Ovarit is just as guilty of random censorship as reddit. What happened?

submitted by JustWhy from (self.GenderCritical)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]purrvana 13 insightful - 4 fun13 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Hey, I saw your post and upvoted it, and I upvoted your censorship comment too because I thought it was bullshit that your comment was deleted. It wasn't uncivil (or whatever their excuse was).

I've been censored on Ovarit before for the dumbest reason. There was a post asking "why would people be pro-life anyway?" so I shared some reasons why people are pro-life (I've watched a lot of youtube videos about both sides), and I had my comment deleted for "sharing conservative talking points." It was like - wtf?? - the post was literally asking for the conservative position, so I shared it. And when I brought this up, they said some of the medical information was "misinformation"... okay, it wasn't (the medical info could be found on .gov sites), but if they thought it was misinformation, why not reply with reasons debunking it instead of just censoring it completely?? That's called having a civilized conversation. But no, they went the censorship route.

Anyway, they're just as guilty of groupthink and censorship as other places. This is why I prefer saidit.

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

You most likely were answering an obviously rhetorical question and came across as justifying an anti-choice stance with a list of reasons a pro-choicer would already know (which is why they're pro-choice to begin with). Like ex-r/gc, ovarit has it written in their rules: "against this rule to promote misogynist policies or practices which are harmful to women. This includes the promotion of prostitution, pornography, paid surrogacy, BDSM, and restricting reproductive rights."

Both boards are to discuss rf topics, or discuss topics from an rf pov, NOT debate with ideologies (as surely your post is not the first nor last) it is against. Same reason why r/gc had a separate r/gcdebatesqt. To keep it focused, not be filled with threads/discussion constantly having to defend itself from bait debates/attacks ad nauseum, which is also a common trolling strategy malicious non-rf posters would use (not referring to you) to derail communities. Like how genderists infiltrate women's groups to derail its original focus and shift it to trans-pandering, which eventually dissolves the group. Surely you are aware how TRAs and MRAs are already violently salivating over strategies on how to eliminate the very young ovarit.

It's member/forum management, nothing malicious, which is what made r/gc better than most "feminist" subs. A good thing, imo.

Edit: When I tire of my new twitter account, I'll head over to ovarit.

[–]purrvana 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm 95% certain it wasn't rhetorical based on the context, but your reasoning makes sense.

I wonder if I'd get my comment removed for saying birth control can lead to a higher risk of a stroke - this is in line with what I shared about abortion (I said multiple abortions can lead to an increased risk of incompetent cervix which can lead to preterm miscarriage). I wonder if they'd treat the birth control information as "restricting reproductive rights" too. Hmm, maybe I'll keep that in my back pocket and bring it up over there one day.

Still, a woman's discussion board removing (well documented) medical info about women's procedures seems scummy.

[–]ShieldMaiden 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm sure it would be fine, I've seen it acknowledged on Ovarit more than once that bc pills have a tonne of horrible side-effects including making many women suicidal, and how the bc pill has had very few improvements since it came out (and other similar criticisms of the medical establishments treatment of women/neglect of studying female anatomy/studying the effect of drugs on female physiology and only focusing on male bodies as the "default human"). There's a lot to criticize about "the pill", plenty of feminists know it and are the ones leading the criticism.