Flagstaff

Gotcha, and yes, another friend of mine uses iDrive for its insane deal!

That instantly makes me recollect CTRL Z, this 21-min comedic sci-fi short film.

backed up to 3 separate cloud services

Why so many?

"Supplement?" I would have said "replace."

Right, and even outside of transgender situations, those languages already have numerous word or phrase exceptions to their gendering patterns, which makes this only trickier!

I tried it and it's awesome! But there are two features that Discord has over Element when it comes to these voice calls; in Discord, you can choose to not watch the stream (which can help save data for those with limited data at the time); Matrix, or at least Element(? Help me out here) forces all voice call participants to stream the screen-share.

Additionally, Discord outlines avatars in green when they're saying something, which is a handy mic test feature, whereas Element(/Matrix?) gives no visual feedback.

I got confused by that at first because while things did get heated, Ada is not a mod of this community—which is on lemmy.world, not lemmy.blaha.zone. I had also responded the way I had without knowledge of the deleted content, because I hadn't actually been functioning here as a moderator until after this post; I had a cross-instance access issue prior for quite a while. I've still got a fair chunk of Fediverse operations and procedures to learn!

All I know for sure is that the mental health of both sides is crucial to try to uphold as much as possible, and more us-vs.-them-ing is pretty much the opposite of the way towards long-term, global peace. So it was my choice to have OP unbanned since there had been no warning issued directly by any local mod here, but we'll monitor and retake action if more daggers fly. Respectful(-enough) dialogue should always be allowed, though, and it's inevitable that things can get hairy when changing people's opinions. Maybe I'm too permissive, but I believe there was still potential for dialogue even at the height of conflict here.

The question is: do we (I mean generic "we" over any topic, not just this) actually want to try to influence someone toward a different view, or do we just lock them out and throw away the key and treat them as less-than-human, even if that's what they seem to have been doing themselves? Banning can easily feel like tremendously authoritarian silencing, as someone who has experienced unfair banning over misunderstandings elsewhere, so I don't do that lightly (unless the person is a scammer, a troll, or a repeat offender after having been warned—those 3 specific cases are my criteria, personally). Lots of large-forum experience over two decades went into developing this policy.

Edit: Oh, and correct, empathically connecting isn't an excuse for misbehavior but that was just a possible explanation.

I had intentionally deleted my own comment because I hadn't read all of the other comments here at the time, and I realized that you and others have already said what I might have said. No one should shrug off the victim's pain, but I see the other side as well, especially given @[email protected]'s insightful response most recently.

This is all sort of annoyingly merely due to the phenomenon of certain language structures like English; for example, Indonesian doesn't have a "s/he" difference; the closest pronoun, "dia," is merely universal for all singular organisms and is most closely equivalent to "that person/animal." Basically, it sucks that this problem even exists at all.

This was excellently well-worded and neutrally calm and cool, until part of your last paragraph that concerns me on here.

you were not the one abused, so why are you doing it?

I deduce that @[email protected] perhaps felt directly empathic about the incident, but now we may never know.*

obviously, we can't control your language.

Banning is language control, and even direct language control; please tell me how it is not. This (mindset overall) could lead to the path of thought police and authoritarianism over time, though I'm talking only in the scope of online forums, not national laws; if a person will not listen, just let them leave on their own instead of banning them. As a large-forum admin elsewhere myself, I would have issued a formal pre-ban warning instead regarding generally unacceptable misbehavior. That almost always suffices.

*Banning also eliminates our ability to uncover any possibly critical supporting details, and just overall reduces the person's likelihood of reflecting on and reconsidering, which defeats the purpose; do you actually seek reform and understanding, or just want to silence the opposition? I do not suggest banning unless a person is specifically trolling to get a rise out of someone. I don't think this person was trolling.

Off-topic: why is @[email protected]'s username struck-through on my end (using Summit)? Did this user get banned here, too, or something?

I'd rather just play other games as I don't feel good about doing that, partly because I don't want to deal with any malware risk due to confidential information on my personal PC.