry posts” are there for the community to engage with and offer sympathy and understanding and a place to vent. It’s a kind of weird martyr complex that nobody asked for. Oh, woe is me, I got banned for breaking the rules! Why even comment in the first place if you knew it was going to be deleted? Elsewhere someone provided context that they did not comment on a “Meta” post. It was just a post complaining about how people treat the community. It was not at all soliciting advice or external opinions. They then went out of their way to break the rules and essentially prove the post right. Essentially showing that they think they are above the rules and that their opinion deserves to be heard regardless of what the user or the mods or the community has already expressed. Saying he was somehow “starting a discussion” makes no sense considering he knew that he would get banned and his comment removed. That was neither the time nor place to start any kind of discussion, and quite frankly I don’t think somebody attempting to have a good faith discussion would have it in that manner. If a transphobe went into a trans space that explicitly did not allow transphobes, and made a comment lamenting that they can’t ask questions in that community, would you still feel similarly? They just “see a wrong” in the world and are trying to start a discussion about it. Or would you think that it is OK for some spaces to have rules that are not up for discussion, especially within that space?

He might not have known that he would be getting banned from other subs, but as a user of several subs, I fully support admins taking steps to block people who willingly break rules of other marginalized communities. I think reasonable minds can disagree on this last point, but blahaj is pretty famous for being strict with bans even if not on the community/instance in question and the users of that instance actually really like that. I don’t know if this will be escalated, or if the ban will even stay in place, but my understanding is that people like that instance specifically because the mods there are so vigilant.

I’m not trying to get into an argument here, and based on your one sentence response, it seems like you’re not either, but angry posts in general don’t mean anything. I see a lot of angry posts about healthcare or the government or the increasing descent into fascism, and if somebody commented on any of those that they didn’t like seeing it, I wouldn’t necessarily think that comment was productive. Posts are allowed to be angry because people are allowed to be angry. Especially about injustice and oppression, which I imagine a lot of the “angry posts” are actually about, considering it’s a community of marginalized people for marginalized people. Just something to think about.

Thank you so much for providing that context. It is so funny that they said that their original post is in good faith, when even this post describing the situation isn’t in good faith.

I posted elsewhere in this thread, but I don’t see how actively and knowingly posting while breaking the rules of a community is seen as posting in good faith. If they are soliciting opinions from their community, and you were not part of their community, then your opinion is not one they are looking for.

The people who made a woman only community are doing exactly what you think they should do. They are seeing the overwhelming hate being directed towards women in online spaces, and trying to create a space exclusively for women. You might not like that, but that is what they have chosen to do to fix what they see as an issue. I don’t see how you think OP is being the change he wants to see and that the mods are in the wrong. OP is not a woman and cannot speak to the female experience. Even within the female experience, plenty of people disagree. That’s why it’s great that there is plenty of space for other people to make their own communities. Going into a community that has made their stance clear, and is for people that regularly face hate and oppression, especially online, and deciding that is the big injustice you see in the world is certainly a choice. There are plenty of places and communities that openly spread hate not just for women, but for LGBT people of which OP says they are. Maybe they should spend time criticizing those spaces instead of picking on a group of already marginalized people who happen to have a single point of disagreement on how to run their space.

Edit to add that additional context has been provided. Apparently the post in question was not an meta discussion and there was no indication that peoples opinions were being solicited. In fact it was a complaint about the way people react towards the community.

So you broke rules on purpose in a community for people who experience oppression and are upset when other communities have solidarity with that community and don’t want people who break rules on purpose in their space. Just because other people break rules doesn’t mean you should. Posting while knowingly breaking rules is not actually posting in good faith.

The rules aren’t fuzzy. These mods are trying to protect spaces for vulnerable people and see that you don’t respect those spaces. Seems pretty cut and dry. If you don’t like the way those communities are run, make your own.

Edit to add that additional context has been provided. Apparently the post in question was not a meta discussion and there was no indication that peoples opinions were being solicited. In fact it was a complaint about the way people react towards the community.