People really don't like getting banned.

submitted by [deleted] from (self.censorship)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SavvyDiogenes 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

  1. A debate sub for GC will be made soon. Discussions should go there.
  2. This isn't even the official GC sub. The old mods are planning something else.

[–]teelo 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

And the relevance of your comment is...?

[–]SavvyDiogenes 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Because you literally mentioned the GC sub? Did you read your own comment?

[–]teelo 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

I did. But did you?

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

The people being banned from GC are either trolls or there to start up debate, when the sub is clearly, as stated in the sidebar, not a debate oriented sub. A debate sub will come soon.

You mentioned GC banning users, and I explained why.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

The people being banned from GC are either trolls or there to start up debate

I disagree. There was content removed for ideological reasons, like people being able to complain about "antisemitism" but content pointing out abuse of the term "antisemitism" was removed. Similarly there was a great deal of censorship of non-hateful content to keep content in line with LGB dogma.

Here are some comments about things that were removed.

All I am asking is that GC is transparent about and follows its own rules regarding censorship. The same thing GC was disappointed in reddit for not doing.

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

Had antisemitic comments or anti-LGB comments been allowed to stay we would've been terminated 1 week after the sub's creation. And antisemitism and anti-LGB is off topic for GC, as it is a radfem sub - and off topic discussions, as per GC's rules both on saidit and the rules we had on reddit, are banned.

For example, we only bring up LGB in 3 occasions - when talking about the cotton ceiling or boxer ceiling (cotton ceiling = trans women complaining that lesbains won't sleep with them because lesbians don't like dick. Boxer ceiling is the same but for gay men and trans men), when talking about harassment lesbians(=women) may face, and yes - talking about women is on topic for a radfem sub, and when pointing out that gay men are not exempt from misogyny.

And I do not see how antisemitism could be brought up in a discussion about radfeminism. As for complaints about antisemitism - as all complaints towards the "GC community" from other GC members were allowed to stay, so were these posts. As for the complaints in the post linked - I'm sure that was just the mods trying to save their asses and the sub - the mods always tried to respect reddit's sitewide rules, and that would include removing and maybe banning those sort of opinions, regardless of the existence or lackthereof of proof.

And I saw your comment in the post - do you really think that saying that homosexuality isn't real on radfem subs (that btw, also have lesbians in them, surprise surprise) wouldn't get you banned? If I saw that comment in the wild I'd think you were just a troll. I've seen multiple comments that criticised GC posters for using right wing platforms, and I not only joined in the discussion, agreeing with them, but also reported any right wing source I've found. I wasn't banned though - I obviously would not agree with that ban. As for radfems writing articles on right wing subs - it's either no platform or a bad platform. While I can't deny that there is a certain pragmatism in choosing a platform instead of having none, I still don't agree with that approach.

And define "LGB dogma"?

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

The people being banned from GC are either trolls or there to start up debate

There's a lot here I could talk about, but I'd like to go back to this which was what I was really trying to say.

I don't think "claims of anti-semitism are used to silence legitimate criticism of some Jewish groups" in response to someone mentioning "anti-semitism" is the same sort of thing as trying to kill or deport a lot of Jewish people. (Just like it's not "transphobic" to say "I don't think male transgenderists are really female" and it's not "islamophobic" to say "Islamic sects usually treat women badly.") If talking about anti-semitism isn't off-topic to radical feminism, then how is the criticism of how "anti-semitism" is used off-topic? That's not right. That's using the platform to push an ideological position. The fact that this kind of one-sided censorship was occurring was not disclosed.

I did not say this to troll hoping to get a reaction. I did not say this because I wanted to debate the basic tenants of radical feminism or because I wanted to hurt Jewish readers or Jewish people in general. I simply wanted to participate in the conversation like anyone else. Believing that "anti-semitism" is never used inappropriately is not a tenant of radical feminism and was not stated on any sub rules as a requirement for participation.

I posted the about LGBT on /r/actualwomen, which claimed to be a place open to all women regardless of ideology. I did not say anything saying that anything bad should happen to anyone. I did make a post arguing that "homosexuality" is an ideology, not biology. Which again, is not anymore homophobic than "I don't think transgenderism is real biology" is transphobic. This was contrary to the rules stated on /r/actualwomen.

I would consider "LGB dogma" to be things like the existence of a biological trait called homo/bi/heterosexuality that is always the result of healthy, normal biology and never anything else. The idea that questioning that is something called "homophobia" and makes you a really bad person who, for the safety of others, must be marginalized away from polite society regardless of personal material consequences. Things like that. I think there was a time when all of this was all much less dogmatic and it was normal for people to speculate and explore these topics freely, as one might discuss any other non-politicized topic.

I mainly wanted to reply, though, to correct the idea that it was only "trolls" or "people looking to debate the fundamental tenants of radical feminism" who were banned or censored. I see this claim a lot, and I think it's not true. There are other examples in my comment -- a self-described third world woman whose argument against any collaboration with right-wing anything was censored without disclosure. A woman who was censored when trying to name the groups involved in the UK grooming gangs. These were not "trolls" and they were not looking to debate the fundamental tenants of radical feminism, yet they were censored too. I want people to be aware that this was happening. It wasn't just trolls or people looking to debate basic radical feminist principles.

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

I don't think "claims of anti-semitism are used to silence legitimate criticism of some Jewish groups" in response to someone mentioning "anti-semitism" is the same sort of thing as trying to kill or deport a lot of Jewish people. (Just like it's not "transphobic" to say "I don't think male transgenderists are really female" and it's not "islamophobic" to say "Islamic sects usually treat women badly.")

True, that was an instance of mods trying to avoid a "hate speech" takedown, I think.

There are other examples in my comment -- a self-described third world woman whose argument against any collaboration with right-wing anything was censored without disclosure.

I read that, I agree with her and I have also said numerous times that we shouldn't collaborate with the right wing.

A woman who was censored when trying to name the groups involved in the UK grooming gangs.

Saw that too, it's probably the same thing as what the gc mods did - trying to avoid giving the AHS types a reason to shut down the sub.

I would consider "LGB dogma" to be things like the existence of a biological trait called homo/bi/heterosexuality that is always the result of healthy, normal biology and never anything else.

  1. Why should whether homo/bisexuality is a result of "healthy normal biology" even matter? Women are critical of TRAs because they are a risk to women's rights. What rights do LGB people infringe upon?

  2. Saying that homosexuality is an ideology puts lesbian women at risk - this sort of argument is what causes both the cotton ceiling and corrective rape. So yes, I could see how arguing for a belief that has caused on multiple occasions literal rape would get you banned off of a sub full of women.

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

The people being banned from GC are either trolls or there to start up debate

Again, this was really the point I was trying to make, I wanted to explain why I believe this is a common misconception and isn't accurate. It wasn't my intent to make the case as to whether any of the removed content was stating a correct view or not.

To respond to a few other points:

Why should whether homo/bisexuality is a result of "healthy normal biology" even matter? Women are critical of TRAs because they are a risk to women's rights. What rights do LGB people infringe upon?

My point in mentioning this is to give an example of what I mean by "LGB dogma" since I was asked. It seems like it is treated as a dogmatic belief.

Saying that homosexuality is an ideology puts lesbian women at risk - this sort of argument is what causes both the cotton ceiling and corrective rape. So yes, I could see how arguing for a belief that has caused on multiple occasions literal rape would get you banned off of a sub full of women.

This beliefs does not cause rape or sexual harassment, any more than "I think men can't become women through transgenderist interventions" causes their murder. Please place responsibility for violent acts on the actual people who have perpetrated them.

The reason I mentioned it is I believe it is a dogmatic belief. It was a response to being asked what I mean by "LGB dogma".

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

I am completely on board with you. I might have misunderstood some other comments, but if that is your position, I agree.

I believe that I made such a comment (see above) that was factual. It's also too easy to accuse someone of trolling, simply because you think what they are saying is silly or you disagree with it. I have also already been called "hateful", just as any SJW would have done to silence their opposition. One of their arguments started with "Who sent you?" as if I am some kind of mafia agent for expecting to be able to have open debate on a platform that fashions itself as a free speech platform. That loon must have mixed up their meds for the week.

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

You can look at the modlog and the sidebar for /s/Gender_Critical. I've tried to be clear about the rules on the sub and to enforce them evenly and fairly (and so far nobody has enjoyed it when the rules have been enforced... makes me wonder if we can't improve the way the moderation system works)

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

Somebody with an account old enough should just create an uncensored version of Gender_Critical. My suspicion is that it will have more users than the original one in a short amount of time, and that would be a very satisfying thing to see.

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

I could think of a few ways to improve it. Most of them involve a trash can.

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

Its like you didn't even click the linked comment.

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

I am more and more feeling as if I do not really care what these clowns are planning, as if we needed their permission to speak or have a GenderCritical sub, like it's some trademark they own. There will be a free speech alternative of that sub and none of the mods who supported any of those idiotic rules will be present, as mods. They can join the sub, but by then they might prefer to stay in their hug box. Their hug box will die, the free speech version will thrive. Their censored version will be devoid of intelligent input, the free speech version will have insightful debate.

You cannot have a community of women. Every attempt to try to divine who is female or not will need to be based on the positions they hold. So you are not enforcing rules on gender, you are inevitably enforcing rules based on opinion. Any of those opinions could also be held by a woman, or you think that women are incapable of holding certain opinions or thinking a certain way.

You are a bunch of hypocrites. Come out and say you are enforcing a party line. At least then you are honest. All these rationales you present -- absolute bullshit, euphemism, sleight of hand. What the fuck does it mean for an opinion to be "high on the pyramid of debate"? As if that is going to be an objective criterion. No, you will censor people who disagree with you, you will kick out people you do not like. It's bad enough that you want to do this on one of the few free speech platforms out there right now, but at least stop your fucking lies, you god damn hypocrites.

What is a "SavvyDiogenes", by the way? Is that some form of narcissism, the way you with the trans people you criticize? You do not sound savvy at all and your takes are absolutely moronic. You are everything wrong with the people you criticize. But you're so full of shit that you can't see yourself in the mirror. What a philosopher you are, truly.

Man, I have so much contempt for people like those, but at least here I can freely say that.

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

Their hug box will die, the free speech version will thrive.

If you really think that the "free speech" version on an obscure reddit clone will survive, then you're delusional, end of. You're here to yell in the void, like the rest of us. That's why free speech is even possible here in the first place - because this site holds no potential of having an impact. Is that sad? Absolutely, but it's true - let's not delude ourselves here.

You cannot have a community of women. Every attempt to try to divine who is female or not will need to be based on the positions they hold.

It's fucking rich that you even think you can speak about Gender Critical when you seem to miss the literal main point of it all - there is no way to be a woman except being of the female sex, and an adult. There is no behaviour, no opinion, no nothing that makes you female except being born female. And that is why gender in itself is bullshit. There is no way to "divine the female" - it is a biological category.

What the fuck does it mean for an opinion to be "high on the pyramid of debate"?

It's the literal rules of saidit, idiot. You keep parroting about how great this site is for free speech when you seem to not have even read the rules. This pyramid of debate thing isn't our invention, you genius - take that to magnora if you don't like the rule.

What is a "SavvyDiogenes", by the way? Is that some form of narcissism, the way you with the trans people you criticize? You do not sound savvy at all and your takes are absolutely moronic. You are everything wrong with the people you criticize. But you're so full of shit that you can't see yourself in the mirror. What a philosopher you are, truly.

If you don't see the point in choosing the name of someone who is considered the father of cynicism for an alt, the same person who'd hold a lamp in broad daylight on the streets of Athens to look for an honest man, then you're hopeless. It's not some attempt at self-aggrandizing, it's a tongue-in-cheek name meant to be over the top and ridiculous, and hinting towards cynicism (oh as if i could have made that any more obvious). But it seems like you can only see things literally, with no regards to nuance - no wonder you literally named yourself Screwtape. Should I take that name literally, too?

You are a bunch of hypocrites. Come out and say you are enforcing a party line. At least then you are honest.

What party line? Elaborate - what, you think we are in bed with the ultra leftist marxists that would love to swing bats in our faces, or with the right wing nationalists that would enjoy locking the whole female sex in the kitchen and taking away any bodily autonomy we have left? Come on, I'm curious as to what ridiculous bullshit you'll pull out of your mouth this time.