Disputing a warning
Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:02 am
Good day.
I have been recently issued a warning for "trolling". In my opinion, the message I have been warned for does not violate any rules. If anything, my other message is a much better reason for a warning, even though it is meant as a joke.
As far as I am aware, it is not prohibited to voice an opinion on NationStates, which in this case is not even an opinion, it's a factual message aimed at bringing to light scientific facts as opposed to a subjective opinion. According to DSM-5, "gender dysphoria" is a mental illness, and I feel that the WA resolution at vote is misleading in that regard. Surely I can point it out? If someone is unhappy about reality, do I need to be extra careful not to offend them?
My intention was to voice my "opinion" while giving an example as to why it is ridiculous to expect the government/citizens to pay for one's subjective view of the world. Perhaps, a better example would be panic/paranoia attacks. Someone might be experiencing them, but does the population really need to pay for keeping the people who have them "cool"? Sure, the issue is controversial, but how can a proper agreement be reached if one of the sides of the argument is silenced or ridiculed for "trolling"?
This or the other way around, it was not my intention to offend anyone. I just think that the whole issue is portrayed in too positive a way, and people need to be aware of the facts, whether they like them or not. Blindly accepting propositions based on some twisted sense of "morality" and support for "fringe" groups is not very helpful to anyone, and the whole WA proposal reeks of virtue-signalling. Some of the time, changes like that are not even helpful to the communities they target, because they are proposed by people who have no idea of what's going on. I have a number of gay and transgender friends IRL, and the vast majority of them were not happy when same-sex marriage was allowed where I live, for example.
I have been recently issued a warning for "trolling". In my opinion, the message I have been warned for does not violate any rules. If anything, my other message is a much better reason for a warning, even though it is meant as a joke.
As far as I am aware, it is not prohibited to voice an opinion on NationStates, which in this case is not even an opinion, it's a factual message aimed at bringing to light scientific facts as opposed to a subjective opinion. According to DSM-5, "gender dysphoria" is a mental illness, and I feel that the WA resolution at vote is misleading in that regard. Surely I can point it out? If someone is unhappy about reality, do I need to be extra careful not to offend them?
My intention was to voice my "opinion" while giving an example as to why it is ridiculous to expect the government/citizens to pay for one's subjective view of the world. Perhaps, a better example would be panic/paranoia attacks. Someone might be experiencing them, but does the population really need to pay for keeping the people who have them "cool"? Sure, the issue is controversial, but how can a proper agreement be reached if one of the sides of the argument is silenced or ridiculed for "trolling"?
This or the other way around, it was not my intention to offend anyone. I just think that the whole issue is portrayed in too positive a way, and people need to be aware of the facts, whether they like them or not. Blindly accepting propositions based on some twisted sense of "morality" and support for "fringe" groups is not very helpful to anyone, and the whole WA proposal reeks of virtue-signalling. Some of the time, changes like that are not even helpful to the communities they target, because they are proposed by people who have no idea of what's going on. I have a number of gay and transgender friends IRL, and the vast majority of them were not happy when same-sex marriage was allowed where I live, for example.