Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
Is that something regular moderators can do...?
Not that I particularly care, but I moderate three communities on here and none of the tools available to me show who downvoted what. Exposing that type of info with that type of granularity feels like a bad idea to me; the sort of thing that is just begging to invite some sort of abuse.
Gotcha!
Yep, I mean you can see for yourself, I've never posted anything about veganism nor have I posted on the sub, and I was banned for "anti vegan sentiment" or something, I don't feel like looking back at their rules lol.
Their rules have the word "carnist" in them, so that should show you how seriously to take them.
It's a real word, even if it's a relative neologism, so I'm not sure why you have the scare quotes around it. In fact, the term has been in use for over t20 years, so, IDK man, maybe accept it. Implying that it's not a real word because you don't like it--versus because it's used as a slur to other people--kinda feels like Musk's complaints about cisgender.
Wasn't 'spastic' a mainstream word too, for a hundred years? (Popularity again somehow implies legitimacy here). And I'm sure we can find a number of really objectionable words from the warmer us states that were incredibly popular for decades and are, yet, offensive.
Likewise, we're allowed to dislike words like 'moist' and lazy prefixes like 'cis' while understanding they are still - for the moment - words.
This is a terrible tangent, though, and I'm okay if we stop this worthless digression.
Is spastic no longer an acceptable word? The only context I have for it is involuntary motion, from spasm. (Or the great Skinny Puppy song, Spasmolytic.)
You don't think it's awfully telling that it doesn't make any regular occurrence until that community picks it up?
I think that it's irrelevant to whether or not it's a real word. All words are made-up words. There wasn't any term for cis-gender that had any kind of popularity until about 20 years ago, simply because no one thought of the concept in that way; you were either normal/typical, or you were transsexual (transgender is the preferred term now, since people are also more likely to understand gender in terms of social construction rather than genitals or chromosomes).
Similarly, you can say that carnist is the opposite of vegan; a carnist is someone that is not vegan. A person that is cisgendered is not transgendered. A person that is heterosexual is not homosexual.
Do I find what vegans imply with the term to be insulting? Yes. But that doesn't make it any less real.