you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Debaser 46 insightful - 1 fun46 insightful - 0 fun47 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

After the recent banwave there was the predictable flood of validation posts and I made my way over here to pick up on my favourite banned subs. AL seemed to calm down a bit and over the past week or so, Ive definitely noticed a lot more people speaking out against the usual trans-centred lesbian-erasing content.

It was encouraging to see, especially since the comments remained - even the ones calling out and challenging the self centred blinkered trans views.

Ive definitely noticed a shift over there. Maybe before we mostly scrolled past and sighed, exhausted at trying to debate with the delusional.

It's only a matter of time before they start banning people since we all know there's no such thing as free speech on reddit anymore.

[–]Chipit 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

It's only a matter of time before they start banning people since we all know there's no such thing as free speech on reddit anymore.

I'm confused; don't feminists also not believe in free speech? Don't feminists of all stripes pretty much ban anyone who disagrees with them?

I'm certain that Mackinnon and Dworkin wrote that censorship was required to protect women's speech, and an informed authority was required to intervene and correct for a social power imbalance. Which only leaves the question of who gets to select the authentic representatives of the marginalized and decide what must be censored in their interests?

[–]DogeWalker 24 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 0 fun25 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm certain that Mackinnon and Dworkin wrote that censorship was required to protect women's speech

Can you point me to the passages or texts where they said this? I would like to learn more.

[–]Jamiethiel2018 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is the argument that porn is a form of free speech. We actually don't have absolute free speech, as one is still not entitled to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. We have to be careful of definitions, but I suspect if the intent is to cause bodily harm, it isn't, and never has been protected speech. Three guesses what "Speech" Dworkin was against ?

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

Spot on. I almost made a follow up comment asking if being anti-porn is what they meant. It certainly takes a galaxy brain to think being against porn is directly equivalent to being anti- freedom of speech.