all 31 comments

[–]Tovasshi 12 insightful - 6 fun12 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

Just admit you hate women and move on.

[–]SaidOverRed[S] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

"Just accept my insult, you stranger!" Classic well-thought out leftism. No wonder they make for poor judges.

[–]Chipit 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

This is one of feminism's biggest problems: the refusal to admit the good faith of opposing arguments. Anything contrary is immoral and thus must be motivated by the worst emotions.

Ironically this led to the reddit bans as others learned this method from feminists and used it against them. It was wonderful.

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

Yes that is a constant theme between 1st wave feminism all the way to the current 4th wave. On second thought, that's probably why they banned me. I pointed out the obvious connections between 3rd and 4th wave feminism.

I'm not one of them (my OS isn't leftism), but I can see why that would make them angry. The whole reason they are here is because they refused to 'update' to the latest patch of leftism. Software maintainers get angry when they are reminded that their software is legacy, even when everyone already knows it.

[–]missdaisycan 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

1 GC didn't flee from r/, it was banned.

  1. There are other gender critical subsaidits where your posts may be welcome.

  2. So even though you write detailed posts yourself, you'd like shortcuts, so you wouldn't have to read the entire sidebar. Umm...

[–]SaidOverRed[S] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I am aware. I would call setting back on the same communities after a ban a 'flight', but I suppose there is some hair to be split somewhere in there that doesn't make it sound like "evasion". I made a small edit to appease you.

Shortcuts are good, yes. That's the reason we don't all define every single word we use as we use them. When you say "the entire sidebar," you should have said 'that one little part we nearly hid.' Are you one of those people who blamed the subprime mortgage crisis on borrowers who didn't read the fine print?

[–]missdaisycan 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Lol, yes, actually, I believe people are responsible to be aware of what legal obligations they're signing.

Doesn't mean that crisis was caused by them solely, however.

[–]HighQueenofFemmes 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Based on the comments you posted on the s/Lesbian board, I really doubt that you are interested in genuine debate. When, as a straight male, you go onto a board specifically designed for lesbian camaraderie and lesbian-specific issues and start posting about how morally superior heterosexuals are, you are clearly only interested in stirring up shit. How exactly is someone in the Gender Critical sub supposed to debate comments like: "But didn't you know? It's moral to be gay now. And since I'm attracted to women, but my ultra-feminist teacher says straight males are #SourceOfAllEvil so that means.."? Yes, we fucking get it. You think we're all a bunch of immoral degenerates. What exactly do you wish to debate?

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

First of all, I find the stalking creepy. Drop the ad-hominems. It's a bad look.

Second of all:,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog . I post in different manners depending on where I am at. My only real consistency are things such as: honesty, intelligence, empathy, counterfactualism, morality, etc, etc. Woof.

Thirdly: your dishonest attempts to summarize my words are nails on a chalk board. Not only have I done no such thing, it's actually pretty actually very ironic, if you had more information (which you have proven yourself very unworthy of).

Fourthly: I'm a bit surprised you had the gall to give an (out of context quote). Allow me to educate you: there is something in language called 'mood.' It allows story telling from positions other than the speaker. The point of the story was that gay men often have other ... how do I put this politely ... affinities which are still illegal but are being pushed by Netflix, the NYT, etc. And in that story it explains how pressures from very advocacy groups has resulted in exactly the kind of male takeover of lesbian spaces that you abhor. This story was highly relevant to the point of view being mocked in the thread, and thus the issue at hand. I admit that I personally do find the position worthy of mockery. But it's connection with other ideas was highly relevant. If you actually think I, as an individual, have an ultra-feminist teacher, you're mistaken. I would not tolerate such behavior personally. However, many males (and females) today do not have that luxury or do not have the strength of character to clear those things from their lives, thus story does include those elements. Do you not follow, or is it too pedantic? No one likes an explained joke, just like no one likes and explained meme, or a story that could be described in a few sentences via linguistic mood rather than fifteen paragraphs without it. You say "we fucking get it," but you don't. Debates are about attack, which does not interest me. It's about open, simply communication ... commenting, if you will.

[–]HighQueenofFemmes 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I don't need to stalk you. I have already interacted with you and seen your posts all over the Lesbian board. I really don't give a shit about the context of your remark either. I have already seen the snide "this is what you get for being a homo" tone of all your posts on our board, so I can already imagine how you come across on others. And considering the fact that "gender critical" falls into a feminist subcategory (what the far left would categorize as "TERFS": an acronym with "radical feminist" in the name) it's no wonder they might have little tolerance for your thinly veiled attacks against feminism as a whole. That isn't the specified purpose of the sub, just as the it isn't the specified purpose of s/Lesbians to debate the "morality" of homosexuality. If you violate the purpose of a given sub with a disingenuous attempt to "debate" (which for you, often takes the form of snide assertions of moral or political superiority) don't be surprised when you get banned.

Clearly you are proud to be of such a high moral character that you have overcome your desire for hairy, male bodies and stiff cocks enough to pursue heterosexuality and traditional gender norms. Truely sir, you are a paragon of virtue. You must forgive the rest of us for failing short of the mark.

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

If you'd like stick to your guns when you say "I really don't give a shit about the context of your remark either" then you've lost the argument and are not conversing in bad faith. I don't read material presented in bad faith, especially when presented either poorly or in hostility, so I won't bother with the rest of that. I live by Hanlon's razor, even if I'm not given the same benefit of the doubt.

I'll let you try again, if you'd like to reverse that position on where a person's coming from, but to be honest any keyboard vomit other than that and I'm just going to block you. If you wanted to show that you can get me to 'ease up' on 'let's not be reddit' idea, you can take that as a win, if it makes you feel better. I don't normally block people on message boards, in fact I don't have a single person blocked on reddit and I subbed to pretty much every non-porn quarantined sub I could find. Maybe all the awful people I've found over there still kind of ... care? I'm not sure what that says about you, but you deserve to know. I consider that action a last resort, but it's awfully hard to have a discussion with someone who basically doesn't believe in the pyramid of debate and then combines that with other red-level name-calling. There's only so much eye-rolling I can take. Maybe if your insults have ever had any truth in them, I could have gained some introspection from listening to them.

[–]zyxzevn 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

One problem is that most Gender issues come from severe Psychiatric problems and severe Social problems.

But due to the degradation of science by the left, these problems have been converted to traits.

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

I have heard this. It seems to be mildly common red pill wisdom. I do see areas where this is definitely true. But I have a beef that probably prevents me from making having a larger objective opinion on it. So I leave it be for now.

I'm not sure why that's relevant, other than to point out why someone as innocuous as me got banned from there. Perhaps it was because I told them I was also banned from /r/MGTOW. I'm not sure. They did find that rather funny. The irony abounds. At least saidit has the moderation log public so I could figure out what I did "wrong." Apparently it was to simply disagree with 'we are x' and 'we will later make a debate sub' and just assume I would think this means NO DISSENT ALLOWED or whatever. I view this as a reddit toxicity hold-over.

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

The secret to understanding is that they are not in favor of free speech. They are only in favor of their own speech.

Once you understand this, it all falls into place. They reject Enlightenment thinking that tells us we arrive at truth through argument and debate. Since their political ideology is synonymous with morality, to disagree with them is to be immoral.

Yes, they really think this way.

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

That does make sense. That's why having a warning banner and /ec/ instead of a /s/ is necessary to make sure everyone knows that although similar subs are not for free speech, they are just nestled in a larger free speech community.

A simple 'there be dragons' seems reasonable to me; it doesn't stop them from doing what they are doing. It might even ease their moderation burden. I wouldn't know, but must be tiring to ban everyone you disagree with.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)


    [–]southpaw 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    I do see what you are saying about an echo chamber vs a sub that engages in actual debate. When you are not in an echo chamber, it allows for discussion and a free flow of ideas. It also allows your opinion to be challenged and force you to see issues from another angle. However, there are also some subs that exist to allow for the camaraderie of a shared experience. As you pointed out on Reddit, r/actuallesbians was taken over by a lot of transwomen/supporters and banned anyone who didn’t agree with their belief that lesbians should fully embrace trans women as actual women. The mods over there strongly discouraged discussions about periods and other women’s issues, and would ban people who said they didn’t want to have sex with someone who still had a penis attached to them. The “refugees” from that sub made a new sub which was lost in The Great Ban Wave. Understandably, that sub on Saidit, doesn’t want to repeat history, so they made a rule that you have to be a female-born lesbian to participate in that sub. While that might sound like an echo chamber, there is still debate amongst the participants in that sub over issues that affect them. For instance, some users on that sub may support trans women 100% but disagree with TRAs violent bullying, while others may support a transperson’s right to transition but not their acceptance in women’s sports/prisons/shelters, whereas there are others who do not accept transwomen at all. From the outside, it may just look like they all just hate transwomen, but the topic is more nuanced than that because of their history and lived experiences as lesbians. Lesbians make up less than 2% of the population, and it is easy for their voices to get drowned out, especially in this current political climate. Also, since they are such a small group, it is nice to meet other women who may have a similar experiences as you, especially if you don’t know any other lesbians.

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

    Such a well written and reasonable description, and explanation, of restricted subs! Too bad men, such as the adamant ones on this post, still won't get it, or even care. Sigh.

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


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

    Sigh. I'm really not complaining about having restrictive subs. You want /r/blackpeople to be for black people? Go for it. You want your white nationalist playgrounds? Go for it. This is about being able to discern what is a normal place (where you can politely speak your mind) and what is not (where you get banned for wrongthink).

    But maybe you still can't understand, so let me bring in Sargon of Akkad for a moment. What you just said is clears throat: "Too bad niggers ... still won't get it." See how that sounds? Do you get why having a simple warning banner might a good idea now?

    [–]HighQueenofFemmes 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

    where you can politely speak your mind

    It seems to be the "politely" bit that you struggle with. Also, the sidebar rules should give you enough information as to what is permitted in any given sub.

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

    You mean, like the top comment here? Because if that's the bar that got set, then I'm doing far better than that. You're leaning awfully hard on that "should" about sidebars. Compare to my "convoluted" mention in the OP. A warning would be nice so people can use more than one sub at a time, rapidly, back and forth, without having to wonder about what self-censorship to apply. I've got one universal setting and it's been good enough for everywhere except GC and /r/MGTOW. Although, come to think of it, they are two sides of the same coin.

    Maybe reddit just has nicer users. I'm not sure. Here's the end of a nice DM chain I just got about philosophy from redpillwives. I won't paste the name of the user, but I think the anonymous text is suitable to share: "I see, and yes I agree. With the polarity comes also interdependence and that's why it would not be accepted in TRP. They need to drill in the independent man, "you don't need women", idea.

    But it's the same with feminism, exactly the same, but from a position of not accepting there is any polarity. TRP accepts the polarity, the difference between men and women, but develops its ideas pragmatically and stoically, I'd say, withdrawing rather than being in your face hysterical."

    Those are her words not mine. Ironically I was telling this user to come to saidit because the mods aren't as crazy. But if it's common for innocent users to get banned for wrong-think in subs without clear warning labels, I might have to take that back. Reddit has freakin' quarantine pages!

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

    Sir, you write with the clarity of Judith Butler. I honestly can't understand what you're trying to say half the time. I will just say this: some of us moved over here from reddit so we could reestablish our banned communities while retaining the same rules and guidelines we already had in place. While we understand that we must share this site with white supremacists, anti-Semites, and vocal misogynists, we are willing to respect your right to your spaces as long you respect our right to ours. The women on the Lesbian sub have no wish to debate the ethics of homosexuality and gay marriage or converse with men in general. Just as the men on the MGTOW or Red Pill subs probably don't wish to deal with women spamming their subs with feminist rhetoric. It just isn't what they're there for. They are there to speak with like-minded individuals about whatever their interests, thoughts, and frustrations. The GC sub which, from what I understand, is steeped in feminist rhetoric, probably takes the same approach. There are plenty of subs that invite and encourage debate, and if not, feel free to start one. Feel free to invite your red pill MGTOW friends here as well. Just tell them to the read the rules before posting in a sub (as I'm sure they are already accustomed to on Reddit).

    And feel free to block me. The loss of your cherished company will be keenly felt, but time heals all wounds.

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

    Uh, I already know all of that wall of text.

    I challenge the relevance, though, because you said 'that sub' but then continue to talk about what I assume is /s/ lesbians. But I never mentioned that subseddit. I only mentioned /s/ GenderCritical. I suppose if you want to address my examples, you may refrain a reply of the above in the context of /s/ GenderCritical. I'd like that.

    I am purposely not linking heavily to these examples, because they are just that: examples. This is a much larger, site-wide issue just some small problem on a handful of subs. If I am to actually use this site, I have to know where I can speak openly and where I shouldn't bother posting since the wrong-think will just get me banned.

    Sanity check: yup I mentioned "An example of this on reddit is" and "An example of this behavior on saidit".

    [–]southpaw 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    I don’t know what you want. I don’t go on s/GenderCritical and you posted this on s/Saidit where everyone can see it. If you want to know specifically about GenderCritcal bans, ask them. I gave you an example of how “echo chambers” are formed, and since you seemed to know about r/ActualLesbians I used that situation. People gave you well thought out responses and you DID NOT use the Pyramid of Debate. Instead, you wrote a lot to try and sound smart and came off rather crass. If you want answers to questions and to encourage “Enlightenment Thinking” be respectful and use tact. If you are wondering why you get banned, maybe it is because you comment to people in a arrogant and ill-mannered way. And yes, you did come onto the s/lesbians board and post some nonsense.

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

    Then re-read the OP. I don't care about how echo chambers are formed, doubly since you didn't tell me any specifics I didn't already know (which I told you). This has to do with why they have no warnings and why they are mixed in with more normal subs.

    Alright since the orange-level adhominems ("try and sound smart", "crass") and yellow-level tone responses ("be respectful" "use tact" "ill-mannered") won't stop, whilst simultaneously insisting I'm not using the pyramid of debate, I'll take this slow on the off-chance you do not realize that you have one attempt at a purple-level refutation ('I like echo chambers for their comraderie') with an attempt at a teal-level counter-argument about a statistical niche for echo chambers. This attempted counter-argument was misplaced, because you were simply arguing for the same thing that I was, ie "I am fine with allowing echo chambers on saidit", which I tried to redirect you away from talking about simply "having restrictive subs" to "about being able to discern what is a normal place".

    If you'd like me to readdress the camaraderie part, I will be happy to do that. If anything, my suggestion about standardized 'keep out' warning signs or /ec/ instead of /s/ should only reinforce what I'm saying: separate places for camaraderie that statistically low-number groups might want to be sure of. But gaslighting me about not having a central point or refuting others is not okay. I am pretty good about staying on topic, but I will not apologize for seeing connections to said topics others may not.

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

    The idea that you can convince anyone who disagrees with you with reasonable arguments on the internet is pretty far fetched. Not saying that there aren't some individuals who can do it, but most people on the internet who claim to be able and willing to do it, are not in fact able, and some are not even willing, to do it.

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

    Oof, that might be true. I had heard that before but was unwilling to test. I have been doing that for a while now and don't have any good counter-examples for you. It's a good thing I'm not going full Steven Crowder with a banner or anything. I'm just looking for casual conversation that goes a bit deeper. I just was hoping saidit would have that thanks to the pyramid of debate idea.

    Reddit doesn't have reasonable arguments, precisely because everything is an echo chamber. Even the ones that are set up as debates don't allow for 'how does this principle in this sub interact with that principle over there.' Despite being seemingly on topic, they are still removed because they don't reinforce the you versus me stuff.

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

    I had this queued, but I was expecting more traffic before posting. Perhaps that was a mistake and the reply should have been given earlier. Live and learn:

    Another good idea would be to have side bars list what is a good reason to automatically ban a person for participating. For instance a black nationalist sub that conveniently forgets to mention they are not just black nationalists, but black nationalists who must be black (and therefore ban non-blacks that are also black nationalists). Yes, that would be difficult to show. Yes, mods appear to stalk users outside the sub they mod for (just like reddit). But that's a question for another time.