https://lemmy.nz/post/18610200/13255360

This user describes how most of the women-centered communities on Lemmy were shut down due to harassment of their members.

Another user adds “We need a safe space, but most of the women I know on here don’t have the time or energy to moderate it. And there’s so few of us, it feels like it’s not worth the effort anyway.”

  • spujb@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    22·
    3 months ago

    This situation seems to have spiraled a bit—I logged off for a few hours and came back to a bunch of DMs from you.

    I want to make it clear that I don’t have any hard feelings toward you. However, this conversation has reached a point where it’s no longer productive.

    You wouldn’t go to the comments of a person of color as they share their experiences and feelings about racism and say, “I only ever see cherry-picked examples like you have here.” But that’s essentially what you said to me about gender-based abuse. That kind of comment is: a) dismissive and encourages others to doubt the stories of victims, and b) a conversation-ender.

    What you communicated to me is that my lived experience isn’t enough for you. As someone with a normal life and not a researcher, I have no way to provide the additional “data” you seem to require.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafeEnglish
        12·
        3 months ago

        i just don’t want to bud. you ruined all the good i could have gotten from this conversation before it even started.

          • spujb@lemmy.cafeEnglish
            31·
            3 months ago

            dont worry im not alone i have plenty of people in my corner who dont spam me with weird begging behavior when i stop interacting with them

            to be clear you seem nice you are just being offputting and weird doing this negging behavior- if this was a real life relationship i would cut ties with you immediately. please chill tf out.

              • spujb@lemmy.cafeEnglish
                31·
                3 months ago

                Hey, starting over here:
                You’re welcome in my corner, homie! I want to approach this with good faith, but I need to address some things because your earlier approach made me deeply uncomfortable. I hope we can work toward mutual understanding, but I also need to set a few boundaries going forward:

                1. Please don’t call someone sharing personal experiences “cherry picking.” I’m sharing my stories of sexual and gender-based harassment, which are deeply personal and reflect my lived reality. Using that term minimizes the seriousness of these experiences. Even if you didn’t mean it that way, it’s a loaded phrase—so let’s leave it behind.
                2. Respect someone’s boundaries when it comes to DMs. Messaging me directly after I’ve logged off or expressed discomfort felt invasive. Going forward, please keep the conversation to where it started unless I explicitly invite a DM.
                3. Avoid labeling someone as “lacking in empathy” because they’re uncomfortable engaging. It’s fine to feel hurt or frustrated, but projecting that onto me was unfair and added to my discomfort.

                I’m doing my best to approach this with a blank slate and give you the benefit of the doubt. I don’t hold any ill will toward you, but I need these boundaries respected for us to move forward. If they’re crossed again, I’ll have to block and report. I hope it doesn’t come to that.

                  • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
                    31·
                    3 months ago

                    Hi, new person in this conversation. I hope you don’t mind if I drop my two cents here.

                    Cherry Picking is the practice of choosing evidence that supports your argument while ignoring evidence against it. It is also almost always intentional, or a result of ignorance, and the term carries negative connotations. Cherry picking is an accusation of bad faith arguing, and people will interpret it that way regardless of your intent.

                    For ones own experiences, which are inherently anecdotal, the ancedotal fallacy might be more applicable. But it’s only a fallacy if that narrow view is used to make a broad claim. I don’t think pointing out the existence of a certain kind of conversation is very broad, and in the context of this thread just a few instances can have a large effect.

                    I would even go so far as to argue that you are commiting an argument from ancedote when you dismiss the claim that harrassment exists with only your ancedotal evidence of not having seen it yourself. They brought sources, and you dismissed their experience as not good enough with no supporting evidence. If you really want to dismiss the notion that their evidence is significant, you could try seeing how many people interacted with those posts compared to average interactions for those communities, or checking how often you visit those communities to put your own experiences in context. Anything but dismissing them and refusing to engage with the intent of the message.

                    It’s true that everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias and dozens of other faults of logic, and it’s also true that recognizing those faults is important for improving, but being so aggressive in the specifics of data validation can be alienating and will likely miss the intended message.

                    Just my two cents, dismiss as you please. I do hope this ends up being useful to someone though.