FreeGameDev

I can't believe all this stuff ruined software development and made so many people want to quit. I personally, as in first person know people who quit working on projects because of all of this stuff. It is really a sad state of affairs when logical people lose their sanctuary from the world of emotionally reactive people.
I'm sure (Well okay not really) everyone involved had the best of intentions of building up new people and people from underrepresented groups and not hurting peoples feelings so they didn't feel demotivated and quit, instead, while I don't think my mom friends are going to start a coding hobby any time soon, it has driven out a lot of "socially awkward white males," without really adding anything new or worthwhile to it. (if you are too overwhelmed with emotion to think logically you can't code, simple as that. I mean, that is why some people start coding in the first place, to free themselves of emotions and embrace the logic of code.)
Except then you add in a coc to remind them how socially awkward and marginalized they are, and then they just quit, cause actually participating in projects is triggering. It becomes a tedious diplomatic dance in rhetoric rather than a fun exercise of logical thinking.

Funnily enough "socially awkward white males" seem to be the perpetrators as well as the victims in this case (with a few token women and or minority representatives sprinkled in), which makes me think in a few months this fad will pass and people will be back happily coding despite all the current bad feelings on both sides. I do hope though that maybe as a lasting effect "socially awkward non-white males" (Indians etc.) will find coding communities a bit more welcoming, because there are a lot of those too

*of course there are also "socially awkward females" that should feel welcome, but I guess the few that actually chose to go down that path might feel pretty comfortable in mostly socially awkward male environments anyways...

"SJW" is a smear term used by reactionaries to avoid accountability, and to pretend that fighting for minority rights, representation, and equality is somehow responsible for "ruining" things. Since "SJW" is undoubtedly a smear term that would be used on me now, understand this: I'm poor. Most of us are. My entire adult life, I've only been able to find jobs at fast food and retail, and I've never been able to afford either moving out of my dad's house or even getting a car. If you're suffering from financial struggles, it's not because of someone like me. It's because of the 1%. The rich have been getting richer and richer for decades, while the poor have been getting poorer. (Money, being a social construct for how many resources someone is "owed" under capitalism, works that way. Many capitalists fail to understand this fact and therefore end up saying unsound things like "we should raise everyone up". The fact of the matter is if someone is getting richer under capitalism, someone else, or a group of people, is getting poorer.)

I personally, as in first person know people who quit working on projects because of all of this stuff.

That's quite vague. If you're talking about implementing a code of conduct that requires respect (going by what you said toward the end)... I mean, what exactly does it say about someone if they're not willing to be a part of a project if they have to be respectful?

Seriously, shouting slurs and insults at people, posting unnecessarily triggering content, and making a space unwelcoming to minorities does not improve a software development environment in any way. It is not a part of software development. In fact, it detracts from the environment.

Years ago, I explored a project run by people who constantly used toxic language, including very open and unabashed queermisia and ableism. Even back then when I really was a pretty toxic person who wasn't all that bothered by this, the environment sent a message: that this was a project that valued childishness over actually developing the software. So I didn't stick around. I just checked their website real quick and, yeah, they still have the same website and a forum with barely any posts on it.

It is really a sad state of affairs when logical people lose their sanctuary from the world of emotionally reactive people.

There is no such thing as a "logical person". All people have biases and do illogical things. We all have the capacity to use logic, and we all have the capacity to act purely on emotion.

If you want to talk about what's logical, is it not logical to make spaces welcoming and professional? Maximize people's comfort in joining the project so that as many hands can get on the code as possible? Seems logical to me. Refusing to do so because it's what's always been done would seem to me the illogical thing (driven by resistance to change).

This is I think one of those cases where both sides of the debate feel victimized and it is overall a lose-lose situation.

Sure, ideally people would not use language that is abusive and hateful... but what counts as such is very much up to debate and also regionally highly different (incl. language barriers). And people don't change over night, but does that mean everyone has to always watch his or her language in what is often perceived as a friendly exchange between close colleagues? A Free software mailing list is after all not a corporate or government office...

I think where the current problem comes from, is that what used to be understood as just cringy bad jokes (and yes if there are too many of them a place becomes toxic) and people would move on, is now misunderstood as some sort of political statement, with bad actors on both sides (alt-right and certain parts of the progressive left) fanning the flames for their own schemes.

Partially this is also because of project internal communication being more out in the open (and archived), and stuff like Twitter/Facebook algorithmically pushing "outraging" content. So what used to be a awkward comment in passing suddenly becomes some sort of public statement that can be weaponized against the person including people losing their jobs and so on. Sure, this usually only hits the high profile cases (that might or might not have other skeletons in the closet where this is just a convenient way for their enemies to discredit them), but the chilling effects on everyone are very noticeable.

P.S.: I have also grown to dislike the term SJW, as it has very much been co-opted by the alt-right by now. However it used to pretty accurately describe a certain type of toxic behavior in online communities (Edit: Maybe I am wrong, but that is how I perceived it in the past).

SJWs haven't altered software development. There were always unwritten codes of conduct. They were very relaxed but you could have gotten kicked out of a group before the CoCs were adopted. Since they have been adopted, has there been a massive exodus or discussions greatly diminished? I think the answer is no. The kernel is probably the easiest to examine. You could check the number of patches being merged and the number of posts on the mailing lists. If this hasn't shown significant decrease since the adoption of the CoC, your premise is wrong. You may not like them but they are not ruining software development.

Sure, ideally people would not use language that is abusive and hateful... but what counts as such is very much up to debate and also regionally highly different (incl. language barriers).

I have never seen a case where abuse or hatefulness was a result of a misunderstanding due to regional differences, other than arguably the name of the GNU Image Manipulation Program (assuming those who chose the name don't have that particular slur as a part of their vocabulary). Every single other case of abusive or hateful language that I have ever seen has been either because they definitely meant it, or (in the case of sanist references to mental illness) because it's so widespread in the English language that they were never taught that the language was hateful. The former is indefensible, and the latter can easily be corrected by explaining these things (which is the purpose of my essay, Sanism in Media and Discourse).

And people don't change over night

What matters is intent. I accidentally blurted out the "R" slur earlier this year because that was baked into me so much in middle and high school. I knew it was wrong and that I shouldn't have said it, so I just apologized and we moved on. It's not really that complicated, and no one is asking anyone to be perfect.

does that mean everyone has to always watch his or her language in what is often perceived as a friendly exchange between close colleagues?

That really depends on context. But I don't think it's normal for "friendliness" to include putting other people down. That time I accidentally used the "R" slur? It was in private with two people I was close to (one of whom I'm still close to today), neither of whom would personally be directly affected by that slur to my knowledge. But I still corrected myself because spreading that hateful language, even privately, is not something I want to do. I don't believe that some people are inherently "stupid" and inferior to others. So why would I want to use language that would imply such a belief? If someone did want to use such language in private, that would suggest to me that they want to be hateful but don't want people to recognize them as hateful (like how modern racists usually in public use dogwhistles rather than state their racist beliefs; if someone wants to use the "N" slur but only doesn't because that's against a CoC, that tells me that they're a racist).

A Free software mailing list is after all not a corporate or government office...

But in that context, it's absolutely a place where exclusionary language can make people targeted by said language feel unwelcome in the project. That project I mentioned being turned off by years ago, the language I was referring to was in a forum like this one (which really isn't particularly distinct from a mailing list). So it seems plainly clear to me that a CoC should apply to a mailing list.

I think where the current problem comes from, is that what used to be understood as just cringy bad jokes (and yes if there are too many of them a place becomes toxic) and people would move on, is now misunderstood as some sort of political statement

Often they are. Like I said, racists, Nazis, and white supremacists don't speak plainly about their beliefs in public. They use dogwhistles, usually explained away as "jokes". This is very well-documented.

Possibly the most obvious modern example is references to the meme known as Clown Pepe (or "Honk Honk" or "Clown World"); this may take the form of meme images, or the terms "clown world" and "honk honk" ("clown world" may also be written as the clown emoji followed by the Earth emoji). This meme is rooted in antisemitism and is never innocent (unlike regular Pepe memes, which usually have no connection to the alt-right or hate although some high-profile cases especially around 2016 were reported). This page has a good explanation:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Clown_World

So what used to be a awkward comment in passing suddenly becomes some sort of public statement that can be weaponized against the person including people losing their jobs and so on.

That certainly hasn't happened to me. And I'm quite open about the fact that I used to be an "anti-SJW". I have never, once, seen any person weaponize my past against me. Every time I've mentioned my past, I've gotten a very similar response to the effect of: "I'm glad you're out of that rabbit hole now." There has never been a single exception.

Just to be clear, this is with people who are very explicitly leftist, in explicitly leftist spaces, and in communities that the alt-right might call "SJW" communities. Every single person in these spaces has been kinder to me than I ever was to myself. Because we understand that people aren't just born perfect. We grow. We learn. A large number of us used to have shitty beliefs, because we live in a system that encourages those beliefs, so of course we did. Why would we hold that against each other? So we don't.

I should also note that I had those shitty beliefs while I was working, and I was never threatened with termination because of them even though I was quite open about them. On the contrary, the only times my job was threatened were when I had to call in at my job at Walmart, since Walmart's "points" system meant that calling in too many times in a rolling six-month period (I want to say 5, but it might have been 6; I'm not sure about the exact number) will lead to termination even if those call-ins were completely legitimate (which is why I still went to work when I was very sick and even took a dangerous risk getting very close to a Canada Goose with goslings so that I wouldn't be late to work; seriously, geese are no joke, and I ran a serious risk of provoking them and getting a broken bone or worse). If I have any worry of losing a job because of political beliefs it will be next time I get a job (which will probably be next year), since I live in a very conservative town.

the chilling effects on everyone are very noticeable.

So you say. I have seen no such "chilling effect".

P.S.: I have also grown to dislike the term SJW, as it has very much been co-opted by the alt-right by now. However it used to pretty accurately describe a certain type of toxic behavior in online communities.

The term "SJW" was always a right-wing term to put down anyone who fights for... social justice. It's in the name. I was in that community and I can tell you that the toxicity around the term predates the term "SJW". Before that term was popularized, "Feminist" was the term they used derisively. The general message being that Feminists were taking women's rights "too far" by pushing for the right to bodily autonomy in the case of pregnancy, or by pushing to prevent sexism in school and in the workplace, or by pushing for accurate representation of women's bodies in media (just to list a few examples). Then they had complaints about more than Feminism being advocated (trans rights, Black Lives Matter, anti-ableism, etc), so the term "Social Justice Warrior" was invented to expand the derisiveness to social justice causes other than Feminism.

It's not a legitimate complaint. It's complaints of trying to make the world a better place, because they don't want to be mildly inconvenienced by having to stop assuming that everyone they meet online is male or by having less objectified portrayals of women in video games. In summary, it's reactionary. It always was.

If this hasn't shown significant decrease since the adoption of the CoC, your premise is wrong. You may not like them but they are not ruining software development.

This, a thousand times this. ^

(If there was a "like" button I would press it for that post.)

onpon4, it might be a case of the current(?) and former online communities you participate in, but why do you always assume the worst in people? Not everyone is dog-whistling and a hidden Nazi. They might just have a bad day or thoughtlessly translated a idiom from their language that is perfectly acceptable and understood in their native tongue etc.

And I personally do feel the chilling effect because I am not into virtue signaling, but realize that things I write on certain platforms (Mastodon etc.) can be very easily taken out of context and attract people that I otherwise never had anything to do with. Same for blogging on Freegamer by the way... it used to be a fun quick thing to write down some stuff that came to mind, but there were some instances of really toxic discussions in the comments that mostly took the fun out of it. I guess it has very much to do with higher exposure, but why does it have to be some sort of thought-police that runs around putting other people down?

I am a (moderate) leftist by heart, but this does at times feel a bit like the beginning of what led to the worst times under Stalinism where people had to watch their every word and extreme dishonesty was the only way to survive in public live.

Edit: I believe this is also one of the driving forces behind communities moving into relatively closed platforms like Discord channels. Less public exposure and resulting drama in many cases. Although I think this is rarely done on purpose like that, people just stop contributing where they feel there is a risk of being ostracized for no real good reason. Of course, one could very well argue that this is turning the toxicity & privilege of the stereotypical white males on them, but is that really what we (yes I include myself as part of the progressives) want? Become them with all the toxicity just turned around?

dulsi {l Wrote}:SJWs haven't altered software development. There were always unwritten codes of conduct. They were very relaxed but you could have gotten kicked out of a group before the CoCs were adopted. Since they have been adopted, has there been a massive exodus or discussions greatly diminished? I think the answer is no. The kernel is probably the easiest to examine. You could check the number of patches being merged and the number of posts on the mailing lists. If this hasn't shown significant decrease since the adoption of the CoC, your premise is wrong. You may not like them but they are not ruining software development.

While I agree generally, I think the Linux kernel development might not be the best place to look at as it is mostly driven by commercial interests these days, which nearly all contributors being on payroll of large corporations. Yes the recent case of Linus Torwalds was highly publicized and as the founder he certainly took some undue liberties in his communication style... but for all the others it has long been a corporate affair with little "community" spirit.

why do you always assume the worst in people?

That's a loaded question. I don't.

Not everyone is dog-whistling and a hidden Nazi.

Good thing I never said that, then. Unless you're implying that I'm wrong about the specific example I gave? Even Know Your Meme documents the Clown Pepe meme as being connected to antisemitism. It's not a controversial association.

They might just have a bad day or thoughtlessly translated a idiom from their language that is perfectly acceptable and understood in their native tongue etc.

Why do you think I'm talking about people who aren't native English speakers? Most of the people I'm talking about are British or American or Canadian. And when I see something suspect, my first instinct isn't to accuse someone of being a "hidden Nazi", it's to explain that the phrase they used is an alt-right dogwhistle.

I personally do feel the chilling effect because I am not into virtue signaling, but realize that things I write on certain platforms (Mastodon etc.) can be very easily taken out of context and attract people that I otherwise never had anything to do with.

If you give an example, I could explain to you why people took it the way they did. But I would note that Mastodon is very disparate; what it's like largely depends on what instance you're on and who you interact with. There's large amounts of active sanism there; someone I'm close to was even called "despicable" for daring to politely ask people to use content warnings (they have PTSD and had recently seen something triggering to them). And there's plenty of other toxicity to be found in some Mastodon communities.

but there were some instances of really toxic discussions in the comments that mostly took the fun out of it.

I'd also be curious of any examples you have for this one.

Somewhat related video: https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g

Julius {l Wrote}:While I agree generally, I think the Linux kernel development might not be the best place to look at as it is mostly driven by commercial interests these days, which nearly all contributors being on payroll of large corporations. Yes the recent case of Linus Torwalds was highly publicized and as the founder he certainly took some undue liberties in his communication style... but for all the others it has long been a corporate affair with little "community" spirit.

Then pick another project that added a code of conduct. Python added a code of conduct in 2013. Clearly it hasn't ruined development on the project. If that one is still too commercial, I'm open to other suggestions.

Julius {l Wrote}:Somewhat related video: https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g

That's a great video series I'd recommend to everyone.

dulsi {l Wrote}:

Julius {l Wrote}:While I agree generally, I think the Linux kernel development might not be the best place to look at as it is mostly driven by commercial interests these days, which nearly all contributors being on payroll of large corporations. Yes the recent case of Linus Torwalds was highly publicized and as the founder he certainly took some undue liberties in his communication style... but for all the others it has long been a corporate affair with little "community" spirit.

Then pick another project that added a code of conduct. Python added a code of conduct in 2013. Clearly it hasn't ruined development on the project. If that one is still too commercial, I'm open to other suggestions.

Na, I agree, a CoC does not prevent contributions, I was just pointing out that the Linux kernel development is maybe not such a good example to prove that. However at times having discussions about a need for a CoC, especially if it is driven by non-core contributors, points to some other dysfunctionalities in those communities and a CoC really can not solve those (and if fact often makes them worse).

onpon4 {l Wrote}:

but there were some instances of really toxic discussions in the comments that mostly took the fun out of it.

I'd also be curious of any examples you have for this one.

All years ago and I don't want to dig them up again.

All years ago and I don't want to dig them up again.

I mean, I'm not asking you to. What were the comments about, though? Your post suggests you're talking about receiving criticism, but if so, I'm wondering what you were criticized for. Otherwise I have no context for what kind of thing you're describing as "toxic", or what turned you off from writing blog posts.

onpon4 {l Wrote}:What matters is intent.

I totally agree with that. A lot of the discussion I have been seeing recently is around lists of bad words not to use. This will only lead to the need for a new euphemism, which can then be turned abusive by intent, and then you need the next euphemism... at the end of which nobody says what they really mean, and you constantly have to keep up.

One software example - I recently got a list of Emojis to translate, one pair of which was "Older man/Older woman". I initially translated it literally, which was so wrong - looking at the actual images, it depicts people who look around retirement age. So they are old. So, what's with the euphemism here? If you're that age, you're old and that's a fact and nothing to be ashamed of. So, I changed my translation to the correct "Old man/Old woman" terms.

In the end, I don't care a whit about being politically correct. What I do care about is being kind and respectful towards my fellow human beings.

Deleted.

The "SJW" situation is making me very sad

Lately I've found myself bullied in many parts of the internet (e.g. raddle.me) just for asking questions, in a completely civil way, about why such a huge censorship and witch hunts are taking place. I genuinely want everyone to coexist peacefully, I am a pacifist and I love all living beings, and it's really hurting me when people attack me for simply asking questions. I am very anxious now about the future not only of software development, but of the whole world, seeing the insanity and fanaticism of the movements such as LGBT or feminists. Of the whole west. I do not hate women nor do I hate gay people, I just can't agree with movements based on spreading fear and cancelling people. This always leads to fascism. I think very dark times are ahead.

My programming world now consists of only my own projects. I am literally afraid to collaborate with anyone, partly due to possible copyright disputes (yes, despite licenses) and partly to things like COCs. Just as free software started to show the power of collaboration, a certain group of religious people are putting an end to it by dictating who is allowed to collaborate.

This is very sad, but let me say I don't hate any people who follow such movements, I never hate people. We just need to discuss which ideas are good to follow and which are not.

I'm sorry you have had bad experiences. I have had a few myself, but these were always with individuals, never with the community as a whole. Moderating those individuals always is a thankless job as you try to balance the need for free speech with the need of people to be treated with respect and understanding.

Deleted.

drummyfish {l Wrote}:The "SJW" situation is making me very sad

Lately I've found myself bullied in many parts of the internet (e.g. raddle.me) just for asking questions, in a completely civil way, about why such a huge censorship and witch hunts are taking place. I genuinely want everyone to coexist peacefully, I am a pacifist and I love all living beings, and it's really hurting me when people attack me for simply asking questions.

That would be because you're asking loaded questions (the left isn't censoring anything or engaging in "witch hunts"), and because "just asking questions" is a common tactic used by reactionaries. I'm not ok with bullying, but if by "attack" you mean "criticize", keep in mind that your freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

Not sure if I mentioned this, but I used to follow the "anti-SJW" crowd and I'm quite open about this. I have never once been judged by anyone on the left for this, let alone subject to a "witch hunt". Not once. The reaction to hearing about my former beliefs are always nearly word-for-word identical: "I'm glad you're out of that rabbit hole now." In fact, many people on the left have had "reactionary phases" or "conservative phases".

If I've been judged or "witch-hunted" by anyone, it was the obviously transmisic manager I had when I worked at Kroger. She constantly targeted and harassed me over minor deviations from where I was "supposed" to stand while clearly not giving a damn about anyone else doing the exact same thing. It was like she hated me for being transgender so much that she was looking for any excuse she could to make my life miserable.

Criticism for your current beliefs, or suspicion of you because you use the language of reactionaries (which we on the left are usually very privy to), is not a "witch hunt".

For example, suppose someone says this:

"I have nothing against transgender people. I just think the transgender ideology goes too far by saying that if you're biologically male and identify as a woman, you actually are one. I think it's important that we recognize the biological differences between the sexes."

If someone says that, they're a TERF. That's about as obvious as TERF rhetoric gets, and people who know this will call such a person out. But if you're not privy to the dogwhistles TERFs use ("transgender ideology", "biologically male", "identify as", and "biological differences" in particular are used in this example), you may not see the intent behind this for what it is. If you then copy that language, or if you argue with someone criticizing this hypothetical TERF based on your poor understanding of what their rhetoric really means, then you in turn will get criticized as if you are a TERF.

For what it's worth, I want everyone to coexist peacefully too, but I can't coexist peacefully with someone who wants to take my human rights away, or worse, wants me dead.

I am very anxious now about the future not only of software development, but of the whole world, seeing the insanity and fanaticism of the movements such as LGBT or feminists. Of the whole west. I do not hate women nor do I hate gay people, I just can't agree with movements based on spreading fear and cancelling people. This always leads to fascism. I think very dark times are ahead.

Ok. First: LGBT is not a "movement". It's an acronym for a group of minorities who band together to fight for our rights. It is not a synonym for "gay people". It refers to all gender and sexual minorities: gay, trans, intersex, asexual, aromantic, nonbinary, queer, etc. The whole point of the acronym is to unite us together in a common struggle.

Second: "cancelling" is a right-wing term which really means "not giving support to shitty people", as if to imply that public figures are owed support no matter what they do. Quite frankly, I'm not obligated to support public figures at all, and to act as if I'm doing wrong by "cancelling" (no longer following) someone because I frankly think they're shitty, I honestly don't know what to tell you, because that would imply that I'm also doing wrong by not buying music that I don't like, or something.

Third: you have a very very naïve understanding of what fascism is if you believe that "cancelling" will lead to it. Fascism is a complicated ideology which, in short, stems from extreme right-wing beliefs and a desire to go "back" to a false past where everything was supposedly perfect.

I am literally afraid to collaborate with anyone, partly due to possible copyright disputes (yes, despite licenses) and partly to things like COCs. Just as free software started to show the power of collaboration, a certain group of religious people are putting an end to it by dictating who is allowed to collaborate.

Do you honestly think that a group of TERFs would collaborate with me? Or that I should collaborate with them? Should Jewish people collaborate with literal Nazis and just welcome them into their spaces?

Copyright is an institution of monopolies enforced by the state to force capitalism to work with something that it can never work with (creative works). Seriously, how you can think that's comparable to freedom of association is beyond me. No one is trying to "dictate" whether or not bigots are allowed to do work. There is no law that says "if a Feminist decrees it then you may not work on software". And you are not entitled to be a part of a community that doesn't want you.

onpon4 {l Wrote}:Second: "cancelling" is a right-wing term which really means "not giving support to shitty people", as if to imply that public figures are owed support no matter what they do. Quite frankly, I'm not obligated to support public figures at all, and to act as if I'm doing wrong by "cancelling" (no longer following) someone because I frankly think they're shitty, I honestly don't know what to tell you, because that would imply that I'm also doing wrong by not buying music that I don't like, or something.

While I agree with you in general, this is a very rosy view on cancel-culture. First of all it is not a right-wing term, but rather a radical feminist one (but it has been somewhat appropriated by the right in recent years). And it is specifically not about withdrawing support (that would be a boycott), but about attacking the person (as opposed to the statement or idea) and trying to get them fired or otherwise into personal trouble that would prevent them from further taking part in the public debate, aka "cancel" their contributions.

All in all it is a very dubious tactic, that has been always justified with "ends before means", and by now has pretty much back-fired as right-wingers have been able to appropriate the term for their own purposes.

@lyberta I am a white male but I wanna be frens with you

@onpon4: criticism indeed isn't bullying, I am talking being kicked out for asking questions in a civil manner, without warning, without a chance for defense. Here is the ban: https://raddle.me/f/meta/123388/policy- ... stream-and. The feeling I get from this is "you're either with us or against us", which is why SJWs don't mind your anti-SJW phase as long as you're now an obedient resource they can use. Once you cross that fine border to the enemy line, you'll go from a friend to the literal Hitler and they'll want to eat you alive. LGBT definitely is a political movement, it's not just a group, they have their own philosophies and very actively participate in forcefully promoting them, while all of LGBT philosophies certainly don't come naturally with being a sexual minority. The movement is starting to permeate the business, governments etc. I am almost 100% certain this will get out of hand and there is going to be a war or another French revolution with many, even from own ranks, ending up under the guillotine. I know the intentions and beliefs of most LGBT individuals are good, but the conduct is completely wrong, the higher meta organism is evil, it's repeating the bad history all over again.

I'm talking like a right winger because it just sounds cool, but really I am a super leftist trust me, even too extreme for most normie leftists, I want absolute peace, equality, hippie communist society without moneys and governments etc.

> There is no law that says "if a Feminist decrees it then you may not work on software". And you are not entitled to be a part of a community that doesn't want you.

Well, government laws are just one kind of laws there are. There are also unwritten cultural rules, which I also want to take into account, because they affect our life maybe even more. So I am really saying it is wrong for people to not want me in a community for simply questioning some of their rules, or even just voicing an unpopular opinion. It's wrong in the same way a community would decline a person just because he's gay, or because he likes fishing. SJWs are really trying to fight back with the same weapons and that's pretty bad.

Also I appreciate your rational discussion here, we can also be frens <3

@drummyfish to be honest, I can actually understand why they banned you. Don't take it personally, but that post just raised too many red flags for a moderator trying to avoid right-wing posters to take over a community (as has happened with many Reddit "alternatives" in the past), and as a moderator you only have so much time and nerves left to deal with such posters on an individual level, especially if a significant percentage is acting in bad faith.

First of all it ["cancelling"] is not a right-wing term, but rather a radical feminist one

I'll grant you that "cancelling" is not originally a right-wing term. It's really "cancel culture" that I meant to call a right-wing term. Nonetheless, the term "cancelling" is quite a bit more than "somewhat" coopted by the right now. I think it's fair to say that it's become a right-wing term.

And it is specifically not about withdrawing support (that would be a boycott), but about attacking the person (as opposed to the statement or idea) and trying to get them fired or otherwise into personal trouble that would prevent them from further taking part in the public debate, aka "cancel" their contributions.

No? It was about announcing to one's audience that they aren't supporting someone anymore.

Here is the ban: https://raddle.me/f/meta/123388/policy- ... stream-and

Every single thing you said in there is inherently right-wing. You honestly could not mark yourself more strongly as a reactionary than you did by saying that you're opposed to rules against things like white supremacy and trivializing rape, then claiming (falsely) that making a safe space means "to suppress free speech". These things you're criticizing in that post are not "pushing US mainstream" whatsoever. My anarcho-communist ideas certainly aren't mainstream and I would feel more than welcome with terms like that because I don't want to push white supremacy or ableism or transmisia. People who support fascism or who are racists or white supremacists or TERFs or what have you may feel unwelcome, but that's by design because those kinds of "beliefs" are destructive and inherently make the community unsafe.

The feeling I get from this is "you're either with us or against us", which is why SJWs don't mind your anti-SJW phase as long as you're now an obedient resource they can use. Once you cross that fine border to the enemy line, you'll go from a friend to the literal Hitler and they'll want to eat you alive.

No?

First of all, I am not "obedient". My politics have continued to shift, and as I mentioned, I've gone back to being an anarcho-communist, a far from mainstream view which is completely at odds with liberalism (which is the mainstream). People on the left are not a hivemind or a cult. The only cult would be the right-wing, which does harshly attack anyone who goes out of the line (mainly, people who oppose things like capitalism that are essential to fascism).

Second of all, no one believes that supporting capitalism, healthcare privatization, or other liberal ideas makes you "literally hitler". But when you use the language and dogwhistles of the extreme right because you think it "sounds cool" (as you say), people are going to assume you're a part of or at least sympathetic to the extreme right. And communities are not obligated to keep you. If you walk like a fascist and talk like a fascist, people will assume that you are a fascist and ban you from their communities. It's not rocket science. There's a big difference between teetering on the edge of the left and liberalism and teetering on the edge of liberalism and outright fascism.

LGBT definitely is a political movement

My political movement is anarcho-communism, not "LGBT". But I'm definitely transgender and nonbinary.

they have their own philosophies and very actively participate in forcefully promoting them, while all of LGBT philosophies certainly don't come naturally with being a sexual minority.

I'm a part of the LGBTQ+ community. So "they" includes me, bud. And there are no "philosophies" at play here unless you believe for some reason that basic human rights are a "philosophy". Our political views differ a lot. Some are anarchists. Some are liberals. Some are tankies. (Excluding the shitty right-winger truscum types because they tend to intentionally exclude themselves from the LGBTQ+ community given... you know, their beliefs about nonbinary people being invalid which is harmful to those of us who don't fit into the gender binary.)

I'm talking like a right winger because it just sounds cool, but really I am a super leftist trust me, even too extreme for most normie leftists, I want absolute peace, equality, hippie communist society without moneys and governments etc.

That sounds like a right-wing caricature of "the left". Also, you really should look inward on yourself and think about why you think language intended to exclude and marginalize women and minorities "sounds cool" to you.

So I am really saying it is wrong for people to not want me in a community for simply questioning some of their rules

Well, sorry, but you're wrong about that, bud. You're not entitled to be a part of any community.

It's wrong in the same way a community would decline a person just because he's gay, or because he likes fishing.

TERFs don't want me in their communities, but I don't want to be in theirs, either. I don't spend my time worrying about the fact that I'm not "allowed" in TERF communities.

I'm operating under the assumption that you're a cryptofascist at this point, because you act exactly like a cryptofascist. But if you're not, this is my advice to you: do some introspection. Think about the communities you're a part of, and think about whether or not that community spends time putting down people of color, or Jewish people, or disabled people, or trans people, or any other minority group you're not a part of. I believe you're a cis straight white man. I am not a cis straight man. My older sister is not a white man. Just because a community friendly to fascism is safe for you doesn't mean it's safe for everyone else.

So we set rules to make communities safe by excluding those who make us unsafe. If you choose to be one of those people, that's your problem.

EDIT: Just also noticed that you ban evaded? And you honestly expect sympathy after that?

Also, you said this: "I love all people, heterosexual or homosexual. It just may be the case that I don't feel good around gay people and I prefer to not be around them." Dude, that's an incredibly queermisic attitude. Very unusually queermisic. Even right-wing liberals usually don't hate gay people that much.