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.
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.