Especially when talking in safe spaces for women and minorities, one needs to be mindful of the history of negative experiences of those groups. Women still struggle with unwanted sexualization today, often leading to very negative interpersonal experiences and general disadvantages in their lives. So your response in that thread is being interpreted under that light.
To give a very inappropriate comparison - it’s kinda like being invited over for dinner at a friend’s house, and their whole family is jewish. During dinner they talk about family members they’ve lost in the Holocaust, and you suddenly crack Holocaust jokes. No matter how funny/clever/subversive your humor might be, there is no world in which that’s a good idea!
I don’t like this framing because it presupposes that I’m in the wrong and the crowd is right. I think inversely. The crowd over there were irrational, and I do not care that I was banned. I do not have a presupposition that I’m acting inappropriately nor do I think those people are like witnesses of a bad guest. I think a more apt analogy is talking about atheism at a christian conservative meeting. I think atheism is a rational position, and an expected negative reaction would be simply an irrational emotive response due to the failings and perverse incentives of groupthink and the crowd. That is what happened at that Lemmy group.
I can’t agree with that - the crowd was right in this case. We can stick with your example to discuss why.
If a bunch of christians hold a christian conservative meeting and want to discuss christian topics there, it’s objectively wrong to bring up atheism, unless you’re there to learn about their perspective on it. But as soon as you start to argue or defend a position, you’ve broken the rules of that social space, and excluding you is the correct move.
Ah, that’s probably where the disconnect is!
Especially when talking in safe spaces for women and minorities, one needs to be mindful of the history of negative experiences of those groups. Women still struggle with unwanted sexualization today, often leading to very negative interpersonal experiences and general disadvantages in their lives. So your response in that thread is being interpreted under that light.
To give a very inappropriate comparison - it’s kinda like being invited over for dinner at a friend’s house, and their whole family is jewish. During dinner they talk about family members they’ve lost in the Holocaust, and you suddenly crack Holocaust jokes. No matter how funny/clever/subversive your humor might be, there is no world in which that’s a good idea!
I don’t like this framing because it presupposes that I’m in the wrong and the crowd is right. I think inversely. The crowd over there were irrational, and I do not care that I was banned. I do not have a presupposition that I’m acting inappropriately nor do I think those people are like witnesses of a bad guest. I think a more apt analogy is talking about atheism at a christian conservative meeting. I think atheism is a rational position, and an expected negative reaction would be simply an irrational emotive response due to the failings and perverse incentives of groupthink and the crowd. That is what happened at that Lemmy group.
I can’t agree with that - the crowd was right in this case. We can stick with your example to discuss why.
If a bunch of christians hold a christian conservative meeting and want to discuss christian topics there, it’s objectively wrong to bring up atheism, unless you’re there to learn about their perspective on it. But as soon as you start to argue or defend a position, you’ve broken the rules of that social space, and excluding you is the correct move.
Yeah ok well let’s agree to disagree. I am not motivated to entertain this conversation. Good game, well played