(Example at the end)

Usually we discuss stereotypes in terms of how they are harmful—which is good because it’s super important to recognize and confront the stereotypes that perpetuate systems of oppression and hurt. That doesn’t mean all of them are harmful, though. Some are neutral and and some are a net positive. If you can think of neutral ones that’s fine but I’m especially interested in the constructive and beneficial ones. Hopefully I’m explaining this well enough but if it becomes clear I didn’t I’ll delete this post.

Example: I usually encourage people, especially kids and pedestrians, to assume that drivers can’t see you. While it’s not necessarily true even a majority of the time, it’s nevertheless a constructive stereotype to hold in terms of road safety.

Context: In a discussion about a small apartment listing described as "perfect for a full-time female student," the above transphobic comment was made in regard to who would post such a listing.

The comment is transphobic because it:

1. Misgenders: Puts "woman" in quotes, invalidating trans women's gender.
2. Stereotypes: Suggests trans women might transition for ulterior motives, perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
3. Undermines Identity: Implies trans women are fundamentally different and suspect compared to cis women.

this wasn’t one but also making a ManBearPig reference in current year should be a felony

STOP USING QUEER CULTURE FOR POLITICAL CLOUT STOP USING QUEER CULTURE FOR POLITICAL CLOUT STOP USING QUEER CULTURE FOR POLITICAL CLOUT STOP USING QUEER CULTURE FOR POLITICAL CLOUT STOP USING QUEER CULTURE FOR POLITICAL CLOUT STOP USING QUEER CULTURE FOR POLITICAL CLOUT context

Important context: This was an instance of a crowd crush caused by poor crowd control.

edit: action has now been taken against the offending comment :)

(also some of you guys in the comments here have been yoinked by mods too… just be nice? this post was not an invitation to test out your boundaries)

This is inspired by this advice from a few months ago:

Stop giving shitty mods a free pass. Honest mistakes happen; but if the mod in question is assumptive, disingenuous, trigger-happy, or eager to enable certain shitty types of user, spread the word about their comm being poorly moderated. And don’t interact directly with the comm. I think that at least here in the Fediverse we should demand higher standards from our mods.

(Emphasis mine.)

In the past I have used places like !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world or !196@lemmy.blahaj.zone to call out mods on other subs, with mid-to-almost-high degrees of success, but I wonder if it would be better to have a dedicated sublemmy?

Here are my thoughts on what would make this effective:

• probably shouldn’t be hosted on .world due to the breadth of possible conflicts of interest with admins
• probably shouldn’t be hosted on .ml due to federation hurdles
• mods of the community shouldn’t moderate any other communities of any significant size, in order to make the whole “accountability” thing work
• mods should be willing and able to deal with substantial quantities of garbage posts because there would be a lot of “why won’t c/xyz let me be transphobic/say slurs 😡😡” type submissions which, left unaddressed, would outflood genuine criticism

This is still in conceptual form so I am interested what others think :)