12

I was banned from /f/lobby because of a comment i made, here's my explanation (and apology)

Submitted by dele_ted in mediation

Original comment chain here. Paging /f/tequila_wolf, the moderator who banned me from /f/lobby.

I was misunderstood a whole lot, and i see why. Before explaining what i meant, I want to say sorry for my admittedly narrow-sighted comment. With that out of the way, here's what went through my mind:

I saw the linked post talking shit about heterosexuals in general, calling them boring and bland. I'm tired to the bone of seeing people discriminate against any sexuality, and i see no justification for calling heterosexuals in general boring and bland.

My comment was not (!!) in any way trying to compare the suffering and oppression of LGBTQ people with that of heterosexuals, and i am whole-heartedly sorry that some of you felt that was what i was trying to say. I am simply against all unjustified discrimination (which i think is obviously existent in the linked article), and was trying to express that (and that only).

My comment was also not about the flag badge, or anything else in that article. I thought it was pretty clear when i posted it, but i see now how it can be misinterpreted.

Again, i'm sorry if i upset anyone. I hope you see that my comment was never intended to be what it was understood as.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

9

Random_Revolutionary wrote

The power relation between cishet and lgbtq people is so one-sided that the words mocking one or the other do not have the same weight at all.

It's like the white genocide jokes that got lwse banned from reddit. Or the cannibalism jokes that pop up in /f/eattherich. Or even all the vegan jokes about carnists. They have next to no power backing them up and are thus unable to cause harm, even if technically discrimination.

Once the power relations are more equal, we will need to question those jokes. Unfortunately, it isn't the case outside of raddle and other communities.

Also it's a way to vent that doesn't harm anyone but conservative ego.

5

dele_ted wrote (edited )

I get what you're saying, and i think you're absolutely right, but i also think that the idea that this battle is somehow between cishet- and LGBTQ-people is very wrong, and will lead nowhere. This battle is between those that oppress and discriminate, and those that fight back against oppression and discrimination. The end goal is to get rid of discrimination, and discriminating will not help to achieve that goal!

TL;DR: Don't make this a battle between straight and LGBTQ. Just stop discriminating against either.

3

Dumai wrote (edited )

why are you demarcating between cis and LGBT? i'm cis and i fall pretty squarely in the B. and there are plenty of straight trans people. the word you are looking for is cishet.

but if your point is "HATE BREEDS HATE" then i really hoped nobody here would fall for that kind of liberal nonsense, but in either case there's a difference between hate and silly jokes about straight people being boring

3

dele_ted wrote

My mistake, sorry. I meant cishet. Edited.

My point is not hate breeds hate at all. I have plenty of hate for those that deserve to be hated. My point is (I'm repeating myself, but it's obviously necessary since people keep putting words in my mouth), if you want to fight against discrimination, don't discriminate. It's really as simple as that. Belsima explained it pretty well too.

7

[deleted] wrote

3

leftous wrote (edited )

I really find these gang up and shame sessions unproductive. The result is usually losing good contributing members. Not sure what a good solution would be sadly. :/

5

emma wrote

I saw the linked post talking shit about heterosexuals in general, calling them boring and bland. I'm tired to the bone of seeing people discriminate against any sexuality, and i see no justification for calling heterosexuals in general boring and bland.

Let me explain this as I see it, and as I hope you'll come to see it.

Queer people constantly face oppression to various degrees, either directly (violence, having slurs hurled at one, denied access to healthcare, denied jobs, etc.), or more indirectly (e.g. being placed in a binary gender and expected to live up to one's gender roles, going through bureaucratic hell to adopt kids because one can't naturally conceive with one's partner/because of hormone treatment, etc.). Coupled with other factors like increased rates of poverty & mental issues among queer people that's a result of this oppression, and you'll see that many of us simply aren't able to live out the typical, boring ("bland?") recipe life cishets are able to live, where you get your education, marry, have kids, work eight hours a day, leave work and pick up your kids, get old, get divored, get older, get remarried, and die. You either take pride in this, and attempt to find your own way of living, or you suck it up as best you can, stay in the closet forever, and stay unhappy until you die.

As I explained through my snarky reply, (cis-)heterosexual people don't face any of the forms of oppression I listed. Straight people don't need straight pride, because there's absolutely nothing getting in the way of them due to their sexuality. Every day is straight pride day.

With all the shit we have to go through, giving queer people an outlet for venting is important. Mocking non-queer people and their 'culture' is a typical coping mechanism, and in the article you had commented on, someone had done just that by invoking the 'straight = bland' trope. Are such generalising outbursts useless for advancing queer liberation and alienating to queer peoples' allies? I'd say 'probably' and 'no'. As far as I'm concerned, a true ally who takes up the fight on behalf of those they claim to support would understand the material conditions we suffer, and thus understand the place such outbursts come from. You feel unfairly treated when a queer person calls you 'bland'? Imagine how a queer person feels when they're beaten up because they kissed someone of their own gender.

P.S. I accept your apology, and if you haven't already been unbanned, I implore /u/Tequila_Wolf to unban you.

5

dele_ted wrote

As i said in my post, this isn't about the flag or whether or not straight people need straight pride (they in no way do, and in case it isn't clear i think straight pride is an absolutely stupid movement - but that's not what this is about).

I think you're right about allowing venting and coping, but there are more constructive ways to cope. Fighting fire with fire will, in my opinion, not get us anywhere. You cannot battle discrimination with more discrimination.

You feel unfairly treated when a queer person calls you 'bland'? Imagine how a queer person feels when they're beaten up because they kissed someone of their own gender.

I'm not trying to compare the two at all, as i said before. I know from personal experience what a queer person goes through, and I always have and always will be doing all I can to support those being discriminated against, and oppressed on a daily basis because of something as personal as their sexuality and/or gender.

Thank you for being tolerant and understanding with me, though, i realize that i came off very wrong to begin with. I hope my insensitive comment didn't cause you too much stress.

3

____deleted____ wrote

Straight people don't need straight pride

I could not agree more; the flag is dumb and reactionary.

Imagine how a queer person feels when they're beaten up because they kissed someone of their own gender.

No need for me to imagine, trust me.

I simply don't think anyone should be insulted for things outside of their control; skin color, sexuality, height, the shape of their jaw, etc, etc. Under no circumstances do I think such is valid, but do not misinterpret this as me stating its equivalent. It is far from such; I simply oppose both ways.

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

There isn't anything wrong with being straight, but as you know in this world straightness comes with the oppressive structure of heteronormativity, which all straight people are complicit in. Boringness and blandness with respect to many important elements of human life are a part of heteronormativity. That on its own is reason why its acceptable to take the piss.

Then, the fact that this outburst came in defense of oppressive position in a context that was clearly about structural oppression, makes it a clear #NotAllStraights / #AllSexualitiesMatter situation to me. It's besides the point and inappropriate in the context.

You've gone out of your way to express your queer cred in several of the comments you've made around this - which insistently ignores that queer people can be queerphobic. This kind of insistent defense rings like the racists who say "but I've been married for ten years married a black person, I have black children; I couldn't be racist," etc.

Alright, I'm just repeating myself at this stage. The bans are long undone and I don't have more energy for this. I didn't think what you'd said was as bad as dellitsni's. Especially since I seem mostly alone in my assessment there's nothing more to be done.

3

____deleted____ wrote

You've gone out of your way to express your queer cred

Because in replies to my own comment I saw statements that I wouldn't understand what queer people go through, which pissed me off to see in my inbox.

2

dele_ted wrote

I didn't think what you'd said was as bad as dellitsni's

Bel and i are saying the exact same thing, except my outburst was pretty insensitive and not very well thought through to begin with. I've apologised and explained what i meant with my original comment so many times that I don't want to do it again. If you cannot accept that apology and want to label me as something that i in no way am, then there's not much left i can do.

5

leftous wrote (edited )

Pretty strange exchange. I'm not lgbt, so I don't want to interject on what happened there in particular.

But I will say that I think when it comes to established users who are obviously here in good faith (like you and Bel), there should be a bit more restraint and some dialogue before issuing bans. Really not a fan of "ban first, ask questions later" moderation, so I hope TW reconsiders that approach.

I hope you all come to an understanding.

3

md_ wrote (edited )

Not that your comments were informed, since you missed all the institutional oppression non-straight people face, which, honestly, makes it okay for the powerless to make fun of the powerful (there's no such thing as "reverse racism"), but I was shocked to see how swiftly you were banned.

I don't think you should have been banned on the spot, since you are at least known not to be a troll, and before I scrolled down to see the moderator notice, I was ready to start a good-faith discussion with you about it (and bring up actual ways straight people are self-oppressed), but you being banned prevented it.

1

____deleted____ wrote

you missed all the institutional oppression non-straight people face,

I am both trans and pan, I received the same ban. I am very well aware and have been given physical reminders of my position in society.

1

md_ wrote

Your ban was also unnecessary. But I brought that quoted part up because u/dellitsni did express some views that went beyond just the matter of the flag's use/necessity, that were not very informed (but they still don't seem to be malicious).

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

Hi dellitsni

I appreciate the attempt to clear the air and it does seem like there were misunderstandings. Thanks for coming over to f/mediation.

I'm still a bit out of whack here; this looks like a #NotAllMen of straightness (not just because heteronormativity is something that viciously attacks/polices lots of specific kinds of non-boringness while promoting an ever-homogenising nuclear family of 2.3 children etc.). I have to go to sleep now unfortunately, so hopefully some of the people here will engage you about this productively. And maybe I'm still misunderstanding!

Edit: In case it's not clear, people are invited to engage about this, I'm not an authority on the topic.

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Can't sleep.

I'm going to lift the bans for now since I didn't do my usual thing and check in with somebody in the meta chat, though usually I only do that for global ban questions.

I do think we need to talk about this more though and hopefully there'll be some good engagement here.
I'm thinking the kind of stuff I read re queerphobia etc might be more specialised than the average person here but I'm also confused since I do think what I've been saying makes sense.

Somebody(s) please volunteer to mod stuff I mod, I got a lot on my plate.

Gonna try sleep again after I deal with the unbanning.

2

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

Ok, I've had a look at it again. There's one sentence that can be seen as criticising straight people, and it's not even generalising all straight people, and it's talking about their flag design [which I imagine was an intentionally boring choice on the part of the designers]...

Straight Pride is seemingly as beige as most straight people’s personalities,’ Danny, a Twitter user said.

Did I miss anything else? Why on earth would anybody rush to the defense of straight people in this situation? I genuinely can't see anything other than queerphobia. There is nothing wrong with what was said in the article.

And so, on top of what emma has said re "straight pride" being a garbage idea, heteronormativity does work hard to create boring square life and works hard to crush different kinds of lives.

Yeah, I'm confused as fuck at pretty much everybody's responses here. Please help me understand.

2

emma wrote

I think maybe /u/dellitsni intended to reply to /u/selver's comment, but accidentally made a top-level reply instead.

3

selver wrote (edited )

I think they just saw my comment + the article and assumed everyone here must be cool with making fun of straight people. More replying to the overall theme there than my comment specifically.

2

Tequila_Wolf wrote

The flag is overwhelmingly bland though. If /u/dellitsni is going to tell someone to fuck off for that then nothing has changed for me. I don't get it.

1

emma wrote (edited )

I believe (as OP probably did too) that /u/selver was alluding to the 'straightness = bland' thing with their comment when they said called the straight pride flag 'hilariously bland'. But what do I know? They'll have to chime in to clear this up.

2

Tequila_Wolf wrote

My mind is blown by how people are defending this;

"Saying all straight people is bland and boring is just as inconsiderate and generalizing as saying that all gay people are annoying"

It's not comparable (as you noted), and queers can take the piss out of straights for heteronormativity whenever they like. Pointing out the irony of having a bland flag when your heteronormativity sets out to crush anything but homogenous white picket fence straightness seems to me a complete non-issue.

"I'm tired to the bone of seeing people discriminate against any sexuality, and i see no justification for calling heterosexuals in general boring and bland"

This is that same stuff here in the apology. Kicking up a fuss to nitpick about nonsystemic issues when the original point is about systemic issues is oppressive.

What am I not understanding? This is open and shut for me.

0

____deleted____ wrote

just as inconsiderate and generalizing

Objectively, it is just as generalizing. I would say it is just as inconsiderate. They do not carry the same weight. They are not equivalent. I do not think that insulting anyone based on things outside of their control is okay, however, even if they are not nearly equivalent in power dynamics and society.

1

dele_ted wrote

Thank you for giving me a chance to explain myself. I think I've explained my stance on this issue pretty well now in my different replies, and Belsima put it very well too, so i hope you see where I'm coming from. As i also said to Emma, I'm sorry for any stress caused by my original comment. I realize that i was insensitive and should have been worded much better.

On another note, two instant bans for established users (who, as leftous said, have proven themselves plenty to not be here in bad faith) is a little too trigger-happy. I hope you'll reconsider that approach.

2

jadedctrl wrote

I'm sorry established members don't get the benefit of the doubt :(

2

selver wrote

I don't think it deserves a ban but I hate whatever point you're trying to make.

2

____deleted____ wrote (edited )

I really feel like going for an immediate ban was far too much; all I was saying was that calling them bland and such is insulting, and judging based purely on something outside of their control and how they were born; we of all people should know better than that.

These are two very different stories, of course, as only one side has a history of and a continually ongoing oppression, but that doesn't excuse doing the opposite and judging immediately based on, again, something out of their control.

And giving an immediate ban for a trans woman whom has female and male partners and has in the past had NB partners is... a bit of an overstep, given I imagine I'm not a homophobe with that in mind.

3

leftous moderator wrote (edited )

TW reversed the ban on you and dell. So hopefully you two can respond/explain in that thread now. Edit: Keep it in mediation

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

The reason I wanted this to move to mediation was because I don't want this conversation happening in the lobby. Mediation is supposed to be a more forgiving space than others on this site and it's not clear to me that what's happening isn't a ToS violation, so I'd rather it was cleared up here in this context.

RIP sleep

3

leftous wrote

I see what you mean. I still think they should have a chance to explain their posts if they feel they were misunderstood, though. Especially considering they are established good faith users. Anyone who comes across that will have an unfair view of them based on the outraged responses.

0

Tequila_Wolf wrote

They did get a chance, in f/mediation, where their queerphobic opinions can get aired for resolution, instead of the safer-from-ToS-violations space that is the rest of raddle.

To be clear, I think even this apology is queerphobic. That's what I preempted when I opted to move it to mediation.

2

____deleted____ wrote

Queerphobic? I am a pansexual transgirl with male and female partners. I would struggle to be more LGBT. I simply think nobody should be insulted for how they are born, not that it is equivalent.

2

dele_ted wrote

To be perfectly clear, I am not queerphobic, and i hold no queerphobic opinions. I don't get how you've come to that conclusion.

2

glitter_v0id wrote

but that doesn't excuse doing the opposite and judging immediately based on, again, something out of their control.

You have got to be kidding me that you think casually making fun of the straight pride flag is even remotely equatable to the shit queer people put up with on a daily basis.

3

dele_ted wrote (edited )

The issue isn't mocking that absolutely stupid flag, and they weren't equating the two at all.

2

____deleted____ wrote

I am trans and have boyfriends and girlfriends. I did not say it was equivalent. I said it was simply another form of judging based on things out of their control, and thus should be avoided. I was also referring to the article itself calling straight people bland.

2

glitter_v0id wrote

you're saying punching up and punching down are equally bad.

1

____deleted____ wrote

i just said that theyre not equivalent

that's not what im saying at all

im saying don't throw based on aspects they don't decide