Mod of [email protected] canceled post that defended from a finger-wagging thread-crapper opposed to historic accuracy w.r.t Bradley Manning
For the record, @[email protected] entered my thread to [spout](https://sopuli.xyz/post/44320189/23062332) some finger-wagging threadcrap:
> “Could we at least not use her deadname? I get that the article is old, but please don’t.”
I actually agree with using the proper new names of people *in the present* to address them *in the present*. But it’s stupid and disrespectful to drag someone’s new name through the history of their old identity. I believe my response to the threadcrap was quite civil. This is what @[email protected] surreptitiously censored:
> “We are talking about Manning’s history. It is proper to use the name of the time of the events. People don’t create new identities for the hell of it. New identities are generally created for a new life going forward, to be disconnected from a past life.
>
> Europe recognises the right to be forgotten which is enshrined in GDPR art.17. Guatamala respects people’s wishes to establish a new identity to the extent of allowing name changes with no public record in a closed-door session with a judge.
>
> Tying someone’s new name to their prior history is disrespectful. Some may want their legacy to follow them despite a name change and we might guess Manning is proud of their accomplishment, but it’s not for you to decide what people with new identities carry forward from their past.
>
> Please respect people’s privacy. I know Manning’s privacy is toast anyway, but it’s still off to be part of the intrusion and then to ask others to also drag new identities through their prior history.
>
> You also advocate historic inaccuracy. Exxon (a dead name) discovered climate change. Not ExxonMobil. You cause confusion by insisting on refencing new identities in past events. If you say ExxonMobil discovered climate change in the 1960s, you falsely imply that ExxonMobil existed at that time. But in fact the merger (and thus new identity) came after that.
The modlog vaguely states “breaks rules” without citing a specific rule. This was coupled with the cowardess of not DMing me about the action.
The power abuse occurs alongside the decision to allow the rule-breaking threadcrap I defended from to persist. The mod doubles down on their oppression this way. The privacy-disrespecting finger-wag carries on in a community that inherently values privacy.
> “Could we at least not use her deadname? I get that the article is old, but please don’t.”
I actually agree with using the proper new names of people *in the present* to address them *in the present*. But it’s stupid and disrespectful to drag someone’s new name through the history of their old identity. I believe my response to the threadcrap was quite civil. This is what @[email protected] surreptitiously censored:
> “We are talking about Manning’s history. It is proper to use the name of the time of the events. People don’t create new identities for the hell of it. New identities are generally created for a new life going forward, to be disconnected from a past life.
>
> Europe recognises the right to be forgotten which is enshrined in GDPR art.17. Guatamala respects people’s wishes to establish a new identity to the extent of allowing name changes with no public record in a closed-door session with a judge.
>
> Tying someone’s new name to their prior history is disrespectful. Some may want their legacy to follow them despite a name change and we might guess Manning is proud of their accomplishment, but it’s not for you to decide what people with new identities carry forward from their past.
>
> Please respect people’s privacy. I know Manning’s privacy is toast anyway, but it’s still off to be part of the intrusion and then to ask others to also drag new identities through their prior history.
>
> You also advocate historic inaccuracy. Exxon (a dead name) discovered climate change. Not ExxonMobil. You cause confusion by insisting on refencing new identities in past events. If you say ExxonMobil discovered climate change in the 1960s, you falsely imply that ExxonMobil existed at that time. But in fact the merger (and thus new identity) came after that.
The modlog vaguely states “breaks rules” without citing a specific rule. This was coupled with the cowardess of not DMing me about the action.
The power abuse occurs alongside the decision to allow the rule-breaking threadcrap I defended from to persist. The mod doubles down on their oppression this way. The privacy-disrespecting finger-wag carries on in a community that inherently values privacy.