top 100 commentsshow all 407

[–]nonpenishaver 140 insightful - 13 fun140 insightful - 12 fun141 insightful - 13 fun -  (191 children)

GenderCritical was a sub for women who know that patriarchy exists. Who know that gender identity is bullshit. We will never be able to have productive discussions if we constantly keep having to "debate" men who come in and try to convince us that the very foundations of our beliefs are wrong. It'll go around it circles forever. There's no point to it. Personally I feel you should be able to comment but I don't believe anyone owes you debate.

Edit: whatever happened to "if you don't like something don't look at it"? Women don't constantly try to infiltrate male centric subs. This is something men on reddit do and it's fucking annoying.

[–]rdh2121 83 insightful - 7 fun83 insightful - 6 fun84 insightful - 7 fun -  (47 children)

whatever happened to "if you don't like something don't look at it"?

It's still alive and well. If you don't like a comment someone made on /s/GenderCritical, hide it and move on. If the sub is on /s/all, the sub is not a safe space, and exists for all users on Saidit. If that's not what the users of /s/GenderCritical want, all you have to do is remove yourselves from /s/all, and you can be as exclusive as you like.

Saidit was created to combat exclusion and censorship. You came here for that very acceptance of diverse viewpoints, so that's what you're getting. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[–][deleted] 49 insightful - 6 fun49 insightful - 5 fun50 insightful - 6 fun -  (22 children)

The rules quite aside, saying the patriarchy doesn't exist when you can read the news and tell it does isn't a "diverse viewpoint," it's a lie.

Saying women aren't in more danger in heterosexual relationships than men are isn't a "diverse viewpoint," it's a lie. Look at the domestic murder stats sometime. We can argue all day long about what constitutes abuse but no one can debate dead, and usually not who caused the death either.

Saying abortion should be outlawed isn't a "diverse viewpoint," it's denying pregnant women basic bodily autonomy and literally giving them fewer rights than a corpse (unless the person signed an organ donor card when they were alive, you can't take anything from them after death, whereas a fetus in an abortion-outlawed country can take its mother's blood, nutrients, and even life and she can't legally do anything about it even if the pregnancy endangers her). Saying that's OK is douchebaggery, not a "diverse viewpoint."

We have to go by the rules here, but I had to speak to this, because I'm tired of bad-faith debaters pretending like women's lives mean jack shit. I'm a woman. My life means a lot to me. My perspective of a man's arguments will necessarily be colored by that. I'm not sitting here pretending that men are not in danger from one another -- you are worse enemies to one another than you ever are to us! How you react to that is your business. How we react to our situations is ours.

But yes. We should definitely not be on /s/all if it's going to be that much a point of contention. God forbid teh menz not be able to correct women at every possible fucking turn. (That's how it looks from here. That's all we ever see online anymore.)

[–]xigoi 24 insightful - 7 fun24 insightful - 6 fun25 insightful - 7 fun -  (11 children)

saying the patriarchy doesn't exist when you can read the news and tell it does isn't a "diverse viewpoint," it's a lie.

Interesting, because from reading the news, I've learned that women are getting an unfair advantage in many places.

Saying women aren't in more danger in heterosexual relationships than men are isn't a "diverse viewpoint," it's a lie. Look at the domestic murder stats sometime.

Maybe if women didn't prefer to date violent men, they wouldn't end up with violent men.

God forbid teh menz not be able to correct women at every possible fucking turn.

I'd prefer to not judge people's arguments by their gender.

[–]ankh 30 insightful - 4 fun30 insightful - 3 fun31 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

Interesting, because from reading the news, I've learned that women are getting an unfair advantage in many places.

Ah, yes. Women should totally forget being raped to death since before written history because they get to be token hires and get huge

scholarships for useless liberal arts degree. I think you overestimate the benefits of being a Democratic political pawn.

Maybe if women didn't prefer to date violent men, they wouldn't end up with violent men.

Relationships don't start off abusive, and why are women are responsible for violent men?

I understand that there are a lot of crazy feminists, but most GC talking points just boil down to "men rape A LOT". Do you feel that this is up for debate?

[–]radfemanon 26 insightful - 3 fun26 insightful - 2 fun27 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

We have removed GC from appearing on s/all.

[–]voi_che_sapete 26 insightful - 3 fun26 insightful - 2 fun27 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I think this is a solid choice. I don't think we need substantial traffic from the larger SaidIt community anyway.

Now all the sanctimonious asshats on this thread can stfu. We don't need you to explain free speech to us. If you don't fully understand why some spaces need to be moderated even though free speech is important, listen to us and actually use your brains to understand where we're coming from next time.

[–]Mein_Tarnaccount 15 insightful - 11 fun15 insightful - 10 fun16 insightful - 11 fun -  (1 child)

Poor wittle western wamen. The most coddled group of people to ever have existed, constantly complaining about how hard you have it. God damnit, you are a weak bunch. You can be glad so many men don't have their lizard brains under control, otherwise nobody would want anything to do with you non-contributing product sponge harpies.

[–]voi_che_sapete 33 insightful - 10 fun33 insightful - 9 fun34 insightful - 10 fun -  (0 children)

Poor wittle western redpillers, so histrionic.

It's so classic for men to project their problems onto women - claiming women are the lustful sex when they have the out-of-control sex drives, for instance, as the Greeks did. This "victimhood" accusation is just an extension of that: the reality is, you lot think you're the real victims, and can't shut up about how victimized you think you are.

[–]Earl_Harbinger 12 insightful - 5 fun12 insightful - 4 fun13 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

A viewpoint isn't a diverse viewpoint if I disagree!

Yes, I can see why you wouldn't want to debate.

[–]Lostcarkeys 9 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Maybe saidit isn't for you. This isn't a place of echo chambers.

Clearly you have a problem with your ideology being challenged. Maybe you should go back to reddit and start another radfem sub or join one of the existing ones. I'm sure there are many left.

[–]pink_lioness 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Free speech just means you get to say what you want as long as you aren't enticing violence, it doesn't mean everyone has to listen and respond to you. I think that's what the person above is saying, that we should all be able to say what we want, but if men come in here and try to force us to debate we don't have to. I don't see how they're trying to 'have their cake and eat it too' honestly, free speech doesn't mean you owe everyone a response. Like for example, lots of feminist subreddits had separate debate or ask subreddits so that men could ask questions/debate there and not constantly derail conversations.

[–]Jesus-Christ 72 insightful - 14 fun72 insightful - 13 fun73 insightful - 14 fun -  (13 children)

So you essentially don't want people questioning this ideaology of yours because you ""know"" you're right. That's a great way to go about things.

[–]filbs111 50 insightful - 12 fun50 insightful - 11 fun51 insightful - 12 fun -  (2 children)

Sometimes people just want to hang out with people like them. I don't go to churches and tell them that Jesus was too heavy to walk on water etc.

[–]RuinedRook 32 insightful - 11 fun32 insightful - 10 fun33 insightful - 11 fun -  (1 child)

So you essentially don't want people questioning this ideaology of yours because you ""know"" you're right. That's a great way to go about things.

That's fourth wave feminism for you.

[–]GConly 25 insightful - 9 fun25 insightful - 8 fun26 insightful - 9 fun -  (4 children)

Don't get me started. Any deviation from radical feminist theory got you banned on Reddit GC.

My prime example is the brain sex thing. Virtually every published paper demonstrates sex differences in brain structure, but GC repeatedly posts the same three authors (Joel etc) that deny it and ignore the thousands of papers and scientists that observe it as fact.

Which is going to backfire in the end.

[–]wardrobe 30 insightful - 2 fun30 insightful - 1 fun31 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Respectfully, the studies say that people's brains are a mish mash of "typically male and female" structures and not two clear cut brains. If actual brain sex were real that would legitimise transgenderism because people's bodies actually could be misaligned with their brain. Humans are more complicated than that.

[–]GConly 17 insightful - 3 fun17 insightful - 2 fun18 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

If actual brain sex were real that would legitimise transgenderism because people's bodies actually could be misaligned with their brain

No, because the brain scans have shown trans people have normal sexually developed brains for their sex and SO. What's up with them is a bit that handles body perception, and that's also linked to OCD and a bunch of other mental health problems. So.. mental health issue not, ' wrong brain sex'.

In order to have body brain sex mismatch you'd need totally the wrong prenatal hormones, and that would leave you with intersex genital development. So the outside would still match the inside. You'll see this in severe cases of male androgen insensitivity, and in girls with severe CAH (excess prenatal testosterone). CAIS males have typically female brain development.

About the only time you can get even close to this is in DHT insufficiency, where you'll get a normal male brain in what looks like a female body, like Caster Semenya. Which only lasts until puberty when the normal testosterone causes male muscle growth, voice breaking and size and you get an obvious male. With a vagina and internal balls.

And the little boys with DHT insufficiency normally ID as boys long before puberty kicks in, wanting male playmates and avoiding 'girly' toys and clothes. Which does strongly suggest gendered behaviour has a hard ware component in humans. Because there's no real way to tell what they without a medical scan. This isn't down to socialisation. Cordelia Fine avoids discussing this group in her book for a very good reason, it shows a lot of behaviour is hard wired. And she also avoids the fetal testosterone experiments for the same reason.

Humans that are homosexual have brains that fall between the two norms. They also have other behaviour between the sex norms. For example lesbians have higher offending rates, which does cast doubt that male offending is down to socialisation and adult male testosterone. You see higher rates of aggression and male play behaviour in female mammal embryos that you dose with testosterone and make gay.

There's a reason for the stereo type of gay males being effeminate and lesbians being butch. They've had intermediate hormone exposure as embryos. It affects speech, body language, play, facial development, offending, body language.. which is probably why AGP TIMs don't ever pass but why some HSTS do.

Humans are just animals, we're not special.

[–][deleted] 48 insightful - 6 fun48 insightful - 5 fun49 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

It's not just men that have been excluded from GC. I'm a woman, and I've been excluded for reasons other than what you stated here. And it's not just that I'm excluded, it's that other women are prevented from seeing these other perspectives. All content that dissents on these topics is removed, but nobody is aware of what's being removed. It is made to appear like there is a consensus on the issues, when there isn't. And it's further problematic because the movement claims to be speaking for women, when it's preventing some women from even voicing their opinions, let alone expecting respectful consideration of their perspective.

I don't believe anyone owes you debate.

I can agree with this.

GC (and /s/Lesbians) can exist on SaidIt if it wants to exclude people based on sex, or viewpoint, or both, but in order to do this it needs to follow mod rule 4b as mentioned in OP.

I also find it troubling that a post specifically about discussing censorship on the sub was singled out as one that needed to be locked, especially right at the moment when the sub itself is fleeing censorship.

[–]Cass 17 insightful - 3 fun17 insightful - 2 fun18 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I also find it troubling that a post specifically about discussing censorship on the sub was singled out as one that needed to be locked, especially right at the moment when the sub itself is fleeing censorship.

"When people I don't like are silenced, then that's a good thing! It's only bad when it happens to me!"

I think the og GC was good because with today's climate being what it is, someone starting to peak re trans issues would feel like there's something wrong with them (I know from experience) and the sub was validating.

But other than that I saw sooo many gatekeeping posts. Like if you like 1984 you're not GC, if you like anime you're not GC, if you are right leaning you're not bla bla bla and in the end lots of posts in support of BLM, a male dominated terrorist organization. Like what would happen to women if the police did their job even less than they already do? I can imagine the huge number of rapes and murders and liberals not making the connection between that and defunding police.

[–]taibo14 29 insightful - 9 fun29 insightful - 8 fun30 insightful - 9 fun -  (76 children)

We will never be able to have productive discussions if we constantly keep having to "debate" men who come in and try to convince us that the very foundations of our beliefs are wrong.

If your movement is based around speaking truth on trans issues but the other foundations of your beliefs are not true, then how are you to advance your cause? Consider the possibility that you are mistaken. If the men "debating" you are mistaken, then certainly they can be argued against even if it's more work.

[–]nonpenishaver 72 insightful - 14 fun72 insightful - 13 fun73 insightful - 14 fun -  (74 children)

The vast majority of men will never be convinced on any feminist issues. It's like trying to convince a cat that it's wrong to hunt mice.

[–]taibo14 31 insightful - 10 fun31 insightful - 9 fun32 insightful - 10 fun -  (43 children)

Giving up before even trying? Yikes.

[–]nonpenishaver 61 insightful - 10 fun61 insightful - 9 fun62 insightful - 10 fun -  (39 children)

Dude I've been at this shit for fucking 10 years lmao. You aren't worth it.

[–]america_first_1776 33 insightful - 10 fun33 insightful - 9 fun34 insightful - 10 fun -  (37 children)

Maybe you're just wrong.

[–][deleted] 48 insightful - 5 fun48 insightful - 4 fun49 insightful - 5 fun -  (18 children)

No, she has a point. A lot of men come into feminist subs in bad faith all the time. (And other spaces, for that matter).

I do think feminist ideology is wrong on some points though.

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

She is right. She also wouldn't be able to convince me that 1+1=3, that doesn't mean she would be right about 1+1 being 3. Like she has tried for so many years to convince men about feminist issues. Maybe we're just capable of seeing that her being a woman makes her biased and she's just serving herself by claiming how oppressed she is because she's a woman in a western, secular country. And even if there really were a bit of truth to it... it's just very unappealing self pitying self-victimizing. Her mindset is obviously a much bigger issue than the stuff she's trying to complain about.

Is she really looking for the guys who will accept everything she says and worship the ground she walks on? Or is it all a shit test? And maybe she's actually looking for a strong man to put her in her place and to tell her to shut up. Either way it's likely some form of playing games with men while simultaneously makes her feel good to convince herself she's oppressed.

[–]ech 42 insightful - 3 fun42 insightful - 2 fun43 insightful - 3 fun -  (17 children)

IME you do find men who can be convinced, and some of them have become my best friends. But I'm sympathetic to harsh moderation of feminist e-spaces, because it's a numbers game -- you get flooded by tons of men, most asserting the same tedious deflections. Maybe you convince 1 out of 20 -- you're still deluged by 19 shitposts that detract from the theme of your discussion. I'm brand new to this site and one of the biggest free speech zealots you'll meet, but it seems sensible to allow mods of niche subreddits to moderate in favor of their niche themes.

Also, the men I've been able to convince over the years, or with whom I've been able to find common ground, generally distinguish themselves as uncommonly bright and thoughtful from the start, even if they strongly disagree with me. They're not posting 110-IQ manosphere copypasta (which is most of what feminists need to moderate).

[–]america_first_1776 14 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 3 fun -  (15 children)

See, you wrote two paragraphs and yet none of it shows that your side is correct. You didn't even give an example of a strawman "copypasta" from the "manosphere" (whatever the hell that means) that you think you can so easily disprove.

[–]ech 24 insightful - 4 fun24 insightful - 3 fun25 insightful - 4 fun -  (14 children)

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you’re too obtuse (willfully or by no fault of your own) for me to want to engage.

[–]teelo 13 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 5 fun -  (11 children)

If you refuse to provide evidence to back up your claims when requested then don't participate on a debate website.

[–][deleted] 20 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Hey, I am second wave. I’ve been dealing with it since the mid-1970’s.

I’m over it.

I don’t want to debate the fact that there are two biological sexes any more. Gender can be anything you want it to be but putting a dress on a an xy male will never make him a woman.

[–][deleted] 23 insightful - 3 fun23 insightful - 2 fun24 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

We have tried. You weren't around for that bit. The really irritating part is that you all keep offering the same arguments over and over again and oh, that's not enough, you have to act like it was clever. Any woman hanging out in feminist fora for long enough starts feeling like she's listening to a broken record. And it's not like arguing with you makes anything better in the f2f world/ meatspace when we keep seeing our rights doing a one step forward two steps back thing everywhere. Hell, there are researchers who think the recent turn to populism across several Western countries is an indirect response to women gaining more freedom. They're probably not wrong. I'm 46. I don't think I will live to see the day when men stop seeing everything as a zero-sum game and stop envying others who have less than they do.

[–]Wrang1er 28 insightful - 11 fun28 insightful - 10 fun29 insightful - 11 fun -  (22 children)

What issues? Feminism is cancer

[–][deleted] 39 insightful - 5 fun39 insightful - 4 fun40 insightful - 5 fun -  (20 children)

Feminism has a lot of valid points.

[–]gotfingered 15 insightful - 5 fun15 insightful - 4 fun16 insightful - 5 fun -  (16 children)

What valid points does it offer beyond egalitarianism?

[–]goodbyeplanet 43 insightful - 2 fun43 insightful - 1 fun44 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Radical feminism is centered in the marxist concept of gender dynamics, which places women as a producer class and men as an exploiter of that production. This is called the patriarchy, due to which women-centric feminism needs to exist, to point out and protect women's rights as people seperate from our use as reproductive vessels for men (and the gendered culture we are thrown into from birth due to this).

Egaltarianism still centers men. I respect that this dynamic causes men to have problems as well, but that is a fight that men should be fighting without detriment to women, as women fight for their own rights.

I'd argue it's fair for a sub to require any incomers to read dworkin or other radical feminist lit, simply because being flooded by a whole lot of clueless people will dilute the content when they inevidably reply to each other. We could probably have a FAQ, but ideological filtering while the sub is still small is important to make sure the message isn't overpowered. There are, right now, far less of the old guard radfems who are well-versed in answering your questions than there are questions.

[–]Futon_Everlasting 28 insightful - 3 fun28 insightful - 2 fun29 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

If you're looking to have advanced conversations about a topic, it's totally fair to require that people do the homework before jumping in. Otherwise the conversation space becomes dominated by the newbies wanting to have all their concerns addressed before engaging with the available published arguments. In earlier days of r/GC (5 years ago) it was common for men to come in to a conversation obviously looking for an argument about some very basic feminist concepts, and only improved as moderation tightened up. When r/XXChromosomes went to r/all the reverse happened: good, targeted discussion became dulled by endless interrogation. It was exhausting and kept us from really digging in to topics. I'd expect (or at least hope for) similar stringent moderation for any other sort of specialty sub.

[–][deleted] 17 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

I learned about the ways males target women and warning signs of common patterns of male exploitation of women that I did not learn elsewhere.

I learned that women can be smart and competent and it's ok to center women's experiences. That we're not just "trying to catch up to men".

Idk. It feels unfair to men to have explored some of these male exclusionary things. Egalitarianism is what's fair, I agree. Perhaps it is the better philosophy.

[–]gotfingered 19 insightful - 7 fun19 insightful - 6 fun20 insightful - 7 fun -  (4 children)

I don't think you need to be a feminist to know that women can be smart :) Those who oppose feminism, in my view, tend to have the impression that modern western feminism is all about shouting hate at men for being men

[–]ech 19 insightful - 6 fun19 insightful - 5 fun20 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

Or they oppose feminism because they favor #WhiteSharia (or normal sharia) or pathologically hate women. These men aren't the majority of men, but they can be the majority in certain e-forums.

I don't begrudge these men the ability to have their own spaces. I would defend /r/incels or /r/islam against censorship, but I wouldn't expect fair, equal moderation if I posted there. From the dawn of reddit (and the broader internet before it), mods could curate their own private discussions. The issue is when you try to interfere with other peoples' discussions, or when you unfairly moderate a forum that purports to be neutral and open.

[–][deleted] 16 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I don't think you need to be a feminist to know that women can be smart :)

I agree, but it really helped me to be able to see it. I'd been told "women are dumb" in various iterations all over my social space, and well, I guess I'd kinda maybe come to believe it to some degree. But then I went to this place with a bunch of smart competent women and it was clear that people were just saying "women are dumber" to make themselves feel good or as some kind of echo chamber talking piont, because those women weren't acting like "dumb women" and they were making better points and behaving more effectively than the people laughing at how dumb women are.

[–]teelo 22 insightful - 10 fun22 insightful - 9 fun23 insightful - 10 fun -  (0 children)

You mean the patriarchy where a tiny <1% of men have power of all women who have power over the remaining 99% of men?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 20 insightful - 6 fun20 insightful - 5 fun21 insightful - 6 fun -  (9 children)

Personally I feel you should be able to comment but I don't believe anyone owes you debate.

Good point, and before i continue; Welcome to the free-speech fray!!! ;-)

Every participant of a sub which has been banned from Reddit is a direct victim of censorship, and has a very real stake in opposing censorship of any kind.

Support for free speech is even more important in this current era of internet censorship.

If you support free speech, then you must be in support of all free speech. Particularly support for the free speech of those groups who are saying things that you despise, and violently oppose.
It is not possible to support some free speech, and not others.

Supporting censorship eventually leads to eliminating exposure to potentially relevant ideas. Eliminating exposure to ideas is the goal of censorship.

Opposing ideas with better ideas is the optimal solution.

Conversely, no one is suggesting that anyone should be forced to listen to the hostile words of repeated individual harassment.
Everyone is free to block individual commentators, or unsubscribe to entire subs on your own personal account.

Edit: whatever happened to "if you don't like something don't look at it"? Women don't constantly try to infiltrate male centric subs. This is something men on reddit do and it's fucking annoying.

I don't frequent the female subs so I can't confirm, but this is probably a true statement. It's important to consider the timing of this banning event. Reddit very likely banned the various subs with the intention of creating conflict elsewhere.

Let's avoid taking the bait, and endure in spite of Reddit's scheming bullshit.

Please take some time to let the dust settle, and things will quickly improve. No doubt, there are more than a few women here who have put up with plenty of bullshit, and are tough enough to push back against a small group of nasty harassers. They'll get bored and go away over time.

Now is the time to champion free speech more than ever.

Welcome, to the free-speech fray.

[–]goodbyeplanet 42 insightful - 2 fun42 insightful - 1 fun43 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

they'll get bored and go away over time

You assume they view us as people. They do not. The internet pro-male ideologue as we experience them is usually a male suffering from psychosis and delusions of grandeur. He is convinced that women are objects, and women who center women are simply in need of breaking in. They will do anything to "teach us a lesson"; look at the incel crime sprees, the rape of lesbians, and the number of men who want to renounce women's rights.

We do not have the privilege of assuming harmlessness when our beliefs are the sworn enemy of every cumbrain who uses gendered jingoism to escape his own flaws. We are trying to wake women up from being willingly abused by men and abusive men don't like that at all.

[–]BettysBitterButter 34 insightful - 2 fun34 insightful - 1 fun35 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You can have free-speech without coddling everyone who wants to come in and shout "I like turtles!" in a space where a productive and nuanced discussion about something else is going on. That's why there are subs. You wouldn't go into an "I like turtles" sub and insist on taking up space talking about 1964 Mustang brake pads so why would you go into a "radical feminist" sub and insist on obliviating about how men can be feminists, too, or whatever else that space isn't for.

And assuming people are acting in good faith, look at it like this: you have to take the 101 courses before you insist on spouting your opinions in the graduate-level courses. Far too often people (and very often men) sashay into women's discussions and suck all of the air out of the room, distracting from the actual purpose of the discussion.

I'm totally fine if the sub is heavily moderated.

Anyone who wants to have similar discussions without heavy moderation is totally free to start their own sub and run it however they want to, aren't they? Especially right at this moment where the GC sub doesn't have 46,000 members and isn't any kind of monopoly. If super permissive, light moderation is what people want then that sub will attract more participants.

That said: I doubt this is going to be the ultimate home of GC community building or discussion. I think GC needs its own platform. There are already far too many red herrings and people trying to tell women how to talk right.

[–]igneciph 23 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 0 fun24 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That said: I doubt this is going to be the ultimate home of GC community building or discussion. I think GC needs its own platform. There are already far too many red herrings and people trying to tell women how to talk right.

Agreed. Some of these commenters think they're being real slick about it though, even though it's as obvious as neon lights. They forget we've seen it all before. It's just another form of censorship, really. Flooding a sub with a thousand determined trolls who 'just wanna ask questions' and repeat the same set of asinine one-liners ad nauseum without having the most basic understanding of what the sub is even about is still censorship if you have no capacity to moderate their tedious bullshit out or stop it from dominating every thread, and that's exactly why they want the ability to do it in the first place. It's almost never in good faith. That's why there were separate debate subs to filter them into in the first place.

[–]america_first_1776 7 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 6 fun -  (8 children)

There is no patriarchy. Only Jewish dominance.

[–]philosopher 52 insightful - 4 fun52 insightful - 3 fun53 insightful - 4 fun -  (15 children)

Looks like people in here are saying:

  • If you're in /s/all, you can't censor
  • If you want to censor, just move out of /s/all

Sounds fairly simple and fair.

[–][deleted] 33 insightful - 3 fun33 insightful - 2 fun34 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

If you want to censor, just move out of /s/all

and tell users in the sidebar that you are censoring

[–]philosopher 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Maybe there could be an automatic (small) banner that appears automatically on non-public subs?

[–][deleted] 19 insightful - 14 fun19 insightful - 13 fun20 insightful - 14 fun -  (5 children)

Something like "THIS IS A PRIVATE ECHO-CHAMBER" would do nicely.

[–]lolreallyno4 40 insightful - 3 fun40 insightful - 2 fun41 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

I don't see how they haven't been "honest about it". It's quite clear what the sub is for.

If your only issue is that they haven't removed themselves from All, then that's your complaint and the rest of your post is superfluous. I'm sure the mods at /s/GenderCritical would be happy to do that.

[–]gparmesan 31 insightful - 3 fun31 insightful - 2 fun32 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

This has been changed. Thanks for your patience with a brand new mod team, much appreciated.

[–]ManWithABanana 23 insightful - 2 fun23 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Thanks for complying with rule 4b. Also, welcome to you and all refugees.

I have been seeing tons of gendercritical posts on /s/all for the past day. When I just checked, they are all gone.

[–]gparmesan 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

thanks for your kind reply. I created the sub on the fly and I didn't have it unchecked.

[–][deleted] 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

it's been removed from /r/all? to comply with mod rule 4b the sub needs to also state in the sidebar that opposing opinions are removed.

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

how they haven't been "honest about it"

Well what is "radical feminism"? The sidebar provided a lot of links to do reading, but even here there are many women who think "gender critical" just means "trans critical." What is "homophobia"? Does not believing in "sexual orientation" count just as much as "we should all go <abusive act> the <slurs>"? What is "racism"? Does "I think White peoples deserve a homeland" count just as much as "we should all go <abusive act> the <slurs>"? What is "antisemitism"? Is all criticism of Jewish groups prohibited? And what does any of this have to do with helping women? Why does not believing in "sexual orientation" in addition to not believing in "gender identity" mean women can't participate without self-censoring?

Why were perfectly acceptable posts removed? Why did the moderators refuse to answer polite posts appealing removals?

I don't think they were fully honest about what sort of content they removed and why.

they haven't removed themselves from All

They have been aware of the moderator rules for several hours now since I mentioned that they may want to take that option. I understand they are still sorting things out, but I also noticed that they have not made some quick edits to the sidebar and taken themselves of all (though they did make a few quick edits to the sidebar to add the rules about removing some specific slurs).

This is also an issue for the people who are taking care of site policy. Site policy is a bit (imo unfortunately) fuzzy sometimes, imo. Is GC breaking the rules? What exactly are the rules in this situation? I believe this needs to be made more clear as well.

[–]Nona_Biba 33 insightful - 2 fun33 insightful - 1 fun34 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I am completely fine with gender critical being removed from "all" if it means we can control our own sub. The GCers will still be able to find it. We don't need or want anti-feminists ruining our discussions.

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Removing from "all" is not the only requirement. You must also be clear in the sidebar that dissenting opinions are being censored there.

And it's not "we" controlling the discussion, it's the mods.

[–][deleted] 31 insightful - 3 fun31 insightful - 2 fun32 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

Pinging admins /u/magnora7 and /u/d3rr I believe it's appropriate for you guys to do some weighing in here. Maybe you've already got an announcement planned or you're already in private communication with the mods, idk, but this message was meant primarily so you could be aware of what's happening and make sure it's all sorted out properly in accordance with SaidIt policy.

I do also think something should be said openly so SaidIt policy can be clarified for everyone, since this is something that's affecting the whole site, and the issues surrounding it are some of the core issues that many came to SaidIt to escape in general.

[–][deleted] 34 insightful - 3 fun34 insightful - 2 fun35 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

I'm not an admin but I agree that this addressed. It's better to do so now than later. If they aren't willing to follow the mod rules they should do the hide from all thing. Down with mods, up with users.

[–][deleted] 18 insightful - 3 fun18 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Oh, is m7 the only admin? I thought both you and m7 were founders and admins, sorry.

I'd like to be "up" with both the mods and users! I've only done a brief amount of moderating in my time but good gracious it was exhausting. They're doing something hugely helpful in creating an environment for discussion. I just want to make sure they're following the rules that are there to protect the users too.

[–][deleted] 19 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I recently stepped down from the admin role to focus on coding. /u/VantaFount is a new admin. I appreciate you calling out site policy violations.

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Ah, ok. Thank you, I didn't know there was a new admin too!

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

No prob. We list the admins here under 'who runs saidit?'

[–]magnora7 14 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

They ended up doing the hide from /all thing, so it's all good

[–]taibo14 23 insightful - 12 fun23 insightful - 11 fun24 insightful - 12 fun -  (36 children)

I've always found TERFs amusing in their naivety and self-centeredness. As feminists, they support every step of progressive egalitarianism that denies truth right up to the point where women are asked to make a concession to the broader ideology, and then oppose it but only on that point. Do they really think "transwomen are women" is the only anti-truth absurdity? Do they really expect to sign up with the progressive coalition, receive many ostensible benefits and give nothing in return?

There are many examples in history of eunuchs' political utility to an empire on shaky legs, I don't expect them to disappear anytime soon and neither should TERFs. The abundant dopamine to be had in participating in the next big civil rights push helps too. Speaking truth is great, but it's far from enough as many of us on the dissident right have learned over the years. TERFs are in for a wake up call. Do you go back to the progressive coalition where you must allow men to pretend to be women for the greater good in spite of the truth, or do you move in with the pro-free speech right where you might be forced to defend your progressive beliefs on non-trans issues? You might not be feminists for long in the latter case. Of course, you could always create your own website, but without the ability to evangelize that would dwindle in influence to nothingness. Serious movements don't take that tack.

Also LMAO @ the idea reddit banned GenderCritical for "hating women". Not everything is about you.

[–]joojoobean 33 insightful - 10 fun33 insightful - 9 fun34 insightful - 10 fun -  (20 children)

fuck off with your hate speech.

[–]taibo14 25 insightful - 14 fun25 insightful - 13 fun26 insightful - 14 fun -  (18 children)

reddit is down the hall and to the left

[–]joojoobean 29 insightful - 9 fun29 insightful - 8 fun30 insightful - 9 fun -  (17 children)

Then go back there with your bullshit calling women, the real ones, TERFS you fucking incel. Againsthatresubreddits doesn't WORK HERE.

[–]Extract 25 insightful - 12 fun25 insightful - 11 fun26 insightful - 12 fun -  (12 children)

You are a long way from Reddit, and yet you seem to still believe if you screech "hate speeeeech" and "mihsogakneeeeeee" people are automatically going to take your side here.
This couldn't be farther from the truth.
It's ironic - the same censorship platform that would once have your back in situations like this finally turned on you, and now that you escaped it, you realize there is nothing left to protect the rest of your delusions here in the open.
I suggest you buckle your seat belt, women up, and brace yourself for a few wake-up calls, cause this isn't the sheltered space you left behind.

[–][deleted] 35 insightful - 4 fun35 insightful - 3 fun36 insightful - 4 fun -  (10 children)

no, she doesn't have to listen to you if she doesn't want to.

and intentionally bothering people is not participating in good faith.

[–]Extract 19 insightful - 5 fun19 insightful - 4 fun20 insightful - 5 fun -  (9 children)

Of course. But intentionally bothering people would be coming to her sub telling her this.

By coming to a general sub (like /s/saidit) and sharing her opinion, she exempts herself from the having replies to that opinion counting as "intentionally bothering" (or, as they like to call it on twitter, "harassment").

[–]Wrang1er 11 insightful - 14 fun11 insightful - 13 fun12 insightful - 14 fun -  (0 children)

I hate feminists LOL

[–]Wrang1er 23 insightful - 8 fun23 insightful - 7 fun24 insightful - 8 fun -  (2 children)

Feminists are toxic asf, what are there motives?

[–]Whoscapes 16 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The same as any chauvinistic community - the advancement of people within at the expense of those without. They use sex but it could just as well be religion, race, language, political ideology etc.

I'd say they're pretty toxic because radical feminism is not the basis for a workable society. Other forms of community chauvinism can work, even if they produce undesirable outcomes (e.g. shithole Islamic countries still function even though they are shit - a rad fem matriarchy is just a bad meme that runs against evolutionary sex relations).

[–]Trajan 23 insightful - 8 fun23 insightful - 7 fun24 insightful - 8 fun -  (5 children)

Who cares? Let the conspiracy cat ladies do their thing. The problems with Reddit are that censorious zealots are allowed to control default subs and admins play politics. It’d be great if any arsehole can run a sub as they see fit so long as they don’t break the law.

[–][deleted] 15 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

I think it's important for the site policy to be enforced fairly for everyone.

[–]Girlwiththeraventat 24 insightful - 5 fun24 insightful - 4 fun25 insightful - 5 fun -  (5 children)

Why can't we just have one fucking place on the internet with no censorship? Who cares if the post has bitch or cunt in it? Who cares if it's a man talking? Why does it matter? Do you* disagree with something? Leave a comment with a good explanation about why and go on about your day. If someone has a shitty opinion, leave them to it. Why does everyone have to be so reactive and needing "safe spaces" to discuss things? That's what made reddit great in the beginning, the actual discussion of opinions without being angry constantly. Cant get away from the anger that's pushed anywhere.

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

check out, it actually has no censorship (except for legal issues) but it isn't as cleanly-running as SaidIt.

That's what made reddit great in the beginning, the actual discussion of opinions without being angry constantly. Cant get away from the anger that's pushed anywhere.

yeah, I don't like it.

[–]scrubking 24 insightful - 2 fun24 insightful - 1 fun25 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

So what do you do if you get brigaded or have a nonstop troll that disrupts the conversations? We are not allowed to deal with them? I don't like censorship, but I also don't like being forced to allow others to ruin a sub.

[–]quipu 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Rule 4b is an interesting compromise, I wasn't aware of that.

[–]Jesus-Christ 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Me neither, I actually don't agree with that rule at all. It just encourages for there to be echo-chambers which I think defeats the purpose of the site.

[–]quipu 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How exactly? I would think that it explicitly prevents echo chambers, at least public echo chambers. It's OK for people to have private clubs.

A good approach for subs here that also want to maintain a "safe space" community (not always a bad thing) is to have both a public "debate" sub for discoverability and a private sub for insiders only.

[–]Crystalmenthol 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Echo chambers are unavoidable on the internet, and especially on a website like Saidit, Reddit, Ruqqus, etc. that explicitly allow themed groups. To me, the bigger problem is not the existence of echo chambers (in this case, one man's "echo chamber" is one woman's "safe space"), it's when a particularly, shall we say, loud, echo chamber decides that those filthy others shouldn't be allowed to have their echo chamber anywhere near our echo chamber. /r/weekendgunnit was my safe space, but /r/againsthatesubreddits couldn't tolerate our existence, even though we never bothered them except when they were actively hunting us.

I think the rule 4b is an interesting compromise. Yes it is a compromise, because the sub that wants to be a safe space doesn't have a wide reach, and the wider community has to accept that there are corners where fully free and open debate can't happen. But you know what, maybe I just want to shitpost my AK pictures with like minded folk once in a while without being told I'm a dangerous redneck, and people that actually are systematically oppressed can probably use that even more than I can.

[–]filbs111 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Part of what made reddit popular was that, back in the day, moderators could set their own rules, the admins set very few. You and I might prefer less regulated subs, but for the users on there, those rules have real value. If you don't like the way a particular sub is moderated, make another sub! For example, debateGenderCritical , debateGC etc.

[–][deleted] 16 insightful - 7 fun16 insightful - 6 fun17 insightful - 7 fun -  (7 children)

they banned me quick, no surprise, feminism is morally bankrupt

[–][deleted] 29 insightful - 2 fun29 insightful - 1 fun30 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

from the modlog:

banned Popper (permanent: Dragging down discussion on Pyramid Of Debate: Rape Rhetoric "Women just want to be raped by a hot guy" type shit

Is this accurate? What post were you banned for?

[–][deleted] 13 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 5 fun -  (5 children)

they were complaining how there sub was banned and a sub on reddit called rapekink wasn't. I tried to explain, that sub is all women who fantasize about being raped, and it is weird but it's true, and it's not really rape if the woman wants and allows it to happen cuz the guy is hot.

[–][deleted] 25 insightful - 2 fun25 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

it's not really rape if

It does sound like you're doing that thing bad people do where they try to convincing people crime is "really ok" because <reason>.

It's still valid to criticize something like that, even if the sub is mostly women. There are people who have consented to being murdered and cannibalized, after all, but we can still convict people for killing those people. Perhaps it's what all men secretly desire to happen to themselves? Explains the "vore" stuff.

Ugk. I don't like engaging in this type of convo. Thanks for replying, but I think it's understandable that you were banned, it doesn't seem "morally bankrupt" to me. What do you think is "morally bankrupt" about what they did?

[–]liberty_primer 15 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Let them have their echo chamber. I’m content to just not have site wide censorship.

[–]teelo 14 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 4 fun -  (14 children)

They were following Rule 4 until they appointed /u/homeless-g_c-mod as a moderator who immediately went and removed all the dissenting comments.

Welcome to Saidit. You cannot remove dissenting opinions here unless you remove the entire sub from /all.

Edit: look at this ban:

an hour ago homeless-g_c-mod banned Marou (permanent: Spam: "I don't think we should ban abortion at all. It should be used eugenically." Nope)

Banned someone for expressing an opposing view. Clear violation of Rule 4.

[–]homeless-g_c-mod 23 insightful - 3 fun23 insightful - 2 fun24 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

Except we've moved the sub from all and we're building the sidebar as we speak. It's a GC community and eugenics is not a GC ideology

[–]teelo 12 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

You haven't changed the sidebar to announce you will remove dissenting opinions. And even when you do, that doesn't allow you to remove comments posted from before you updated the sidebar and took your sub off /all.

Now, reapprove all my comments you removed. Welcome to Saidit.

[–]teelo 14 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

The other moderators of this site are trying to be very generous. Based on your early comments about how feminism is bullshit I determined that you aren't here arguing in good faith but are in fact trolling. You don't agree with the basic principles of the community and you're trying to cause problems.

/u/homeless_g_mod has decided that all dissenting opinions are "trolling" and "not in good faith" and will remove them, violating Rule 4.

The sub was listed on /all until 2 hours ago, and does not meet the Rule 4 exception requirements on the sidebar. And I will need /u/magnora7 to confirm: did you intend to allow moderators to remove dissenting opinions posted before the Rule 4 exception requirements were met?

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I think what is needed is a simple feature that allows users to select between moderated and unmoderated views of sub. Users that want only moderated content would never see deleted comments, never be bothered by banned users, never take part in locked threads. Everyone else could just carry on with the discussion like adults.

eta: with that simple change made, you could even go on to allow multiple moderation teams, and allow users to pick the style of moderation on each sub that suits them best.

[–]book-of-saturday 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

I've also noticed this. While I 100% appreciate and welcome any new users and discussion, I'm starting to see old reddit toxicity and SJW buzzwords like "patriarchy". Nobody wants reddit 2.0, and most people here understand there is a separatist political agenda that uses this divisive language and manipulates vulnerable groups. SJWs have invaded most platforms, don't want SaidIt to be next.

[–]professional_incel 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

you expect a bunch of SJW holes to follow free speech? Just Fucking LOL.