all 16 comments

[–]Ofthewoods 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I am currently reading The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. Have you read it? If not I definitely recommend it. It’s really filling in a lot of the missing pieces of why the world economy is the way it is, why there were so many dictatorships in the second half of the 20th century, etc. I hope someday something similar is written about this previous decade.

[–]BrendaFricker 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not OP, but I think I need to read this. My own recommendation is This Is Not Propaganda by Peter Pomerantsev.

[–]Ofthewoods 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you! I will add that to my list.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I agree that internet censorship is a problem and is clearly going on, but I disagree with a lot of the other opinions here. It seems like many of these things are more opinion and sometimes political spin for existing narratives than "the way the world really is factually". Why no mention of the displacement of ethnic brits in the discussion of the brexit? I'm not a brit so I might be out of the loop but was brexit really just about economic issues?

I agree divide and conquer is used and works and we shouldn't fall for it along any spectrum. Infighting is not good. Focus on building and building positive relationships.

When i stumbled upon GC i became aware months later that what i really liked about it was the fact that it wasnt just irrational emotional opinions, it was intelligent people (mainly women obviously) that were looking deeper into the world we lived in. Not in a conspiratorial way either, but more of a "I want to live in a sane world where facts, truth and honesty are a baseline as to what i expect to be surrounded by"

There is a lot of real discussion on GC, but I would personally characterize it as rooted in a dogma rather than rooted in facts, truth, and honesty wherever they lead. And it seems to me the mods were very much participating in some of the general information suppression agendas, and suppress information that is contrary to dogma particular to radical feminism. For example I just cannot believe that humans are the only animal species to have no sexual behavioral dimorphism, that's almost as impossible a claim to me as "JY is a literal female". I do not think it's science-based.

There are censorship resistant technologies being explored, and I hope people will make more use of them, including technologies that do not rely on the internet... which afaik was itself designed for resilience to losing part of the communication network.

[–]Futon_Everlasting 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Who said (and where) humans are the only species with no sexual behavior dimorphism? Cos that's silly: males and females have obviously different reproductive roles to play, which includes behaviors (like breastfeeding). I was a regular reader (occasional commenter - different username than here) for nearly 6 years on r/GC and I would see things like this only very occasionally, and they'd be challenged.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

by behavioral sexual dimorphism I mean some of the things attributed to gender. it seemed like gc pretty consistently had the view that something called "biological essentialism" was bad. That we had to believe people behaved the way they did due to socialization only, that it wasn't innate, and that they could change. I didn't feel like I could bring up and discuss stuff about how this or that gendered behavior may arise from hormonal differences or genetic differences or whatever. Was/is that your impression too?

[–]Futon_Everlasting 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The problem is that essentialism was one of the tools used to exclude women from rightful access to education and career opportunities, among other things. It's also known as "lady brain". I'm not ready to completely discount the idea that some non-reproductive behaviors could be tied to sex, but being a scientist, you'd better damn well bring the evidence for me to not dismiss it out of hand. And I've read oodles of crappy science too. Most of the "evolutionary psychology" I've seen is just laughable motivated reasoning, and has less empirical support than the weirdest astrophysics.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

suppress information that is contrary to dogma particular to radical feminism. For example I just cannot believe that humans are the only animal species to have no sexual behavioral dimorphism, that's almost as impossible a claim to me as "JY is a literal female". I do not think it's science-based.

What I'm trying to say here, in regards to OP, is that it seems to me like there are some positions that are enforced here on the basis of dogma. And if the motivation is that challenging those ideas might lead to negative outcomes for women, then I can see why people might be motivated to be dogmatic about those ideas. But that's exactly why we have science! That's exactly the sort of reason heliocentrism met with such resistance, in a different time.

I'm not ready to completely discount the idea that some non-reproductive behaviors could be tied to sex

For me it seems like that's what's going on when I look around. The birds male and female have somewhat different behaviors, the lizards, the bees, maybe the spiders. It seems like humans would have to be very unusual for things like that not to exist in humans too.

I think also, from my observations, that often when people make claims about biological inferiority in this or that task, it's exaggerated and intended to demean or harm the "inferior" person. For example there are human subpopulations that are probably measurably biologically advantaged in certain ways at certain sports, but that doesn't mean humans from most populations can't do those sports well, or that they won't improve their performance through training or other interventions. There's also a ton of stuff we probably just don't understand, like that Wim Hof guy. Also behavior and social situation affects hormones and stuff. We just don't understand everything about how humans work at all. So when someone comes along and says "we shouldn't let X people do that because they have Y measurable comparative disadvantage," ... well, idk. I feel like I should consider it, but usually when you see it on the internet it seems like people are trying to feel superior when it's not warranted for them personally, or trying to discourage someone when it's inappropriate (again c.f. Wim Hof).

I haven't read many other people's scientific explorations of this topic in humans though. If looking into existing scientific exploration of this topic interests you, this comment about it that might be interesting.

[–]lestratege 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The absolute refusal of the possibility that some behaviors might be based on biology rather than socialization, and that sex is an innate biological characteristic was actually the dogma on GC.

It just doesn't make sense that humans would be the only mammal species to have their behaviors completely disconnected from their biology.

There can be debate on what is ascribed to socialization, and what is ascribed to biology. And it cannot be only male aggression....

[–]jkfinn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What you call "dogma" was more likely radical feminist theory, but I do think some liberal feminists ruled certain threads on GC, esp. those dealing with erotica, female biological superiority (might be viewed as extremist rather than liberal), reformist approaches (coddle the male victims) to transgender and pornography etc like simplistic attacks on Islam similar to those of Trump's (anyone widening the discussion got minus 40 downvotes).

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

liberal feminists ruled certain threads

What do you mean "ruled certain threads?"

What you call "dogma" was more likely radical feminist theory

Yeah I say "dogma" because it's stuff you had to believe to participate, more or less, that's kinda what defined the sub. If you had an idea that contradicted it, or information, or whatever, whether it was right or not -- you couldn't discuss it, because there was a set dogmatic answer. There was some room for discussion sure but it seems like the standard was set by "this is what we believe here," not "well this is my best understanding of what we know about this topic".

It could be theory without being dogmatic if it were allowed to be openly discussed and developed, maybe into new positions with new information.

[–]jkfinn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It could be theory without being dogmatic if it were allowed to be openly discussed and developed, maybe into new positions with new information.

Yes, I certainly agree with this in principle. But I felt that most radical points were permitted to be made---and most liberal ones also on GC. For me, the censorship didn’t come from the mods, but from the down-voting (self-censorship). However there was more agreement there with my radical politics than disagreement, so I was learning to live with the latter, and had hopes that the former positions would someday vanish.

[–]uwushallnotpass 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I’ve been thinking about your post today, because I’ve just finished a great book called “Against the Machine” by Lee Spiegel, which analyses the corrosive mentality created by the internet. I agree with what you’ve said, but I wanted to add some things.

One of the very comforting delusions that many people in the west have is that fascism is something that is imposed from the top by a dictator or elite group. It isn’t. Fascism and other forms of totalitarianism are powerless unless there’s widespread buy-in from the population, which is generally achieved by people whipping up outrage and encouraging each other into vigilantism and boundary-crossing. Almost all fascist movements insist that people identify themselves by what they’re not - it’s called ‘self-identification by opposition’. If you’re not part of the self-righteous in-group, you deserve to be humiliated, excoriated, wiped from the face of the earth, in order to create a glorious new tomorrow in which all social problems have been punished out of existence. It’s a very seductive process, because it tells people that by banding together against the “bad guys” they can make a better world - rather than holding up a much less dramatic vision of a world in which the privacy and rights of each citizen are respected, regardless of who they are, and asking oneself how to get to that state, which would mean each person accepting very hard limits on the information they can have or share about others.

We live in a fully developed, fully equipped fascist system in which the internet is playing the role of the state. In pre-digital forms of fascism, a state was required in order to provide a surveillance system and an ideology, since these are the two main ingredients necessary for social control. Everyone always hyperfocuses on state or corporate surveillance, without realising that this is completely irrelevant – we have the surveillance infrastructure, in the form of pocket cameras that see everywhere and record everything, and we have an ideology, derived from reality TV and social media, in which it’s everyone’s job to surveil, police and punish everyone else all the time. Full global fascism took hold silently, invisibly, somewhere around 2015. The people who run this world appear to be completely aware of this, and have helped this process along by eroding norms of public behaviour until there are now virtually no limits.

Fascism = social control via mob rule. It really is that simple. The fasces symbol was a bundle of sticks around an axe, which was used to represent people banding together to get their own way by force. Mussolini himself was very clear that fascism is not at its core a political system, but is just a way of thinking about the world, a way of behaving – the exaltation of an idealised, powerful community rather than individual rights. This mentality has always lurked at all levels of all societies, but in the analogue age, it was kept in check by laws on personal rights and the fragmentation of information about people, which worked to preserve privacy. What I’m trying to say is that although you’re right that there’s a push from the top to control the internet and manipulate people, there’s also a massive groundswell from the bottom.

In a world where 80% of people will murder a stranger if they think a TV audience is egging them on to do it, we went ahead and created a giant infrastructure that allows everyone on the planet to spy on, surveil, harass and police everyone else, decided we didn’t need laws on personal privacy or decency because it was all so much fun, and now we’re all shocked and amazed to discover that we’re living in totalitarianism.

[–]BraveAndStunningTERF[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I really enjoyed reading this response, you have given me further food for thought!

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I keep thinking to myself how bizarre it is I can identify with the Trump fans who were ousted from Reddit: on the other hand, I place a ton of the blame on my government (US). Our politicians have handed so much power and so many tax loopholes to social media and tech companies (many of which originated in the US) that they’ve become kingdoms unto themselves. Now with tech companies overrun by psychopathic misogynists obsessed with profit, much of which involves graphic violent internet porn and exploitation of women and children, things are going to get worse before they ever get better.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree, I think that noticing the broader context in which the current censorship is taking place is important. This isn't just a war against women, this is a war against anyone who has an opinion that goes against the government mandated "official" narrative. The government has a long history of co-opting, infiltrating and diverting civil rights movements in order to make them work for their own agenda rather than actual rights for workers and minorities. Same goes for feminism. Feminism began as a movement for actual women's liberation, and now it is just an extension of men's rights and power.