you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]radfemanon 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I locked your thread because I answered your question and you said 'thanks'. There was nothing more to add to it.

You even privately messaged the mods asking what we were removing and we told you. We have updated our side bar to be in keeping with the rules of the site.

We are working hard to moderate the new GC space as this has all been very quick and to ensure that the on topic content is left on and off topic content is moderated.

You are entitled to be upset at your perceived censorship, but we are not mass editing, banning or censoring anything as of yet. If you are concerned you can check our moderation activity on the log.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I know you're new here and just getting set up, but that's why I wanted to get these things addressed early on; it's the right time.

You even privately messaged the mods asking what we were removing and we told you. We have updated our side bar to be in keeping with the rules of the site.

I checked my DM log and I don't have any DM history with the GC mods. Are you thinking of a different user?

Locking threads does not seem to be a standard practice in general on the sub, and I do still feel it's a bit troubling that someone would find the need to lock that thread in particular. The purpose of locking a thread is to stop women who want to from continuing that discussion.

You are already engaging in ideology-based censorship in a way I believe is not transparent, just as it was not on GC. This is dogma-based censorship that has nothing to do with being pro-female or anti-abuse, but with enforcing LGB dogma.

It's not "perceived censorship," it's just normal censorship. Same exact kind GC just experienced in getting kicked off reddit, same kind Meghan Murphy experienced earlier getting kicked off twitter. (This is the same language my abusive family used towards me when I tried to call what they were doing "abuse" -- "I'm sorry you feel abused". "No I'm not willing to call it 'abuse', maybe 'mistreatment' but not 'abuse'." It's not "all in my head".)

What has bothered me about GC:

  1. you claimed to be speaking for the general benefit of women, yet you did not allow all women to weigh in on what that means

  2. you allowed anti-Whiteness but remove anti- content for other groups of women.

  3. the group has not been honest that it is enforcing a dogma. (the exception being its position on abortion). It has instead presented its position as "just true based on science/reality" or "not hateful". But this is not the case.

The existence of "sexual orientation" is even disagreed with by large swaths of women involved in radical feminism because they believe women can (and should) choose to avoid interest in men. Same for censorship of positions regarding various ethnic groups. Non-hateful content is removed, but the rules imply that only hateful, evil, disproven content is removed ("racism, anti-semitism, bigotry"). It is not about protecting all groups of women, because open hate of some groups of women is not removed. It is not about protecting all vulnerable women, because open hate of some vulnerable women is allowed. It is not about removing all hate, because content that would be considered hateful towards other groups is allowed when directed towards men (c.f. "name the problem").

It shouldn't be possible for a woman to go onto GC and think "oh they allow open discussion here, it's so nice" or to think "oh they only remove hateful content." She should know right away that many viewpoints are being censored for dogmatic reasons, and she should know which viewpoints are being censored for dogmatic reasons. This allows her to recognize when an apparent consensus is the result of a dogma-based moderation policy, and is not a genuine organic consensus.

I know the old GC sidebar said stuff like "here are some resources to learn more about radical feminism," and yes Dworkin and Mary Daly and all that stuff is interesting, as is "pronouns are rohypnol" and all that stuff, but it leaves women without a clear understanding of what positions are being dogmatically enforced, and who counts as a "real radical feminist" for the purposes of sub moderation.

To avoid gaslighting women into perceiving a false consensus, more clarity is needed about what positions are being dogmatically enforced. And it needs to not euphemistically stated as "removing bigotry," or "not radical feminist." The actual positions that are censored need to be clearly stated (as it was clearly stated that certain positions regarding abortion are censored).

That's my opinion anyway. If this is done right, every women there will know exactly what dogma is being enforced in the space and can participate in a fully informed way.

[–]radfemanon 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Also, with locking threads - I locked yours as you asked a direct question and were given a direct answer. I'm not sure what else could be added by other users, hence why I locked it.

If discourse has finished, I lock threads. If that isn't the etiquette here then our sub is going to get very clogged up, very quickly. It was an expedient method to keep the sub organized, not to censor.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

But wouldn't it have also been well-organized if someone still had questions about what was being removed, and came to ask a follow-up?

[–]radfemanon 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If someone has questions about their circumstance then they can message us. We don't need to have an open thread for people to chime in. We respond to mod mail.

I have given my rationale for why I locked the thread. You don't have to agree with it, and you are entitled to feel however you want to feel about it, but it wasn't for censorship, it was literally moderation to keep the sub on topic and tidy as the query had been answered and completed.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes, that's understandable, and I know this is common policy on many subs. It does still leave me with a bit of an uneasy feeling, which I hope is understandable.

I would be very happy to have things turn out that censorship within the GC and radfem communities is transparent and a topic women can discuss and reach positive solutions for if it ever becomes an issue.

[–]radfemanon 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I understand and I wish I could do more to make both sides happy.

Unfortunately the only middle ground I can think of is a debate sub which I will be moderating assuming I make it first.

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

I'm not asking for a debate sub here. I'm asking for transparency regarding the censorship taking place in the GC sub for the benefit of any women who participate there.

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

I have already said this. I will spend some time putting together a FAQs which document basic concepts in radical feminism and outline the areas that won't be debated on the sub.