What SaidIt Considers Insightful

submitted by CompleteDoubterII from i.imgur.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7 28 insightful - 7 fun28 insightful - 6 fun29 insightful - 7 fun -  (9 children)

It's the lowest common denominator for this website. Reddit is so obviously taken over by left-leaning people that most of the people who get banned unjustly are right-leaning. Ergo saidit's culture reflects what reddit cuts off.

So posts like "reddit bad" and "leftists bad" are things almost everyone here will agree with because of their experience with reddit which is what caused most of them to come here. It gets old sometimes, but it's also understandable given how this place came to exist.

In addition some people want to hijack saidit's culture to make it lean more far-right, and that contributes to the overall lean as well.

It was nice when we had all the lesbians here who got banned from reddit, but they didn't integrate themselves with the site culture as much as I'd hoped, and most kind of just sequestered themselves in subs they took off of /all. Which is fine, I was just hoping they'd contribute to the melting pot of the front page more to add a little left-right balance. Oh well, it's all good though.

I've noticed too if the first few posts on the front page are not good, I notice the posts after that are usually good. Like posts 3 through 40 on the front page are usually pretty solid overall.

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

It was nice when we had all the lesbians here who got banned from reddit, but they didn't integrate themselves with the site culture as much as I'd hoped, and most kind of just sequestered themselves in subs they took off of /all. Which is fine, I was just hoping they'd contribute to the melting pot of the front page more to add a little left-right balance. Oh well, it's all good though.

GenderCritical is a lot like the FatPeopleHate subreddit, in that they both had a point and a reason to exist, but they also had a problem where a lot of users (the huge number of english-speaking fat people in the western world in the case of FPH, and the trans people in tech that were all over reddit in the case of GC) that viciously opposed their message, and most of the rest of the users felt they couldn't agree with them openly for fear of being attacked themselves. They had to ban dissent, because otherwise the volume of it would have been overwhelming.

Reddit gave lots of control to the community moderators to set their own rules, but with Saidit they have a lot less control. The options are to allow dissenting viewpoints, which for GC means way more posts like this, or if they want to be able to control this stuff then they need to take themselves off of /s/all, which at that point means they're undiscoverable and have little opportunity to mingle with other members of the site.

I think the fact that they're not on /s/all is a large part of the problem, and a solution that would allow those subs to be discovered, and give users more choice, would be to have a separate setting so users could choose whether or not they want to see subs that ban dissent on /s/all. When they were on Reddit I disagreed with a lot of man-hating comments I saw on GC, but I still appreciated their perspective that modern trans activism and the denial of biology was hurting women's rights. I could see myself feeling the same way about other new subs, but if those subs can't be seen by people who aren't subscribed to them then they have no way to be discovered.

[–]Chipit 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

They cannot brook debate or argument. If they did, their entire position would collapse. So I get it. They have to wall themselves off, and crush anyone who enters their orbit. Debate and argument are Enlightenment values and only reinforce inequality.

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

Sad but true. Like incels. It's a cultish mentality.

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

I don't know. Women certainly aren't oppressed in the western world, but you can point to a lot of countries (cough coughIslamcough cough) where women are treated as second class citizens and expected to be subservient to men.

I think you can also say that even in countries where they aren't being oppressed, there is a good argument for special sex-based protections, such as women's sports, bathrooms and locker rooms.

Also since GC feminists are claiming modern trans activists are trying to undermine their rights, and those activists actually are, they do have a point.

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

These "GC" feminists are the world's least sympathetic victims. They are complete hostile assholes. They were all in favor of censorship, as long as they got to censor others. Now that the Frankenstein's monster they created turned on them, they learned nothing from it. The ones on Saidit immediately created new echo chambers by banning anyone who disagreed with them.

Fuck feminists of all kinds. They're full of hate in their hearts.

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

Setting your own standards inside your own community isn't the same kind of censorship. If a church doesn't let an atheist give a talk, is that a bad thing?

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

Always excusing censorship. When we do it it's OK, when anyone else does it to us it's a hate crime. We've seen this so many times, most recently with the influx of feminists banned from reddit.

A better question is, if you had the power, would you force churches to allow atheists to speak? Why or why not?

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

A better question is, if you had the power, would you force churches to allow atheists to speak? Why or why not?

This is pretty straightforward. Part of the principle of free speech is the right to listen, and the right not to listen. You are free to associate with (and listen to) whoever you like. A church that doesn't host an atheist isn't "censoring" anyone in any meaningful sense, they're just exercising their right not to listen. The atheist is still free to speak his mind to whoever will listen.

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

You didn't answer the question. If you had the power, would you force the church to allow atheists to speak?

If you wouldn't, why not? Churches are problematic. They perpetrate systemic oppression, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, heteronormativity, cisnormativity, transphobia, and the status quo. If you don't act to dismantle things like this, then you are problematic.