[jstarfish]

> And if someone calls you a "transphobe" on some niche gardening subreddit, odds are you are doing something obnoxious and off topic that would upset the mods regardless of whether you are actually a transphobe.

Gaslighting in action.

To earn the Transphobe badge, all you have to do is complain about anyone else bringing up the subject of trans-anything on a niche gardening subreddit. Or refuse to boycott Harry Potter.

You're very quick to denounce this guy as an asshole "doing something wrong" based on absolutely no material information-- just a bunch of assumptions and speculation. Hardly an honest assessment on your part.

[OGWhales]

I don’t think gaslighting is the right word, it’s speculation.

In my experience on reddit, most of the time people heavily complain about how awful mods are it ends up being that person was actually just an asshole.

I agree that mods can be an issue and many are power hungry weirdos. I’ve been on reddit over a decade and have dealt with them plenty. My solution to dealing with subs run by bad moderators is unsubscribing/filtering them, as the content is typically of poor quality anyway and it’s usually a giant echo chamber. If that solution doesn’t work and you are constantly running into problem mods, it’s more likely that you are the problem or maybe you are seeking out communities where it's very likely to be ran by bad, heavily political moderators.

The comment in question above does seem like the typical comment you see on reddit, where when you look at their post history you realize they totally deserved it. If that’s actually the case for this person, I can’t say, I agree there isn’t enough info. But I can say I’m not surprised people are quick to assume that’s the case, cause it definitely reminds me of those kinds of comments where that is the case.

[slg]

>To earn the Transphobe badge, all you have to do is complain about anyone else bringing up the subject of trans-anything on a niche gardening subreddit. Or refuse to boycott Harry Potter.

Yes, this is the "obnoxious and off topic" behavior I was talking about. The mods of a niche gardening subreddit likely don't want to moderate a debate about your refusal to boycott Harry Potter.

[nailer]

In my experience, people who randomly bring up complaints about J. K. Rowling in discussions about other topics tend to be trans-activists rather than gender critical people.

[PhasmaFelis]

Not, however, when they're explicitly condemning trans activists.

[nailer]

Odd, in online discussion I’ve never seen somebody suddenly change the topic to condemn trans-activists. I frequently see people suddenly change the topic to condemn gender critical views.

[unsupp0rted]

Agreed and thank you. The Transphobe badge is the easiest one to earn at the moment, and I've earned it multiple times in Star Trek subs, even though I have no problem with the existence of trans people in theory, in sci fi stories, or in my daily life.

For instance, I recently earned the badge by saying the Dax character on DS9 isn't "a trans person"... she's an alien with a symbiote, that has lived 7 lives and doesn't much care which gender of body it inhabits per se, or whom its host is going around kissing.

I'm providing plenty of content here in my comments based on which to either denounce me as an asshole or to agree that I'm not one.

[btreecat]

>she's an alien with a symbiote, that has lived 7 lives and doesn't much care which gender of body it inhabits per se, or whom its host is going around kissing.

That's p clearly a metaphor for fluid concepts of gender and sexuality.

[unsupp0rted]

Clearly and unequivocally. To the point that disagreeing or even discussing the fit of this metaphor in a 90s sci fi show earns the Transphobe badge and risks a mod ban.

[mynameisvlad]

Star Trek is widely known to be extremely progressive. It quite literally is not like any other sci fi show at the time, and this continued throughout the series. Why would "the fit of this metaphor in a 90s sci fi show" be relevant given this?

You're jumping through a lot of hoops to not directly show or link to what you actually said, making vague remarks about what was said instead and then playing the victim game.

Someone else called it out in a separate thread as well, regarding the Coronavirus debacle. You seem intent on providing a single side of a story and then expecting everyone to believe you without doubt.

Maybe just make it easier for everyone, link to the comments, and let us judge for ourselves.

[unsupp0rted]

I grant that Star Trek is extremely progressive- I've been watching it since before I could speak and every year since.

Whether or not my reasoning is correct that the Dax character is too loose a metaphor for trans people to be applicable to real world issues, the point is this makes for no reason to label me an enemy of the state. I could be right or wrong, but it's a valid point of discussion in a Star Trek sub, under a post about how Dax is a trans character.

I'm not linking directly to the comments for one obvious reason: I don't want to link my HN account and my Reddit account together.

For that reason you can judge everything I've said in the worst possible light if you think that's fair under the circumstances.

[adamrezich]

all of which is completely useless—the judgement upon you has already been passed, and you have been deemed One Of Those Sorts Of People—the tar, feathers, and pitchforks should be headed your direction shortly.

[babypuncher]

If you are starting fights about boycotting Harry Potter in my niche gardening subreddit, you are going to get in trouble, regardless of what side of the argument you are on. It's totally off-topic.

Many people come to niche subreddits specifically to get away from all the divisive political rhetoric that has infected all other corners of the internet.

[specialist]

Another option is descretion. Why say anything at all? Especially knowing that it'll just keep the slap fight going?