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 →

[–]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.