Lafari @ Lafari @lemmy.world

Posts

27

Comments

109

Joined

2 yr. ago

Wow that is a strange coincidence 🤔🧐

Happens on lemmy world too.

In my opinion, lots of posts get removed here which would fall under reasonable (and even important) / valid free speech. So I do think the mods are abusing their censorship ability.

I kind of agree with your last sentence... but that's why I think this platform doesn't serve that purpose unfortunately lol. Interesting or radical liberal posts seem to get removed a lot.

I wish this site was more like Reddit's anarchy tbh lol. I see it as essentially a free speech platform aside from extreme cases.

So how do we determine if a question is nonsense? I didn't realise the questions had to be necessarily important

Hi, I never received a bot message that I was aware of. I thought that the links I posted in the comments were providing examples of what I meant and helping to describe the question. I don't really understand why it was removed. I can see that this post was also locked and then unlocked seemingly.

All I said was something like "We may want nature to fit into neat boxes but often vegetables are sweet and fruit are savory". It wasn't anything less innocuous than the title so I still don't understand it. Apparently it got removed because I posted some links in the comments to lists of common "fruits" that are actually vegetables and vice versa. If that's spam then I think they have a very low tolerance for content. I thought it added to the question to describe what I meant and provide examples.

Context is key, I'm just curious to gain more info and views. I'm not antisemitic but I saw a trend of people being accused of antisemitism when they disagreed with a Jewish person for something completely unrelated to anything to do with Judaism or even Israel. For the pedophilia one I was arguing with someone why pedophilia was immoral but just needed some back up. I can see why the titles look sus. Anyhow I understand those are controversial topics but I also think they should be allowed and Reddit would probably allow them unlike Lemmy seemingly. And I don't see why my fruit question was removed.

https://timesofindia.com/life-style/food-news/vegetables-that-are-fruits-and-fruits-that-are-actually-vegetables-we-finally-have-the-answer/amp_etphotostory/71348897.cms

https://www.businessinsider.com/fruits-that-are-vegetables-2018-12?amp

https://food.ndtv.com/food-drinks/9-common-foods-you-call-vegetables-are-actually-fruits-4084701

Likes are anonymous on YouTube.

It appears racial anxiety is a well recognised term that pretty much describes the meaning I'm referring to.

Come to think of it, xenophobia doesn't really work as a fear of other races since that's associated with hatred as well. Is it like if it's common to hate something, we just disregard the capability for some people to have a genuine fear of that thing without hatred? Seems almost like black-and-white thinking. Either you're fully in support of something and not afraid of it, or else if you're afraid of it you must hate it as well. No middle ground or nuance or understanding of people who have a fear they're trying to come to terms with without any hatred.

Well, aquaphobia is the fear of water. That's a good example because another word actually exists to describe people who are afraid of water rather than just disregarding their fear because the word that might be used for it (hydrophobia) already means something else.

It's more like, if you use the word phobia for hatred in this case, that's fine, but then what is the word for having a genuine fear? What are those people called, who don't hate homosexuality, only fear it? They certainly exist and I feel like it should be a recognised thing rather than them having to either be called a term that doesn't apply to them in how it's used or have their phobia completely unacknowledged.

Who said fears need to be rational? I think people can be afraid/terrified of anything. Anatidaephobia (the fear of being watched by a duck or goose), for example.

I couldn't find any record of this, could you possibly provide some reference?

After researching your great word fuckerism (which I'm guessing you coined since I can't easily find mentions of it online), I found this: Sexual orientation discrimination (also known as sexualism) is discrimination based on a person's sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy.. This isn't entirely clear and could be interpreted as relating to "sexualising", which means to make something sexual, and "homosexism" might be more specific to discrimination against homosexual people.

We also have a related concept of gender binarism (or in some uses, genderism (such as here, here) (though genderism can also apparently mean the opposite thing, to negatively describe gender-non-binarism(?), or what is referred to as "gender ideology" by people with "anti-gender" prejudice)) to describe specifically discrimination of "gender nonconfirming" (or non-binary-gendered) individuals (rather than transphobia or LGBTphobia for the same lexical confusion theoretically). Anti-genderism also makes sense as a term for this, I suppose. Anti-LGBTism ([Anti-LGBT rhetoric](Anti-LGBTism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-LGBT_rhetoric)) could also work as a term for discrimination against LGBT people in general (horrific paper).

I also found a term, HOCD, which can mean excessive fear of becoming or being homosexual, though it can also literally means a form of OCD relating to homosexuality, but it's the closest thing to "fear of homosexuality" ("FOHO"?) that I found, albeit a form that only applies to a fear around one's own possible homosexuality rather than a fear of homosexuality in general regardless of one's own sexuality.