for these reasons:
- The enshittification topic is not a Solar Punk topic
- The moderator:
- has contempt for privacy in a relatively privacy-centric forum
- is oppressive
- uses censorship to control the narrative and silence viewpoints
- practices selective enforcement (censors civil comments while permitting off-topic threadcrap that reinforces the mod’s viewpoint)
- is non-transparent (witholds specific rationale for mod actions)
It’s great to have thematic instances like slrpnk.net which are in short supply amid the ocean of general purpose nodes. It’s of course good for thematic nodes to stay close to their “constitution” (declared purpose). The relevance of tech enshittification to solar punk is a tenuous stretch and very slight at best. To keep with the theme, admins might want to consider locking the forum to prevent new threads while keeping the history of posts in reach for a while for archival purposes.
If it is decided that enshitification is fitting enough to keep, consider replacing the moderator who does not represent solar punk values. Oppressive tyrannical types are not a good representation for slrpnk.net.
First, I don’t think calling out/talking about enshittification is off topic on a solarpunk instance. It needs to be identified and addressed to be avoided for our utopia.
I tried to get the gist of your post, you want to keep using Chelsea Manning’s deadname citing questionable reasoning, and the admin deleted your comment? Not your post on enshittification, but your justification for using the deadname?
Most people I know strictly don’t want their deadname seen anywhere btw. They use their new name for stuff they did before as well. That’s not too generalize, people are different, but saying the deadname should be used because they want to start over without looking any further how Chelsea applies it is nonsense. Your reasoning seems pretty far from what people who changed their names for trans reasons usually say about it.
The mod call seems right to me. Calling for a community removal because of one mod decision you don’t like is also usually not the best thing to do.
I think this statement from Chelsea Manning makes it clear that dead naming her is not something she wishes for:
Not actually clear, but somewhat useful as far as knowing Manning’s wishes. And only /somewhat/, because it clarifies history (that Manning considered herself female during a time when presenting as male). Apart from that, Manning does not say that she expects history to be rewritten to refer to a name that predates the existence of that name. Manning’s statement is only clear about deadnaming today in the context of today. To describe a historic event or time period when the dead name was in fact a live name – that is not dead naming because it is not refering to today’s Manning. The death of Bradley and simultaneous birth of Chelsea occurred at a point in time. It would be like referring to Exxon before the merger with Mobil as ExxonMobil. It was Exxon the discovered climate change, not ExxonMobil.
Manning does not get to decide for everyone that historic records must be altered for ex-post-facto events, at the expense of historic accuracy and confusion. That’s the bigger problem. What do historians say? It’s a bad idea to, for example, let an event in 2015 change our accounting of what happened in 1995. If 2015 event were to reveal something we did not know regarding 1995, that’s fair enough. Some particular individual may have had a past false presentation while others not. We generally know what gender someone presents as, and when, but we don’t get the benefit of knowing what’s in their head (their introspective gender) unless you have someone like Manning actually declaring how far back their introspective gender goes.
It’s wrong to assume that all trans people had a false gender presentation before the change that goes back to birth. I had a roommate that had a flipping gender. One day female, next day male… using a male and female name interchangeably from one day to the next, also dressing feminine or masculine depending on the day.
Can you elaborate? Why is there legitimate value in censoring my viewpoint? You want to generalize that most people don’t care about privacy (perhaps true, but it’s IMO an injustice to take this assumption as rationale for suppression of expression on the part of privacy advocates and historians)… that (without their input) their new identity can be tied to their past identity, and it’s okay for this generalisation to oppress people who want the contrary — so much so that it is okay to suppress the fact that a counter (privacy-respecting) viewpoint exists?
They’re usually tying their identities together themselves. You’re conflating changing your name to match your gender with using pseudonyms and are drawing questionable conclusions from that. Chelsea could also have pseudonyms that we don’t know of where she did/said other stuff but wanted to remain unknown. That’s not the same and doesn’t mean she doesn’t care about privacy. Her being known for the leaks is already something public, she does not hide it. In fact, she clearly says she doesn’t want to be referenced by her deadname as someone else quoted here.
There’s a community guideline “stay on topic” which you clearly violated (though one could argue it’s been violated earlier in that thread). Insisting on calling trans people by their deadname can also easily be seen as transphobic, which is against the general slrpnk rules.