@bootie_fringe @thufie

It does appear that that individual is not fit to be an admin.

As though conviction equates to guilt???

@MutualityWSDEs @thufie I like this way of arguing against people making such a distinction!

@bootie_fringe @thufie

It just seems tone death to the realities of the legal system.

How is such a person then in a role of potentially adjudicating disputes?

I had a similar run in with an admin on the big science Instance. The levels of Liberal White Supremacism were shocking: I talked about Whiteness and my account was frozen until I proved my scientific credentials.

Fortunately I joined in error as I didn't understand the process of Instances etc...

@MutualityWSDEs @thufie
> How is such a person then in a role of potentially adjudicating disputes?

That person seems to be the only human user of their own instance so I believe this is irrelevant to the discussion.

@bootie_fringe @thufie

A self dictatorship?

@MutualityWSDEs @thufie they will not do any conflict resolution on their instance, that is what I mean.

@bootie_fringe @thufie

I barely understand Instances, to be honest.

@MutualityWSDEs @thufie an instance is a fediverse server where one can have an account. instances can talk to each other or not, which determines if the users of those instances can interact or not. the instance admins decide this based on content other instances allow.

@bootie_fringe @thufie

Thanks.

@MutualityWSDEs @thufie for example, allowing any of the following content could lead to admins blocking instances:

• sex work
• (loli?) hentai
• anti-LGBT, e.g. TERFs
• harassment
• spam

for further info, see: https://github.com/dzuk-mutant/blockchain/blob/master/list/list.md

@MutualityWSDEs @thufie oh yeah & I forgot nazis. how could I?

I think nazi instances mostly talk to other nazi instances & some admins block other instances for not blocking the nazi instances even.

@bootie_fringe @thufie

So you are talking about a kind of meta-admins, because surely specific Instances have their own internal admins? That's who blocked me from where I was.

Ignore all that, I'm with you now: local admins block Instances from connecting with their Instance.

@bootie_fringe @thufie i've never seen it used in for any other purpose by someone who isn't a barrister

@PsyChuan @thufie it just reminded me of what LW calls the noncentral fallacy, that is why I asked. I guess joacim implies that archetypical rapists are convicted ones, whereas others would say the archetypical rapists are accused ones (as the state is incompetent or even hostile).

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral-fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world

@bootie_fringe yes

@thufie @bootie_fringeContent Warning: dog-whistling, multiple offence?

It can certainly be dog-whistling. However dog-whistling should never be accusation made from a single statement. I can't tell if this is a single occurrence individual or not. If this is a repeated statement and the problems of it has been argued, then I certainly agree to a block. Otherwise there is certainly room for discussion and informing the person in question.

@leth @bootie_fringe could you trust me as a woman who has heard several guys trying to talk their way out of sexual assault using excuses which are right out of rape culture on college campuses that this shit is their trademark?

Short rebuttal introducing mild uncertainty + link to blog post trying to reframe it in a less serious light is fucking textbook. Don't buy it for a second.

@thufie @bootie_fringeContent Warning: Dog whistling

I'm totally with you on that. That's what such people say, and then it's Dog-whistling. Andy those people should be blocked.

The problem though, is that a lot of people make the same remark out of ignorance. And these people could be educated to stop doing that and treat the whole subject from a more informed viewpoint.

Unfortunately there's really no easy way to tell wether someone is Dog-whistling or just ignorant from just one such statement. But if we block someone solely on one statement then we can get false positives, and might miss out on an opportunity to educated someone. If they however don't respond well to critique or repeatedly make such remarks, then we should certainly block them.

What do you think about that reasoning?

@leth @bootie_fringe the article linked provides no evidence and if someone is disputing sexual assault then they better provide some actual hard facts or get the banhammer without a moment's hesistation, is what I think. Especially when making clear use of a misogynistic dogwhistle.

@leth @bootie_fringe quite frankly, the fact that you have dragged this out so long makes me consider blocking you as well, but I'm going to be very generous and assume you REALLY didn't know.

@thufie @leth is it inherently misogynistic when the same stuff happens whenever a victim is not a woman? 🤔

@jessmahlerContent Warning: Meta-discussion, moving the discussion.

I don't disagree with any of that assessment in general.

And I don't want this discussion to be about whether the reply was problematic or not, I think we all agree on that.

Also this is sort of becoming a thread of discussion that has moved away from the OP, and this individual case of blocking I realize. Thus I suggest we take it elsewhere. I'll tag you on a post of mine. Anyone else is welcome to the discussion. Let me now if you want to engage but can't find the branched out discussion.