Embed Notice

@hyphen two things. One, I think part of our disconnect is showing up when you say you didn't know this was all part of some meta. While it's true that there has been history, this issue applies in a much wider context than drama on the fediverse. Any social media platform engaging in discussions about trust and safety in reference to blocklists is going to have an overlying meta issue with white supremacist abuse because as I stated and you acknowledged this is a larger societal problem. So yes, there's a meta, but there's always going to be a meta because white supremacy always hates us and white folks will consistently show up and reflexively push back on whatever tools we try to use to defend ourselves.

Secondly and relatedly, I suspect you didn't like the analogy in my second paragraph because while it's not solely about you it does apply to you. Just like how you should not isolate a philosophical discussion of tools like blocklists from the material experiences of Black folks (which is what you were doing, despite my clear signaling that my discussion was grounded in antiracism) you also need to acknowledge that the impact of your words in this thread, whether intentional or not, is that you showed up and did the thing that white folks always find some excuse to do and pushed back on a Black person trying to leverage tools to protect themselves. You questioned my characterization of the issue of boundaries and collectivization and claimed I was being overly broad in my analysis of people who critique blocklists. While doing so, you handily sidestepped the material systemic context that I was explicitly naming from the first post I made. In effect, you were doing the exact thing that I called out in that last paragraph.

So, despite your claims of allyship and flaunting of your "ally actions" (yes, another thing clueless white folks like to do), if you cannot admit those two points then you are correct that we should leave this here.