all 47 comments

[–]Maly_Querent 15 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

You know what makes me laugh? All these guys complaining about Gender Critical, while there are literal users posting rape apologist bs. Seriously, like, it seems to me that men will never stop trying to "put women in their place," whether through sex or through "the rules."

[–]The_Ded 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are trying so hard to turn Saidit into Reddit; however, Reddit got your little echo-chamber safespace banned. Don't you notice a contradiction here?

[–]rdh2121[S] 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Cool story bro.

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

Just because another user is acting like garbage does not mean you should too.

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

I don't act like garbage. I'm merely pointing out the garbage hypcrisy in the complaints of some users leveraged at others 🤷‍♀️

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

I meant other users in the gender critical community acting like garbage. It's basically just assuming people aren't hypocrites.

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

Doesn't Tumblr exist for feminist bullshit.

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

Tumblr is crap and only serves to promote some stupid pop culture ideal of feminism

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

Aww, life is so hard for western wamen. Because they are so stronk.

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

If there are subs where people are condoning rape and deleting posts in order create an echo chamber then they should indeed be held to the rules. They should remove themselves from /all and must state their policy in the sidebar. It'd be good idea to report subs that are clearly breaching that requirement.

[–]PencilPusher55 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am extremely in support of opposing opinions. Gender Critical is probably against 99% of what I believe in (going by the people talking about how the sub behaves) but I just don't know why you'd turn it into the same place you were banned from.

People hate reddit because it only supports one point of view. You'll most likely NEVER agree with other viewpoints, Gender Critical - but don't stoop to the level of reddit censorship. They're fags!

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

I don't know much about GC, but I absolutely agree. If we aren't willing to listen to one another, our growth will be stunted.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

IMO all subs except for private subs should show up on r/all. Even if the sub is really large and dominates it. Why do you think it should be changed?

[–]rdh2121[S] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

It's not "being changed". Saidit's rules specifically disallow it. I'm arguing that the rules already in place should hold for /s/all New as well.

They're not allowed because their censorship is antithetical to the anti-censorship community we're trying to build here. The trade-off is that you can have your echo chamber, but you're not allowed to advertise it on /s/all.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Saidit's rules specifically disallow it.

Your personal interpretation of saidit's rule disallow it.

The trade-off is that you can have your echo chamber, but you're not allowed to advertise it on /s/all.

Showing up in the s/all feed is not a saidit endorsement or advertisement. It's just a feed. In fact your encouraging saidit to pick and choose who shows up in a feed which is a form of censorship. You're the one being censorious.

[–]rdh2121[S] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Your personal interpretation of saidit's rule disallow it.

No... the admins disallow it, which is why GC isn't on /s/all.

In fact your encouraging saidit to pick and choose who shows up in a feed which is a form of censorship. You're the one being censorious.

All you gotta do to be on /s/all is not censor your sub. That's literally it. You're clearly on the wrong site here. I recommend Reddit for all your censorship needs.

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

They had a top post today or yesterday showing a tweet to a company saying how disgusting it is they advertise on reddit which promotes porn, and a header "this is how we get shit done" I'll support allowing them to be here, but let's not pretend we're on the same team. They're using a freedom of speech sanctuary to promote tactics to get reddit of all sites to censor, but simutaneously are complaining reddit censored them.

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

no see reddit censors but not specifically the content she wants censored, in fact she's the one being censored. How does she retaliate? Goes to a freedom of speech sanct and encourages censorship she herself approves of.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

It's on purpose, because Reddit does it like this too. It could be changed.

Also note that you can click 'mute sub' to not see it there in /s/all/new

[–]rdh2121[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Thanks for the response! I definitely think it should be changed, but I'm only one person, and you guys have a better idea of what you want from the platform than I do.

It does suck to be on New and see a ton of posts that I'd likely be banned for participating in - feels like it goes against what Saidit is going for, but again, y'all know that better than I do.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Yeah, it does. I think /u/magnora7 is into making this change, so there's a good chance that it can happen.

My only reservation is that it's killing a spot that reddit designated as uncensored. After the change, people will have next to no way to know that IP2 or GC even exists on the site.

[–]rdh2121[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

That makes sense. I guess the question is whether we want to promote subs that censor content on a platform designed to be anti-censorship.

Also, it seems like word about those subs can still spread by word-of-mouth, and also through other associated "front-facing" subs like a hypothetical /s/debateGenderCritical that would conform to platform guidelines.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

How is a sub showing up on r/all promotion?

[–]rdh2121[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Saidit is a free speech platform. To participate in /s/all, subs must allow free speech. Subs that advocate for censorship should not be allowed to promote themselves to the public here, as they're antithetical to the community we're trying to build. Allowing their censorship on the frontpage is tacit endorsement of their censorship.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

To participate in /s/all, subs must allow free speech.

Who said this?

Subs that advocate for censorship should not be allowed to promote themselves to the public here

Do you realize how many subs you could ban out of the feed by that logic? All subs that have a set of rules could technically be construed as banning free speech. You're doing the pilpul thing here.

Allowing their censorship on the frontpage is tacit endorsement of their censorship.

Being in a feed is not endorsement. It's only an endorsement if it's already a curated feed.

[–]rdh2121[S] 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Who said this?

...the admins did. It's in the rules for moderators. Rules 4a and 4b.

Do you realize how many subs you could ban out of the feed by that logic? All subs that have a set of rules could technically be construed as banning free speech.

Practically none, as long as they allow disagreement, which they almost universally do? You're clearly on the wrong site here. I recommend Reddit for all your censorship needs.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

rules for moderators. Rules 4a and 4b.

That's rules for moderating subs not rules for running the site.

Practically none

Practically at least one by your logic!

which they almost universally do

No they don't. That's literally the point of a sub to make an semi exclusionary group.

You're clearly on the wrong site here.

You're clearly attempting to find weak points in rules and exploit them for your schemes and games.

I recommend Reddit for all your censorship needs.

Reddit is run by people that create rules but insert their own bias into those rules. You're attempting to do that here.

[–]basedaf 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That's rules for moderating subs not rules for running the site.

yes?

Practically at least one by your logic!

yes about one

No they don't. That's literally the point of a sub to make an semi exclusionary group.

what do you think exclusionary means? Subs are made for people interested in a topic, if you ban wrongthink, then saidit penalizes you by not allowing you to advertise on r/all, as no one who dares think anything your mods don't approve of will be banned.

Reddit is run by people that create rules but insert their own bias into those rules. You're attempting to do that here.

That dude doesn't even work here. His bias is that people should either be allowed to disagree with your groups ideology, or you shouldn't show up on anyone's feed. Your thought process is seemingly your entitled to show up on r/all and post ads for your ideology, while being entitled to ban anyone who thinks wrong on your sub. The admins have completely unbiased rules that any ideology is allowed here, including pro censorship one's such as your own, they can appear on r/all, all you have to do is be open to debate. A bias would be promoting hate against women (or the rich, or police, whoever really) is wrong, but promoting hate against trans people is ok.

[–]quipu 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My only reservation is that it's killing a spot that reddit designated as uncensored. After the change, people will have next to no way to know that IP2 or GC even exists on the site.

I agree, this is a problem. How can people discover it otherwise? I don't think they should be made completely invisible. Maybe if there were a special page listing limited subs.

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

I think they would still show at https://saidit.net/subs . I need to verify that. Maybe that would be enough.

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

I agree with your concern, it would do a disservice to those groups and users if we lacked a natural way to discover them, especially if they feel they have to do such filtering to some degree to avoid being overwhelmed by angry dissidents or mainstream users who dont care to learn any nuance or background before commenting. I would personally lean towards leaving it be for a while to let more people form an opinion on it, see how bad the problem is, and explore alternative options.

Have you considered keeping 'all' as the one that shows absolutely everything and splitting off a separate feed, sort of like reddit's 'popular', that filters out such rulebreaking communities and would be more useful for fostering discussion on those communities that don't restrict it?

[–]FlippyKing 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

What is rule 4b? I see rule 4, prohibiting astroturfing and artificial amplification.

When I look at https://saidit.net/s/all/new/ I see posts from the books sub. That is at least two years old. Should that also not show up, or am I looking at this wrong?

[–]rdh2121[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Here are the rules in question.

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Excellent, thanks. I get it now. Maybe it comes down to an interpretation of "high on the pyramid of debate". I know the amount of trolling GC subs get, and none of that trolling is very high on the pyramid of debate. I can't speak for everything that got deleted, but I imagine that's the crux of the issue.

[–]rdh2121[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Absolutely, trolling is a problem on subs like GC, but moderators are allowed to remove comments low on the pyramid, and that's not a violation of Saidit's rules.

The problem is that GC also doesn't allow good faith disagreement or debate, which directly goes against the rules of Saidit, and therefore can't be allowed on the public /s/all page, and I think that should hold for New as well.

[–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I know what you mean. On the one hand I can see that there are few "good faith" arguments over what a man or woman is. Even if one tries to extend a kind of olive branch to the other side (the Gender accepting side I guess) where you could say there is the term "woman" as defined by biological sex and a term "woman" as defined by gender, they do not accept the gender one and would insist on using the biological sense one. That would eliminate a lot of things that seem to be in good faith but violate an agreed upon vocabulary. This kind of thing makes sense in many fields of study where the use of terms only makes sense when the definition is agreed upon. The beginning of Plato's dialogue The Sophists deals with this, where Socrates asks a "stranger" from Syracuse about the Sophists there. The stranger is more than happy to talk about them, but first he has to makes sure they are talking about the same people or school of thought. Otherwise his "sophists" and Socrates could be two completely different populations and schools of thought, and they would not really be making sense to each other even if they were in agreement. It's the same with GC, just what one means by "woman" and "man" has to be agreed upon or else the discussion is not in good faith.

As for other discussion about gender roles, I think it can be fair for them to be suspicious of anything that looks like an attempt to put them back in the kitchen. I'm glad I don't have to decide if anything along those lines violates rule 4b or not, just as I'm glad I don't have to deal with any ramifications if I were to decide that such a violation might not deem enforcement. The concern stated by the OP (which might be you, I don't really keep track of those things) is about the spirit of the rule and not the technicality of the rule. In the same way getting a ticket for going 36 in a 35 mph zone would be considered a dick move, I can't really fault women for being hyper vigilant. More than that, they were a fastly growing community in reddit and in the world, as women might finally be organizing or at least motivated in large numbers, against what is an obvious attack on their rights-- if no other right than the right of free speech and freedom of assembly. Removing their ability to assemble on reddit was a dick move, a panic move showing they know women are gaining ground. To knock them off "new" as they try to reorganize over a technicality at the time when they are trying to reorganize and undo the damage the banning did, seems to be a dick move hiding behind technocratic bureaucracy.

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

In the end, it's pretty sad that we've come to a point in society where one, we deny people the right to free speech, and two, we don't know wtf a woman is (because let's be real, most of this gender mumbo jumbo is aimed at women. I don't see it anywhere near the same extent towards men).

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

It's affecting women more for two reasons:

  1. MTF has long been more common than FTM. There's good reason to believe this is strongly influenced by biology.
  2. Women are higher than men in the progressive stack, rendering 'female' a more desirable identity in the oppressed/oppressor dichotomy of identity politics.

Ultimately this comes down to social constructionism and postmodernism. Gender is positioned as being socially constructed. The idea that gender can be decoupled from sex really kicked-off in the 1950s with Money, among others, leading the charge. Postmodernism applied social constructivist thought, adding the idea that all truth is subjective and personal. Chuck in some Marxism and critical theory and you have this nonsensical thinking that has long since unmoored itself from reality. There's a reason why Wikipedia articles on these ideologies/movements always reference feminism, as they were readily adopted by most feminist thinkers and feminist movements. Feminism was one of a few genetically linked ideologies that led us to where we are now. Not all feminists are intersectionality, although most of that camp were happy enough until transgender men climbed to the top of the progressive stack, at which point some feminists began hurling cats and blaming patriarchy for being dethroned. This idea that patriarchy, seen as a conservative mode of thought, would be interested in seeing men become women is laughable and readily rebutted by pointing to feminism's ideological lineage and role in fostering identity politics. All significant intersectionality theorists, at least so far as I can see, are drawn from feminist and/or Marxist schools of thought.

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

What type of feminism are you referring to here? Because when I see men (what I'm assuming you are) blaming feminism in any way, it's usually not the type of feminism they should be blaming. If you're talking about 3rd wave, liberal feminism, then I'd say I agree, to an extent.

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

Second wave onwards. Third wave didn't appear out of nowhere. All the elements required for intersectionality (e.g. postmodernism, social constructionism, and the oppressor/oppressed worldview derived from Marxist thought) were there in second wave feminism. In the context of second wave these were used to describe how women are perpetually oppressed by males through societal construction of gender and gender roles. If women truly can do everything then it follows that so can men, and some men became women.

Not all feminists subscribe to intersectionality, although it's quite noticeable that dissenters, previously content with the change, seem to have increased in numbers when the ideological view led to a small percentage of primarily white heterosexual men finding their way to the top of the progressive stack. It was at this point the implications became rather clear, with lesbians who refuse to have sex with transgender women becoming bigots and the male invasion of previously female-only spaces.

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

Everything you said in the first paragraph is 100% wrong lol.

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

We know what a man and a woman is, and we've known since we've been old enough to know which one has the who-ha and which has the other one. It's just "triggering" to the mental health of the mentally ill to say it plainly.

Women do bear the brunt of it, because they're mere existence is a threat that exposes the "toxic mimicry" that transwomen very often are (as opposed to being simply neuro-divergent, or victims of abuse, or mentally ill)

[–]filbs111 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This does seem to go against the described behaviour.

However, to a new user, "all" suggests that all subs will appear there. I like the idea of there being a default feed that's in the spirit of the site, in which all subs are open to debate by anyone (provided they aren't dicks about it, pyramid of debate etc). Perhaps a better label for this might be "free".