UPDATE: The transphobe Ada has been defending says they misgender all trans women/NBs on Blahaj who are strangers - Blåhaj Lemmy
lemmy.blahaj.zone
Further information on the situation with the transphobia: Abigail has repeatedly misgendered me and defended her choice by saying she chooses to refer to all people of unknown gender as male. > Hey, Abigail here. I just want people to know the reason this person got banned is likely because of a deleted comment not included in that thread. OP called me ~~autistic ~~ mentally unwell for not liking politics. THAT kind of behavior is not acceptable on lemmy.blahaj.zone, so I reported the comment and let Ada handle it. Ada tried in good faith to reason with OP but it was clear they just wanted to fight. So yeah, they got banned. Ada’s a fantastic lady who’s been great at keeping the trolls at bay. > Edit: and the bit about me misgendering them is also wrong. Gender didn’t come into play until after I had left the conversation. English default on the internet is male for strangers. Source: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/2319669 [https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/2319669] WRT the statement that I accused them of autism for not liking politics, further info is available here: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/2319669 [https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/2319669] https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/2320815 [https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/2320815] https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/2321026 [https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/2321026]
  • OgdenTO [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    That’s not their graph that they’re showing, that’s the one produced by the Gates foundation that they are saying it’s wrong.

    • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.networkEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      That’s not what I was referring to. Extreme poverty is different to poverty.

      Dr Hickel does not seem to be disputing that the majority of people in history lived in poverty, only extreme poverty.

      • OgdenTO [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        I read it that they were disputing the measurement of poverty itself. Like, if you measure poverty by equivalent purchasing power, that does not take into account actual access to food through community and subsistence.

        Check this one out as well: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169

        While you’re right they still do talk about extreme poverty - I believe they define it much better here as the “inability to access essential goods.” Which I think is in line with how they are discussing this $1.90/day regular poverty today, actually.

        • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.networkEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          The way I see it, they’re suggesting that the living standards which pre-indstrial people generally enjoyed were factually better than what capitalist propaganda tends to suggest.

          Basic access to essential goods is the absolute floor of what a society needs to be able to provide for the majority of it’s members to survive.

          While I agree that pre-indstrial people did generally enjoy access to basic goods, their standard of living was still very poor, and far worse off than the majority of people even in the exploited global south enjoy today.

          • OgdenTO [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            I would wonder though, is $1.90/day enough to procure “essential goods” even in the exploited south? As I understand it, the bar for the definition of poverty has also been changed. Is someone making $1.90/day under capitalism better off than someone preindustrial? I would argue that they’re not better off. At least pre-capitalism people were able to fend for themselves and with a community (and afford housing, food, and comfort for living). But that’s the comparison that I think is being made.