There was recently an 'event' in the social part of Neocities, starting on someone's profile and then expanding to a bunch of folks stating on their profiles that they are a safe space for trans folks. I read the status updates with curiosity; even if some people had no idea what initially happened, they were still quick to declare that. It made Neocities a little brighter for a while, knowing that all these people are supportive of the LBGTQ+ community.

I followed this person and admired them for the community space they built here. I've been thinking about it, not just the details of what happened, but what they say about the kind of online spaces we create, tolerate, and protect. I wanted to reflect on how tolerance can unintentionally become a shield for harm, and why accountability is essential when we're talking about marginalized people's safety. Although this incident and article are in context of trans people, the general concept applies to many other marginalized groups as well.

My mom is a 'live and let live' kind of person and I've had many talks with her about it, but those were always in very personal, 1-1 contexts. This situation helped me understand the larger implictations when people present themselves as "neutral" while still allowing harmful views space to spread. I saw others reacting immediately, while I needed clarity before I made assumptions.

There was a lot to process with that: am I failing my community because I didn't react fast enough? Am I giving bigots more space to breathe than they deserve out of an attempt to "mediate?" I am my entire family's therapist and have been my whole life, so I do tend to wait to react, but this situation made me wonder if there are scenarios when I should be reacting faster. As someone who is newer to online queer spaces, I sometimes struggle to recgonize early red flags.

The trouble with "tolerance"

There's a version of tolerance that sounds nice on the surface. It says: "Everyone should be allowed to believe what they believe. Everyone should be able to get along. Let's not fight about differences."

But what happens when those "differences" include beliefs that deny someone's identity, humanity, or safety? "Live and let live" doesn't work when one side's worldview says the other side shouldn't exist.

When people use vague neutrality in response to harmful ideologies, it creates confusion. It can look like acceptance or indifference, whether that's their intention or not. Marginalized people who face this daily can't afford to treat that confusion as harmless.

Neutrality in the face of harm isn't neutral. It quietly takes the side of whoever holds the most power.

The person at the center of this 'drama' clung to the "can't we all just get along" mindset. When confronted with the reality that their tolerance of harmful beliefs is in itself harmful, they shifted blame onto the people raising the concern.

Accountability matters!

Deflection becomes a weapon in these scenarios. Instead of asking themselves: "Why did my actions make people feel unsafe?" they posted, "Why is everyone so angry at me for what someone else did/said?"

Instead of recognizing that platforming bigotry sends a message, they framed the people expressing fear/hurt as overreacting, unreasonable, and dramatic. In their worldview (and for people like this), it's always the fault of the person who is "too sensitive," or "making a big deal" or "reading into things," or "not letting people have different views." This is straight up cruelty.

This individual seems to seek to create a community for Neocities site-makers, a place where they can connect with and explore different sites and points of view. They allowed a TERF in their community, and people pushed back. "Thank you for your feedback" was followed up with a post about "why can't we all get along," which was then followed up with a post about "why is everyone angry at me for this? why do people want me to unlink them? I didn't do anything." (Of course all evidence of these exchanges are gone now.)

The person who passively allows harm walks away feeling virtuous and tolerant, while the people who spoke up are painted as the source of conflict, even though the conflicted existed because they allowed harm in that space to begin with.

People who cling to this false neutrality tend to see the tone of the reaction, not the content of the harm. As if the issue is someone caring too loudly about their own safety, rather than the person creating the unsafe condition in the first place.

This pattern is exhausting and cowardly. It protects the comfort of the tolerant person at the expense of others' safety.

Accountability isn't the same as punishment; it's not cancel culture or cruelty. At best, it's a form of care. It says:
I recognize my words have impact, even if my intent was different.
If I create a space for everyone, I'm responsible for what I amplify.
People can't feel safe where harmful ideologies are folded into the culture.
It's okay to admit a mistake, clarify, or take corrective action.

When people refuse to take accountability, the message becomes clear (intentional or not): This space is not for you. Your safety is not my priority.

Then people leave, and they're right to.

This is the general summary of what I commented, right before they deleted all the posts about it. Yes, I called them out for their lack of accountability, and their response was to remove everything.

Reflections on my reaction

When the incident happened, I waited. I wanted to be sure I wasn't misunderstanding. I wanted to hear it directly from the person involved. That's how I historically navigate conflict. In this case, the clarity eventually came, and once it did I spoke up and stepped away.

I don't regret giving someone a chance to explain, but I also understand why others didn't wait. And I have to be honest with myself: You don't get that explanation in every scenario, what then?

This experience taught me that accountability isn't a demand for perfection, it's a request for honesty, reflection, and care. And when someone refuses that, it's okay to protect yourself and your community by leaving. In the future I might be quicker to act alongside others who have more experience with this. They can see the patterns, they've been in these scenarios before. I have not ever been involved in 'drama' this way and also only joined these types of discussions a few years ago.

I am not ashamed of my reaction, but in the future I'd rather give a metered response. Take ALL info in, not just what the people involved say. If every other trans person is stepping away, they might see patterns I don't recognize yet, and their experience is valuable to honor.

What we build matters.

In smaller communities like Neocities, every link, endorsement, vague post, or non-post helps shape the culture. None of us exist in a vacuum. When we make spaces online, no matter what the size, we're responsible for the signals we send and the people we welcome in.

I want my stance on my space to be clear:

Those who call for "peace" while looking away from injustice are not peacekeepers. They're bystanders. Bystanders who resent folks calling attention to harm are not neutral, they're choosing comfort over the safety of the vulnerable.

If we want communities that truly support marginalized voices, then we have to be brave enough to make it unmistakably clear whose safety matters, and then act accordingly.