There's some censorship going on in the newly popular feminist subs and it needs to be openly addressed.

submitted by [deleted] from self.SaidIt

It needs to be clear what SaidIt's policies are, and they need to be enforced for everyone equally and fairly.

A bunch of groups from reddit have just been banned -- often groups that have developed echo chambers hostile to each other. This is EXACTLY the sort of thing SaidIt was designed for. These groups' mods have been preventing their users from seeing each other's viewpoints on reddit, but on SaidIt, that censorship isn't allowed (unless people are honest about it and remove themselves from /t/all as per the moderator rule 4b).

/s/GenderCritical is already removing and locking some content, you can see in their modlog by looking under filter by action "remove comment" or "lock post".

They even locked a thread for discussing censorship on the sub.

Meanwhile comments that are lowering the pyramid of debate have remained:

And /s/Lesbians removed a post (even removing it again after a site admin had approved the post!) (see their modlog).

I understand many people are new arrivals here and may be still learning the ins and outs of how SaidIt works (and some of the SaidIt rules are a bit fuzzy), but that's exactly why we should be addressing these sorts of issues now, because it's exactly the right time to.

Eta: This has been addressed. Both subs are in compliance with mod rule 4b now. (admin response)

Eta2: /s/Gender_Critical has been created as an alternative women's sub for open discussion. The existing /s/Feminism and /s/Women are open to both men and women.

all 407 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]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?

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

Women should totally forget being raped to death since before written history

People were cruel before the modern ages. Can we move on?

why are women are responsible for violent men?

If violent men are rewarded with a higher chance to get a relationship, it logically leads to more men being violent. Evolution.

but most GC talking points just boil down to "men rape A LOT"

Ah yes, I also like raping a few women before I go to bed. Who doesn't? /s

[–]ankh 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

People were cruel before the modern ages. Can we move on?

You make it seem like the problem has been resolved.

If violent men are rewarded with a higher chance to get a relationship, it logically leads to more men being violent. Evolution.

This dismisses the idea that people are often predatory and conceal their true colors as a means to get laid. Once in the trap, they use violence to maintain control. This also doesn't account for arranged marriages, abusive family members, sex trafficking, etc.

Ah yes, I also like raping a few women before I go to bed. Who doesn't? /s

Not sure why you're taking this personally? I get the #notallmen stuff, but that misses the point. Rapists are obviously in the minority, but rapists are overwhelmingly male and victims are overwhelmingly female. Again, do you feel this is up for debate?

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

You make it seem like the problem has been resolved.

Rape is considered bad by almost all people in the modern society.

This dismisses the idea that people are often predatory and conceal their true colors as a means to get laid. Once in the trap, they use violence to maintain control.

If women are more likely to date bad men pretending to be good than actual good men, that still does say something.

Rapists are obviously in the minority, but rapists are overwhelmingly male and victims are overwhelmingly female. Again, do you feel this is up for debate?

There's a big difference between “most rapists are men” and “men rape A LOT”. Most quantum physicists are men, but I wouldn't say that doing quantum physics is COMMON among the male population.

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

I think a lot of people have a cartoonish caricature of the stereotypical "abusive violent men". Probably a really jacked up guy who walks around with tattoos, swears a lot, beats up little old ladies and puppies on the street.

Chalk it up to naïveté. Or ignorance. Probably both. Unfortunately for us, evil doesn't come with whistle and bells. Violent psychopaths look just like regular people doing regular things. One has to grow up extremely sheltered and lucky to think otherwise.

[–]voi_che_sapete 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

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

Maybe check actual data next time.

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

About a quarter of the women I know have experienced physical abuse. With only one exception, you would never have guessed the man was violent. They are often kind, wellspoken people with decent jobs and social skills. Also, terrifyingly, the abuse tends to appear years into the relationship.

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

That's your privilege. On an individual level, I do the same, but when a class of people is making your life miserable in a specific context, you make policy accordingly. That's just logical.

[–]xigoi 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Maybe check actual data next time.

According to actual data, men are less likely to win custody, receive higher sentences for the same crimes, have to pay in order to enter some bars, don't have men-specific abuse shelters, etc.

With only one exception, you would never have guessed the man was violent.

(X) Doubt
I mean, if you assume that good-looking men are always good, yes.

when a class of people is making your life miserable in a specific context

How is every single of 4 billion people on the planet making your life miserable?

[–]voi_che_sapete 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

According to data, actually, men gain custody a disproportionate amount of the time when they're the primary caregiver and ask for it; contrarily women who profess to being abused in court often lose custody, even in cases where the abuse is corroborated and acknowledged by the court. As for sentencing, that does hold up under scrutiny, and I hope it is talked about more and something is done about it.

Regarding bars: world's smallest violin. No reasonable person cares that much. Maybe try socializing in settings like house party scenes, musical subcultures, and the like - particularly places where consent culture is a big thing. In my experience, the more egalitarian a group is, the more the whole thing isn't just some race to populate a party with single females and everyone is valued (plus dating is way more relaxed and fun).

Regarding shelters: more and more domestic violence shelters for men are popping up and I'm all for it. None of these things disprove or discount feminism, and thinking so is incredibly simpleminded.

I mean, if you assume that good-looking men are always good, yes.

Look at Mr. Data here just assuming all of these men were conventionally attractive? lol. Do you redpill-influenced people ever actually go out in the world? Do you date and have social lives with people you have things in common with? Engage in hobbies? Your arguments are so easy to dispel from the perspective of anyone who is remotely worldly. Some of these men were my good friends, and the weddings were universally applauded by their friends and family. It's still a huge mindfuck thinking about the fact these people struck their partners.

How is every single of 4 billion people on the planet making your life miserable?

Straw man via hysterical escalation. That's not what I said and if you'd rather paint it that way than use your brain and think in terms of generalities and systems, you're a lost cause.

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

In my experience, the more egalitarian a group is, the more the whole thing isn't just some race to populate a party with single females and everyone is valued

Good point, but feminists often don't seem very egalitarian.

None of these things disprove or discount feminism, and thinking so is incredibly simpleminded.

I'd say feminism isn't a coherent ideology anymore, so I'd rather argue against specific points rather than an abstract word that everyone defines differently. (Before you ask, by “feminists” in the previous paragraph I meant people who identify as feminists, no matter what they think it means.)

assuming all of these men were conventionally attractive

Occam's razor.

you redpill-influenced people

I'm rather blackpilled.

Some of these men were my good friends, and the weddings were universally applauded by their friends and family. It's still a huge mindfuck thinking about the fact these people struck their partners.

This still seems fishy to me. Almost all of your male friends were pretending to be good for several years, without giving away anything about their actually evil nature until it was too late? That doesn't sound like something that could just happen. I feel like there's something more going on that I can't determine because I don't personally know them or you.

use your brain and think in terms of generalities and systems

If you see generalizations as a good thing, I don't even know what to say.

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

If by news, you mean Reddit memes or clickbait out-ragey articles that are more fluff than substance, yeah.

Pick of any history book and read. Actually, look at life outside of Western democracies. Look up news on how women get stoned to death for adultery. Look up on how some places persecute women if they dare to go to the police for being raped. Look at statistics of domestic violence.

Violence toward woman is the rule, not the exception, in most of the world. For much of history.

And I can't help but laugh at the "if women don't want to be a victim, then maybe they shouldn't date violent man" logic. You must live a wonderful life where you've never really had to deal with bad people. Or bad luck. I don't know how old you are but let's talk when you're 40. If you think you're magically sheltered from violent people in the world because you have an uncanny ability to weed them out - well, guess what? That's what most victims thought too! Most violent psychopaths don't walk around with a giant HI I AM A VILLAIN stamped to their forehead. I don't know how old you are, but let's talk when you're 40. Then maybe you would realize that anyone - even you - can be a victim. But it won't be so fun when the other people point the accusatory finger back at ya :D

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

Look up news on how women get stoned to death for adultery.

Yeah, that mostly happens in countries with a certain religion. Wait, this is not Reddit, so I can say it. Islamic countries. I don't support Islam.

You must live a wonderful life where you've never really had to deal with bad people.

Sometimes you have to deal with bad people, but nobody is forcing you to date them unless you're in a country with arranged marriage (which I don't support, just to bo clear).

Most violent psychopaths don't walk around with a giant HI I AM A VILLAIN stamped to their forehead.

Most violent men display violent behavior, which is seen as more “masculine” and therefore has a higher success in dating. I'm not talking about the few who pretend to be non-violent.

[–]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.

[–]radfemanon 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree.

[–]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.

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

Saying abortion should be outlawed isn't a "diverse viewpoint,"

You had me up until here. Patriarchy does exist and is a good thing in my opinion. Males are disposable, females are not. A village with 100 females and 2 males has a fighting chance of survival. A village of 100 males and 2 females is doomed unless the males go on rape-raids to neighboring villages.

Women do have a physical disadvantage compared to men. This isn't disputable.

Women do not have a right to abort a pregnancy just because it's inconvenient. Only if the child is deformed or the life of the mother is at risk. "I want to keep partying" or "I want to finish my Master's Degree in Gender Studies" are not reasons to kill a baby.

Edit: It occurred to me that I had to further expand on the Patriarchy thing. Women seem to think that "Patriarchy" means "men are in charge". What it really means is men pay the taxes, men are punished for abandoning the family, men go to war, men die in dangerous jobs. Anyone who is married can clearly explain how little "power" men have in society. Men face risk and punishment for failing to behave the way society expects them to behave. That's what Patriarchy is... and again, that's the natural order of the world. Societies that failed to prioritize the lives and health of women and children over adult men didn't make it into the modern age. They're all dead and dust and we look at their artifacts in our museums... that were built by men.

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

He never said anything about whether the patriarchy exists or any of the other things in your verbose rambling. You're arguing against an imaginary person in your head. Please silo yourself into /s/gendercritical ASAP

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

shit, now i'm agreeing with you. what have you done to my ability to shoehorn people into small categories based on cursory exposure to short comments?

[–]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.

[–]JustAnotherRevanFan 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That's a great idea actually, we should open s/GCDebate or something for those of us who feel like answering men's inane questions and recycled arguments.

[–]radfemanon 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is also something we will do when we can make additional subs.

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

Why do you assume that it's only men who disagree with you?

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

I didn't assume that, you assumed that I meant that. I mention men and not women because being honest, it is mainly men that troll/derail things, but it can rarely also be women.

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

but if men come in here and try to force us to debate we don't have to.

Well, how else was I supposed to interpret that? You didn't say people, you said men specifically. There's an underlying assumption that you think no women would disagree with you.

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

Why would I say people when that group is almost all men? Not mentioning them doesn't mean I don't think they exist, you assumed that.

[–]teelo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

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.

BUT the question we need to address is: should be the moderators be permitted to go and exclude comments that were posted while the sub was still appearing on /all?

[–]radfemanon 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Prior to our update to rule 4b in the sidebar the only comments I removed were ones with slurs in, which is a rule I added when I first became a mod on Monday.

We are trying to keep the sub on topic and there are a lot of people upset at being displaced.

We are not trying to censor anyone.

[–]teelo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Your fellow mods removed a ton of my posts (which didn't contain any slurs) before you complied with rule 4b. Explain that.

[–]radfemanon 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

We didn't know otherwise and we're still getting a team together. GC's been in existence on this site for 3 days. We didn't know the rules here but we are learning.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but the ban on Reddit took everyone completely by surprise so we are doing what we can to regroup.

Its not our intention to tread on toes. We are no longer on s/all.

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Because reading the rules before you start actioning comments is so difficult? Your fellow moderators were registered on the website for literally two minutes before making their first moderator action.

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

I can't force people to do anything. The sub grew very fast and we were cogniscient of not letting it get out of hand too quickly.

It is now over 1000 members and will grow as the week goes on.

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

You're the one who appointed a brand-new user as moderator. Did you even take a second to think about whether they were even suitable?

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

They moderated previous subs. And we needed mods quickly due to the volume of incoming users.

[–]filbs111 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Stuff appearing in /all can be read by anyone. It's pretty standard for users on reddit-like sites to check the sub sidebar for posting rules.

That said, a way to list content of all subs that adhere to some common set of rules would be useful. For example, a "debate" option to go next to "all", "subscribed".

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

Relevance?

[–]badMADam 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I didn't know that means that anyone can now join any discussion and dumb the discussion down as they please. Let's go to any science sub and talk about flat- eart then. Or maybe subs should actually be allowed to make their own rules and set their own standards, and people who wish to discuss the topic from another point of view can make another sub? If scientists wish to debate flateartehrs they could male a sub XdebatesY, which GC and other feminists actually had on reddit.

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

Yeah, I actually thought Reddit's basic system of letting a sub's mods rule their little fiefdom made a lot of sense. I guess it was getting abused more than I knew.

Maybe give the mods something like that free reign but impose community oversight. Enforcing topicality and civility should be OK.

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

Maybe give the mods something like that free reign but impose community oversight.

Yeah something like that should be possible. While I completely agree that censorship is shitty and general discussion shoul be allowed and encouraged, I also think in practice this is difficult to realize on such a platform. Some smaller communities (lets say a sceptical atheis community) might be in danger by being completely overrun by a mayority of other pissed of communities with different views (lets say a plethora of religious groups concern trolling, or even "academic theologists offering the same opinions again and again to be "discussed") and as there never are black and white truths out there in the end such subreddits just become battlefields subjected to stupid power- plays, when they were meant to be for a specific community who wants to explore or develop their own argumentations (if you know what I mean). In the end this would just again mainly further and promote opinions that are mainstream anyhow.

Maybe you could see the whole thing like different sports teams, they need to play and train together and not make nonsensical mixes (like we have two ballet dancers training with five football players). But then they can meet in a neutral field of play to compete under fixed and fair rules. This is why I think subs should be allowed have their own rules as long as they are transparent, no trolling and brigading should be allowed, but we can have some battle/ discussion subs where different factions can confront each other.

[–]Heczed 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This would be ideal, I don't want GC on /s/all, it's not a debate sub, it's a community for GC women. I hope the GC mods fix this soon

[–]radfemanon 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, we removed it from s/all earlier and updated our sidebar.

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

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

This is false. You can. It's just no platform is built for it. It's either full on censorship, or none at all. Where's the middle ground?

[–]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.

[–]FlightRisk 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Then find a cushy feminist discord. A public forum like this is where debate and conversation happens weather you like it or not.

[–]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.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

3rd wave

[–]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.

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

Some variation within a sex doesn't make it a 'mishmash'. Most characteristics affected by sexual dimorphism result in a bimodal distribution, as it does with height in humans.

As it has already been pointed out, 'transgenders' have the brain of the sex they are. There were a lot of claims to the contrary being pushed but the difference was only on a small subset of characteristics, a subset of the individuals, and within their sex's normal distribution.

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

I don't think they defied the brain sex thing in general? More like doesn't mean you have a female brain if you like pink sort of thing. I don't know for sure, I was more of an observer.

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

This is why they had the ask GC or ask PPF subs, for questions from outsiders, but having to refute and discuss the same really stupid assumptions and questions IN the actual subs just took away from the discussions, mostly those "skeptics" aren't adding anything of value and could answer their question just by reading the recommendated resources first. It is not about "knowing" you are right but about already having had a deeper analysis about a topic and then some wannabes who "know it better" come in, bring exactly the already refuted arguments again and keep discussing stupid shit. Again, those subs actually had extra discussion for this, which most subs do not have.

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

Why don't you expend that energy of trannys?

[–][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.

[–]Mallard 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I couldn't have said it better myself.

All content that dissents on these topics is removed, but nobody is aware of what's being removed.

The fact that SaidIt has public moderation logs is fantastic - it demonstrates exactly what you're talking about, and makes it much easier to challenge moderation teams. I am a woman, and have had my point of view censored on /r/GC because it did not conform to the party line, and I saw it happen to others - which was a huge disappointment, and discouraged me from participating more regularly on Reddit.

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.

It's very frustrating that the mods would be forced to jump ship to a platform which is anti-censorship, because they've been censored... and immediately begin attempting to silence dissent. I find the hypocrisy staggering. I suspect, regarding the locked post discussing censorship, that the answer to that will be that it's "off topic" or some other such dismissive nonsense. A proper response to this would be great.

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

I am a woman, and have had my point of view censored on /r/GC because it did not conform to the party line, and I saw it happen to others

If you want to say, what kinds of things did you have removed / did you see removed?

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

keep reporting to /u/magnora7 or /u/d3rr Mods can't just change the site rules to suit themselves, and the admins generally deal to misbehaving subs pretty well.

[–]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? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shit%20test 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.

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

Where did you learn about the term "shit test"?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

1 of my best friends when i was around 18 was pretty into pickup artistry and he taught me it. But i probably would've discovered by myself just from browsing so many different forums and subreddits online.

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

OK, I had to chortle over my coffee for that one.

[–]america_first_1776 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

What do you think about Jewish Supremacy?

[–][deleted] 22 insightful - 9 fun22 insightful - 8 fun23 insightful - 9 fun -  (1 child)

It sounds like you want to tell me what you think...

[–]america_first_1776 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Uh. No.

[–]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.

[–]noice 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Don't agree =/= 'too obtuse'

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

Just maybe you've come to the wrong place, then.

You could learn to ignore the annoying voices, like us right wingers learn to ignore the screeching of harpies.

[–][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.

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

I've sunk many hours into arguing with men. I think it's very worthwhile sometimes and have helped many change their minds over time (as well as had my own perspective sharpened), but goddamnit, I need a break sometimes.

I realize a lot of men are very well-meaning and respectful but goddamned if the ones that brigade in with incredibly tired and often-refuted arguments ad infinitum - acting totally entitled to my time, energy, and hours of research and thinking - don't make me regret every well-meaning stab at discourse I've ever made.

Hanging out with likeminded people can open your eyes as much as hanging out with people who you disagree with because you can go deeper into the nuances.

[–]taibo14 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

meatspace when we keep seeing our rights doing a one step forward two steps back thing everywhere.

You're actually delusional. What universe do you live in?

[–]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.

[–]Article10ECHR 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Marxism? Do people still fall for that scam?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

If they're still falling for it publish a good explanation of how the scam works so newcomers can avoid it.

[–]goodbyeplanet 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You have to admit that Marx provided a good amount of vocabulary used to describe political ideologies today, regardless of the value of the overarching theory.

We use the former.

[–]Article10ECHR 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A lot of false vocabulary too. Bourgeouis = anyone more affluent than me.

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

Women as producer class, men as consumer class? Can't men and women be thought of as both producers and consumers?

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

Women are the sex that has to put more effort into reproduction, so no

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

Focusing on women's role in reproduction and child-rearing and ascribing it to some malfeasant cultural force is decidedly a narrow-minded approach. Most women in all of human history have taken on majority roles in those things. Females all throughout the animal kingdom, especially mammals, will almost always have a more direct role in early child-rearing than males. Is this because of "the patriarchy"? I don't think so. For their children, family, and community, men and women produce some of the same things, and some different things.

[–][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] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I would defend /r/incels or /r/islam against censorship

Solidarity

[–][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.

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

I'd been told "women are dumb" in various iterations all over my social space Thats crazy! I've never heard anyone suggest something like that

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

The concrete reasons why women, as a class of people, consistently tend to become disenfranchised in certain circumstances. Radfem in particular offers a very cogent analysis of the material conditions of this, with very cogent solutions (reproductive control to correct for female reproductive vulnerability, the importance of women being able to independently gain resources, the importance of women's education, the importance of women's spaces, the patriarchal nature of "choice feminism," etc).

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Critical theory does produce some valid points, then it takes them way too far, into insanity land.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Just not ones that can stand up to scrutiny apparently.

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

<--- The kinds of men some people here want us to 'debate'.

[–]Trajan 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You’d be surprised how people can agree on points where there is evidence. The problems arise where it’s an article of faith or where isolated incidents, or stuff that happened 60 years ago or in a shit hole country, become scaffolding to a grand conspiracy of oppression.

[–]goodbyeplanet 21 insightful - 4 fun21 insightful - 3 fun22 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

You mean like the biologically and globally consistent rate of men committing disproportionate amounts of violent crime?

[–]Trajan 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, there’s evidence for that. So what should this mean to us? What do we do with this fact?

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

Clearly due to oppression and the patriarchy...

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

How is that different than someone saying you are wrong but can't understand why because you are a woman?

[–]flugegeheimen 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Well, I won't make inane generalizations about "the vast majority of men", with men being a biological (rather than ideological) group that would require to actually meet that "majority" in some way.

However I have never ever observed a shortage of obsessed male white knights using every available opportunity to suck up to women ("any feminist issues" included). In fact I'm sure this is the entire reason why the feminist hate movement still exists and continues to be as destructive as it is. Without the supporting white knight horde it would be relegated to the fringes of society long ago.

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

Way to pigeonhole half the population.

There lots of mothers like me on this site. We take a dim view of the bullshit misandry that you are expressing here

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

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.

If the focus of a sub is for women to come together to discuss why they object to penises in the women's showers at the community pool, then why do some men believe that is carte blanche for them to express all their resentment when women won't date them or pick up their dirty socks?

[–]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.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

You assume they view us as people. They do not.

Can you be certain? Almost everyone went to school with members of the opposite sex. It's difficult to imagine they forgot you're human.

I agree that there are some who will ceaselessly and mercilessly agitate anyone who responds to their foolishness.

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, and the number of men who want to renounce women's rights.

These guys exist, but I suspect they're disproportionally overrepresented; similar to transwomen (men).

There's plenty of evidence of divide and conquer activity in these crazy times. Forces are aggressively polarising group differences to create internal conflict.

Nothing will be solved if we don't have the freedom of thought and communication to fully articulate and address each groups concerns.

We are trying to wake women up from being willingly abused by men and abusive men don't like that at all.

I'm not your enemy.

The world is full of problems. We need all the help we can get.

[–]goodbyeplanet 20 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

can you be certain

The Men's Rights subreddit had a poll about "at what age did you realize women don't deserve rights" yesterday, and dehumanizing women has historically been and still is a keystone ideology for patriarchial belief structures, so yes.

anyone who responds

You must understand that they do not get off on responses. They get off on validation for their posts on external male communities, and the general spirit of demotivating ebil feminazis. It's not about us at all, and as such our behaviour does not change theirs.

disproportionate

Yes, but these men are drawn to us like flies to honey. That's the point. We don't hate men, since men like r/gendercriticalguys exist and are cool. But normal men don't seek out women to harass, these guys do. It's just part of the Rad Fem Experience.

D&C

Yeah I know. But women's freedom to discuss women's issues is essential. We fought long and hard to be viewed as people, and are not going to give that up. We will be content when women have, at the very least, equal say and equal power worldwide.

Have you seen the misogyny on the internet? The list of subs they didn't ban? They are influental, and outnumber us by the thousands.

Gender dynamics is, I would say, a far more critical issue in the long term for the survival of our species than the politics of the US, although the collapse of the latter would negatively impact the former. Personally I'd say it's too late, but my other political takes are usually reserved for non-feminist accounts due to risk of doxxing.

Freedom of communication

As I said elsewhere, I am all for opening the sub for general questions once our numbers are back to normal. But right now, there's maybe 1 radical feminist capable of answering questions for every 1000 questions.

I am not your enemy

I'd go to say that any man who does not call out the influence of those men is complicit, as he still benefits from the system.

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

Gender dynamics is, I would say, a far more critical issue in the long term for the survival of our species than the politics of the US, although the collapse of the latter would negatively impact the former.

IMO this US destabilization is ultimately about depopulation and eugenics, so these are interrelated.

I'd go to say that any man who does not call out the influence of those men is complicit, as he still benefits from the system.

The accusations feel a bit premature.

  • Which individuals (presumably men) should be called out?
  • Why are they specifically called out?
  • What is the proposed outcome?
  • How will the proposed outcome improve the situation?

These specifics should be outlined (at a minimum) as a baseline for discussion.

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

I'd go to say that any man who does not call out the influence of those men is complicit, as he still benefits from the system.

I was tracking until this. Give me a target and I'll make the decision myself. If I disagree with you, I can understand the charge of complicity. But if I'm supposedly complicit for being ignorant then I don't want what you're selling.

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

It's not a question of complicit because of ignorance. But there's plenty of men who see the issues in front of them and elect to ignore it, or assume it is a female-specific behaviour because females are some sort of incomprehensible Other, while benefitting from that behaviour.

[–]not-a-neckbeard 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Errr... see, this is egocentric here. You're essentially denying a phenomena x doesn't exist because you can't imagine everyone doing x. In your mind, unless everyone does something, then that act must not exist. ?? Logic?? No, you're not the enemy. But no one accused you as such. It's possible to talk about abstract ideas without involving oneself personally.

[–]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.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Semitic culture is often more suppressive of women. And cares a lot less about non-Semitic women.

[–]RenLuna 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Lol there is no Jewish Dominance.

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

Vast overrepresentation in many areas of influence - financial, media, higher ed...

[–]RenLuna 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't know if that is true. However, if I grant you premise Jews on average have high IQs and strong family ties which are both predictors of success. There are also high numbers of men, whites why would the the patriarchy or white privilege not be true as well? Additionally there are high numbers of left handed people in power is there a left handed conspiracy?

Post Script: Just because there is a identifiable characteristic doesn't mean coordination.

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

Regarding IQ and family ties, that's an answer I've seen put forth elsewhere, I'd say it's the default response. But it could also be explained by a desire for power, nepotism, in-group preference.

Actually someone just posted comprehensive and compelling info for jewish supremacy.

Here's their post

Here's a link to an article and an excerpt:

https://www.unz.com/ishamir/unz-goes-nuclear/

Altogether Jewish kids make up some six per cent of NMS, the highest-performing students’ list. This is a good result, in line with Jewish admissions into meritocratic colleges, but it is four times less than what you would expect judging by their Yale admissions. The Jewish IQ, as Unz found out, is also in line with that of their Gentile peers, and not the fabulous 110-115, as the Jewish newspapers claim. Jews are not all that smart anymore, judging by their score.

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

Not according to this paper: https://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

But if I grand you are correct, could it be that their culture is superior than other culture

[–]america_first_1776 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Low IQ Reddit-tier take

Despite being less than 2% of the American population...

Jews are 1/3 of the Supreme Court

Jews on almost the entire media

Jews are in control of almost all the advertising companies and use those companies to promote white-genocide

Even in the Soviet Union, it was the Jews that were disproportionately in leadership roles

The Jews control the porn industry

Jews contribute half of all political donations to Democrats and 1/4 of all donations to Republicans

Jews made up 55 of the top 100 political donors in 2020

Jewish IQ does not fully explain what society hands to them, especially in terms of elite-university enrollment

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

So what you are saying that Jews are a superior race.

[–]copenseethe 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Debates can be educational for people that are just learning about feminism and gender theory. They can persuade people that were formerly opposed to your viewpoint. Also, it's a bad look to impose silencing and censorship days (or hours) after being banned from reddit yourself. Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

[–]nonpenishaver 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, I don't think. I'm fine with anti-feminists existing and being able to talk amongst themselves, I just don't think they should be able to brigade subs they disagree with and demand people on those subs listen to them. That is anti-free speech.

There's a difference between preventing people from speaking at all, like what reddit did to GC and simply asking them to stay on topic of the sub they're in.

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

To say that vocalized disagreement is anti-free speech is Orwellian logic, imo. Agree to disagree on that.

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

Eh, it's reasonable to censor when the ratio is roughly 1:100 for radical feminists:interesting questions. It's easy to get slid when the community is small. I think it would be fair to censor while we recoup and then open for debate. Meanwhile I recommend reading some Dworkin!

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

Generally, you want both. On reddit there were several 'debate' subs and one just for GC women to talk to eachother about important issues. I actually do agree that a closed forum shouldn't be on /s/all. It will work better for everyone to have a GC women only group that's of to one side, and an 'open GC' sub for everyone which is on /s/all. As far as I knew the mods were going to wait and see before taking any real action.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Women don't constantly try to infiltrate male centric subs.

I support your sub being left the fuck alone but you're absolutely wrong on this point.

[–]Wrang1er 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Whats the patriarchy?

[–]america_first_1776 12 insightful - 6 fun12 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

What (((feminists))) use as an excuse to ignore Jewish supremacy.

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

You mean oligarch supremacy?

[–]taibo14 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

po-tay-to po-tah-to

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

the same thing snakes do when they enter a mating ball. the same thing solidary male bees do when they attempt to physically manipulate an uninterested female bee into position for mating.

[–]slushpilot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Off-topic to your point, but drone bees only mate with the queen. If you wanted to gauge her "interest", it's the queen herself that leaves the hive to go on mating flights.

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

I was talking about solidary bees, not eusocial hive honeybees. There are lots of species of bees! There is a species of solidary bee that lives near me and I saw this occur firsthand after reading about it, which is part of why it was on my mind.

I don't know all that much about how drone males tend to behave in eusocial species... I'd imagine they behave similar to sperm cells.

[–]ReignRain95 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You comparing bees to humans?

[–]VulpesLeonesque 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

No censorship and no downvote button are good, in my opinion.

It's going to mean visibility for oddballs who believe bizarre things!

[–]filbs111 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You may have noticed how people in organisations currently shut out people for having the wrong opinions.

I'm no expert, but "patriarchy" is basically that, but with men and "allies" instead of SJWs.

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

Even though I am a woman and I agree with the trans issues, abortion rights, free healthcare and UBI on the GC sub on reddit I was called a scrotum over people checking my post history and seeing I was active on rightwinglgbt and jordanpeterson. Then my posts were downvoted and the person insulting me was upvoted.

So saying censorship is just about "men trying to debate you" is disingenuous.

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

They don't try to "infiltrate" because their "arguments" will always get shut down. The side with the losing argument always clamors for safe spaces and removing people with the opposite opinion.

[–]pequenoloco 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yea, I'm cool with that, but your sub has no place on s/all if that is the case. The front page should be a place for general discussion, not pushing your beliefs like latestagecapitalism did on Reddit, that is either trolling or propaganda.

You can have both though, a free speech front page sub for general discussion, as well as a hidden sub for discussion with only likeminded people. I personally think both are healthy.

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

Wait, you mean like the boyscouts?

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

Also, is debate the only form of discussion allowed here? GC isn't intended as a debate platform, is it?

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

Debate is the primary purpose of this website. Moderation decisions are supposed to be made on the basis of the pyramid of debate. It's not just an alternative to reddit.

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

Women don't constantly try to infiltrate male centric subs.

Holy shit that's the biggest lie I've seen in a while. Women's sole existence in life is to be noticed by, and attract the attention of, men. Women spaces are the most boring and vapid spaces imaginable. Women seem to have zero interests of their own.

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

Groups such as XXchromosome on reddit should be set to private, exempt from front page promotion or considerations. A Group that other subs may link to to help people join their group, but not seen on the front page unless you are a member. These are not groups that should be profited off of. People go into subs such as those to discuss personal experiences, topics such as rape and abortion. People that need help and support, and not to be thrust out into the spot light of internet fame, throw away accounts or otherwise. Your sub on the other, invites debate. Is looking to change things, and can not benefit from privacy or exclusion. Excluding debate will only turn the sub into an echo chamber of closed off ideals. You're thinking will become disconnected from those around you. And over time, you may become that which you despise. Right essays right manifestos, and publish them to your sub. But above all else, debate those you appose. Creating a healthy dialog for political discourse does not happen behind closed doors. Privates groups are for support and personal change, public groups are for debate and public change.

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

This site is not the place for you then. Debate is part of the RULES.

don't like it? fuck off and build your own site, instead of appropriating something already built and then abusing it and its rules.

Women don't constantly try to infiltrate male centric subs.

Yet, here you are, infiltrating a free speech site and trying to shut it down so only your shrill voice can be heard in your own private part of it. fucking loser.

We gave IP2 the same shit as we are giving you, and they came to an understanding. Not sure if you have the required character to step back from your BS,

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

Women don't constantly try to infiltrate male centric subs.

haha

[–]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.

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

Or it could even say "this is a place where we don't want to re-explain the same few things over and over, here's a FAQ. . . Come back when you've grown out of noob-erty."

Hmm. That's maybe a little too long.

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

"noobs" are the future and they bring fresh energy, always treat them excellently

[–]theFriendlyDoomer 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That sounds good and all, but I'm really torn on that. Not everyone has the talent or patience to be a teacher. I personally try to serve that role when I can. But on the other hand in the information age people have developed the ability to be resourceful. It's not too much to ask someone to read something before they ask questions. That is what lurking is for as well.

I don't know. It's one of those delicate balances.

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

"treat them excellently" just means treat them excellently. Be polite, don't make fun of them, be welcoming, don't rain on anyone's parade. Don't call it "eternal september" or make fun of "noobs" but instead just be welcoming to new people.

There's a bit of a weird culture around "newbs" imo. Even having a weird special name to call people. Just treat people kindly and normally. It doesn't have to mean spending all your time on them.

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

Well, then I agree with all of that.

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

The developers here already have a list of about 100 other things they want to fix/add, so if they add that it'll be at the bottom of the heap.

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

interesting idea.

/u/magnora7 /u/VantaFount what do you think?

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not a bad idea, but like teelo said we have a million things on our plate right now so for the moment the mod-added sidebar message will have to do.

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

Yeah I thought it was an interesting idea, but probably not one that's going to be done anytime soon.

[–]jelliknight 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And as a GC reddit refugee, I support this. We will likely end up having two groups, a censored and a non-censored free-for-all group. I think the mods are just finding their way right now.

Thanks for having us here.

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

You're welcome here. I only just got here myself last week. The public free-for-all group to help people find their way to the private censored group sounds like a good plan.

[–]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.

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

Just because you've removed it from /all doesn't give you a pass to remove comments posted while it was still appearing on /all.

[–]jelliknight 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why not, though?

It's a curated sub now. Imagine if I had a gardening sub, and people were posting irrelevant stuff, or comments about how gardening is stupid. I take it off r/all to make it a better space for the people who want to learn about tomatoes. Why shouldn't I be able to remove the comments that never fitted the goal and wouldn't be allowed now?

Is there an explicit rule about this?

[–][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.

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

discussions = paranoid ramblings

[–][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 should.be 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?' https://saidit.net/wiki/index/

[–]happysmash27 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

So that's why their tag changed from green to red. This is the first time I've noticed them.

[–]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

[–]teelo 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Is it really okay for them to remove good faith high-pyramid comments that were posted before they took it off /all and added the sidebar alert?

We need some clarity on where you stand on retroactive moderator actions.

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

I mean they changed their /all status within 24 hours of making the sub, because they just learned the rules. So I think in this instance I'll have to say it's fine because they complied with the rules as soon as they knew about them. It's not like they deleted 5 months of post history or something

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

I guess we lived with IP2, so we'll live with their flip side GC.

[–]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").

[–]joojoobean 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I really don't give a shit, you aren't "bothering" me you numph. TERF is hate speech whether or not you diaper wearing girl dicks say otherwise. So kindly go suck one.

[–]theoracle 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

TERF is hate speech? I am sorry but a simple acronym is not hate speech. Saying kill all women or kill the jews, that is hate speech.

And no I don't support trans culture, but being rude won't win you any minds.

[–]joojoobean 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

"being rude wont win you any minds"...but calling women who don't believe men in dresses are women TERFS is ok. Get outta here with that bs. I am not here for you.

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

You're doing the thing where a woman existing in public going about her own business is automatic grounds for you to screech whatever load of resentment you have for all women, onto her.

It's still harassment.

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

Nice projection.

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

that's.... not how it works. it doesn't matter what sub you're in, it's about the nature of your reply.

[–]joojoobean 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You will never be a woman, get over it.

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

we're not going to censor you, but we'll still laugh about you.

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

I don't care?

[–]taibo14 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Asking seriously - what do you call yourselves? "Feminists" is imprecise since it includes those who believe transwomen are women. "TERF" is the term I've heard which seems accurate, but I always prefer labeling groups by what they call themselves. Gotta grease the skids of the euphemism treadmill.

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

Women.

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

I hate feminists LOL

[–][deleted]  (12 children)

[deleted]

    [–]teelo 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    If you want to be an echochamber that never gets opposing views then you're on the wrong website.

    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]teelo 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

      Explain how some of the comments that users have been banned for are "muh jews" and "feminism cancer" please:

      https://saidit.net/s/GenderCritical/comments/52ru/so_its_come_to_this/j4st

      By /u/marou

      I don't hate trans people, I feel sorry for them. They have been fucked over by a society that's lost any and all sense of objective reality. It's why their suicide rate is so high. Feeding their delusions is not doing them any favors.

      A comment by me directly responding to someone who accused me of crying:

      I didn't follow you here. I've been on saidit for months already. Now you're all over the /all here with your tantrums about being banned.

      Another comment by me directly responding to someone who accused me of crying:

      You're all literally here throwing a tantrum because your group got banned from Reddit.

      Another comment by me directly responding to someone claiming all men should be excluded from the sub:

      You can't be exclusionary if you're going to throw a tantrum whenever someone excludes women from something. Get the fuck out with any of your "rules are for you but not for me" bullshit. Discrimination against men is still sexism, and discrimination against white people is still racism.

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]teelo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        So you're just not even going to address the relevance of your previous comment?

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

          [–]teelo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          it's not censorship, it's choosing not to engage in a worthless debate, it's their right to be what you call an "echochamber" and ban people

          So first you're saying its not censorship, and then you go on to provide an example of censorship.

          Please, continue failing to provide an actual counter-argument.

          [–]ech 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

          The goal would be to avoid becoming an echo chamber that is dominated by opposing "views" (really dumbshit misogynist NPC scripts), to such an extent that the intended users of the subreddit, who are outnumbered, can't get a word in edgewise.

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

          If you're so vastly outnumbered them maybe your opinions are the ones that are "dumbshit NPC scripts"?

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

          That’s a good point. Majority opinions in a particular milieu are never thoughtless or wrong. If “muh pussy pedestal” or “muh white privilege” is the prevailing opinion it must be right.

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

          Are they the comments that the majority of users are posting? Show me.

          [–]ech 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          As I said in another comment, I'm brand new to saidit as of about five minutes ago so I can't speak to the substance of these comments. I'm just weighing in on principle from prior experience, and disagreeing with the idea that if you're vastly outnumbered, the people who outnumber you surely aren't NPCs...think about what you're saying.

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

          progressive egalitarianism that denies truth

          What truth does progressive egalitarianism denies?

          [–]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).

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

          You're retarded dude. It's really not that hard to learn what it's actually about.

          [–]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.

          [–]Trajan 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

          You have a point there. I hadn’t fully read the rules. It does appear that banning in order to preserve a vagina cult hug box shouldn’t fly.

          [–][deleted] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

          lol vagina cults are amazing, who do you think births all future?

          If they follow rule 4b it should be ok to be exclusive according to the rules, but then they have to take themselves off /all and not hide the fact that they're censoring from their participants.

          [–]Trajan 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

          Testicles are also great. I just don’t think imagine it makes sense to obsess over them and build an identity based around conspiracies theories supposedly targeting owners of testicles. Yeah, if they do those things then their sub is fine.

          [–]Wrang1er 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          Testicles are amazing, who do you think impregnates women?

          [–]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 notabug.io, 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.

          [–]Girlwiththeraventat 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          Thanks for the recommendation!

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

          Don't thank him so quick. I have spent some time now on notabug and it has some deep flaws. I can see great potential but the founder has apparently abandoned it so don't expect the issues to be fix.

          I do think we can have a censorship free platform that works well. We just need open moderation to be implemented well. Notabug has it but it is clunky and complicated.

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

          Because at present, there's way more people who don't understand than those with the capacity to answer.

          [–]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.

          [–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

          You can remove those as per site rules, without having to take the sub off of /all

          The only thing that can't be removed are good-faith arguments that are high on the pyramid of debate. But if you take a sub off /all then they can remove those too

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

            They already removed themselves from /all as of a few hours ago so the issue is resolved.

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

            well ideally you set up a notabug.io peer and community... eeeh? eeeh? I think they have a good model for doing things, but the interface is not well set up yet. Or maybe lemmy is more mature.

            SaidIt is ... maybe trying to run using the Pyramid of Debate. (see the site ToS) (they don't always enforce it properly imo.). It's supposed to allow you to remove people who aren't contributing without allowing you to remove people with ideological differences who are making good but inconvenient points.

            The other option is to use mod rule 4b, enforce ideology with censorship, but take the sub off /r/all and announce that you censor ideological disagreement.

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

            notabug's founder is gone. The interface is too complicated for spaces.

            [–]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.

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

            I think that's an interesting idea, pinging GC mod /u/gparmesan you might find the above post interesting

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

            A better way is to allow all posts but also allow users to select filters.

            [–]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.

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

            To me, echo chambers and safe spaces are the same thing. It reminds me when students protest at campuses for "triggering material" to be removed because it has the ability to hurt others, but if you're just going to remove literally anything that remotely disturbs a person then it'll just impede their development and mould them into fragile and overly-anxious people. Most of these things are mild inconveniences at best, they over-react over tiny things because it's what they've been taught to do. The things that were once considered unsafe have expanded to the point where literally anything emotionally hurtful is now percieved as "unsafe". When it isn't really, it's healthy for there to be opposing opinions because it creates good discussion. I think it's easy to distinguish those that are trolls and those that want to make genuine inquiries.

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

            It reminds me when students protest at campuses for "triggering material" to be removed because it has the ability to hurt others

            I think I'm in agreement with you on that part. The university classroom should not be a safe space for fragile egos, regardless of any legitimate trauma that person may have lived through. You shouldn't impede the learning of a whole body of students because a few can't deal with some ugly truths. The only reasonable accommodation I think I can make here is that it's fair to not expect to discuss subjects like rape in a math class.

            But honestly, I'm coming around on the idea of "safe spaces" in general. To be clear, I'm not comfortable with "No Whites Allowed" discussions, but I can actually see some value in the idea of designated times/places where certain topics are just off limits, because the people there either just want to have a good time without dealing with the weighty shit, or because they're legitimately dealing with heavy shit and simply need some time to organize with like-minded people.

            For example, did you ever have a conversation with a friend who disagrees with you on one particularly large topic, say Donald Trump, and both of you were just getting angry with each other, until eventually you just said "let's just have a beer and talk about Cheeto-man later?" You just set up a temporary safe space.

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

            The echo camber only exists because posts can be deleted or users banned. It would be far better to allow the reader to choose if he wants things censored or not.

            [–]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?

            [–]holy_goat 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

            you just took one PHRASE from his post out of context. wow. It's clearly not RAPE if both parties are consenting and participating in roleplay. which is that that is, it's rape roleplay.

            And it's morally bankrupt because they are willfully misconstruing his argument, banning him, and putting a slanderous false quote up as the reason he was banned. Work on your personal issues instead of projecting them onto the behaviors of others.... or just go back to your vagina cult hugbox.

            [–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

            it's not really rape if the woman wants and allows it to happen cuz the guy is hot

            I don't think I'm misconstruing things here, rather it is you who is projecting. There is no consent described in this sentence that he is trying to argue is "not really rape". I know he also said things about women participating in the rapekink sub, but he also said the quoted text which doesn't really look ambiguous to me.

            This is a common tactic with people who are trying to groom people around them in preparation for abusing others. "Oh kids actually like pedophilia," "Oh she actually liked it," etc.

            And not to repeat myself from earlier, but vagina cults are amazing. And I and any other person can go wherever we please. You may be projecting with the need to work on personal issues, here.

            The modlog looks accurate, not slanderous. He did indeed make an argument that women want to be raped by a hot guy.

            [–]Wrang1er 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

            Isn't rape non consensual?

            [–][deleted] 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            It's still valid to criticize something like that, even if the sub is mostly women.

            You can, but what would be the point? It's a fetish. People are not going to stop wanting what they want because other people think it's disgusting.

            [–]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.

            [–][deleted]  (5 children)

            [deleted]

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

              No, but if they have no power to change the rules it won’t matter. The folks that run this site just need to have the balls to say no.

              I pledged on Patreon for saidit last night. It’s not much, but if they cave to GCs and allow site wide censorship, I’ll stop contributing. I would hope others follow suit.

              [–][deleted]  (3 children)

              [deleted]

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

                A containment sub is fine tho.

                As long as they don’t fuck with anyone else and (preferably) aren't allowed on /all, I’m cool with it.

                If they try to control anything out of their containment zone, then I have a problem.

                [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                [deleted]

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

                  There’s a fundamental difference.

                  Reddit never believed in the principle of free speech or even free assembly.

                  Seems like the folks running SaidIt do.

                  I’ll be concerned when/if they get bought out. That’s the beginning of the end. A containment sub for GC. Not so much,

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

                  Yup, the more their own chamber can be left alone the less I have to hear them bitch and moan about men.

                  [–]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.

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

                  Wow, what a meaningful and productive stand to be making.

                  Not at all a useless, petty power-trip. . . You must be fun at parties.

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

                  How is it a power-trip when I'm not in any position of power?

                  [–]theFriendlyDoomer 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

                  I'm only talking about the hyper-specific instance of you wanting a post put back up that no one on that sub wants to read. You're wanting it put up on a technicality. It won't change anyone's mind. It won't make anything better.

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

                  Welcome to a free-speech website.

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

                  But, really, it's not. It's a free speech commons with the ability to create side-zones with further restrictions. They have now complied with the rules and so can remove further text with impunity. So, you're wanting a one-off technicality. That's definition of a petty (ie small) gesture. It doesn't get any smaller.

                  You of course have a right to futile and stupid gestures. I just also have a right to point out they are such.

                  But, yeah, I'm here for a reason. There should always be a free-speech commons, there should not be shadow bans, and there should not be manipulation of what hits the front page. Getting to say you're being a dick is a bonus. Mmm. . . yummy free speech in the free speech area.

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

                  This is an interesting start to season 2. I'm gonna go make some popcorn.

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

                  You believe in the advance of certain genes over others, xx over xy, that is the definition of eugenics

                  [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

                  are they still on /all though? I thought they said they took themselves off /all. I hope they will edit their sidebar to make it clear the mods remove opinions they don't like.

                  [–]teelo 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

                  2 hours ago gparmesan edited settings (toggle allow in default/trending lists)

                  Yup you're right. They removed themselves from /all, but not until 2 hours after they did a wave of censorship. So that mod still broke Rule 4 by not waiting. And they don't mention they will remove dissenting opinions on the sidebar either, so they're still breaking Rule 4 anyway.

                  [–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

                  so they're still breaking Rule 4 anyway.

                  That's probably technically true, but imo it's appropriate to give new subs some leeway here as they adjust. I do think admins should be helping with this and making sure new subs are following the site policies more than they seem to be, though.

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

                  They also shouldn't be removing dissenting opinions that were posted while the sub was still appearing on /all.

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

                  Personally I disagree, but you can take it up with either of the admins.

                  [–]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.

                  [–]magnora7 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

                  They can make /s/gender_critical_public to accomplish this. Two subs, two mod teams, different approaches to the same subject. I think that'd work great.

                  [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

                  In my experience splitting subs has caused so many problems on reddit, and it happened with forums that split in the bulletin board days too. The new sub always struggles to gain recognition, the old sub starts accusing the new one of brigading. In a way the whole site is just another split, except from reddit as a whole. Think of what happened with the takeover of /r/politics, and all the clones that popped up. How much easier would it have been for a group of users to simply create a new mod team for the sub with a different set of rules and different bias. For the most part everyone could still take part in the same discussion on the same topics, with only limited but discoverable differences between banned users and the like.

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

                  exactly. Keep all the posts in one spot and let the readers choose how they want to moderate.

                  Magnora7 plz plz plz implement this. It will go a HUGE way to prevent the fuckup that is reddit occuring again.

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

                  That's a great idea.

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

                  check out notabug.io's "spaces", it's similar

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

                  It's too hard to use. And now go1dfish is gone I don't expect it to improve :-(. Voting is retarded on notabug too.

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

                  exactly this is what I want! It will prevent moderator tyranny.

                  User selectable mods please. Notabug has it with "Spaces" but it is really confusing and hard to use. Surely the code can be taken from Notabug and made better.

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

                  Paging /u/VantaFount because I think this is a very good idea.

                  [–]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.

                  [–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

                  Well "SJW"s deserve a voice too... tbh I wish that view was represented more on SaidIt than it is. Intelligently and in good faith though.

                  political agenda that uses this divisive language and manipulates vulnerable groups

                  it seems pretty gross when you put it that way, doesn't it? it does manipulate vulnerable groups. :(

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

                  Everywhere that I've seen where SJW and far left voices are pushed into spaces the less that free speech is allowed to thrive simply because it's no longer about debating or conversation, but about "being on the right side of history" because you can't be convinced that anything is wrong and every action is "for the greater good". Every single time.

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

                  I'm seeing toxicity and rightoid buzzwords about (((da jooz))) here https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/53n9/theres_some_censorship_going_on_in_the_newly/j4qs surely nobody wants stormfront 2.0, and most people here understand there is a separatist political agenda that uses this divisive language and manipulates vulnerable groups?

                  (Point is that both sides engage in "buzzwords" and divisive manipulating language, it's not just an "sjw" thing.)

                  [–]Wrang1er 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                  GenderCritical is full of that BS

                  [–]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.

                  [–]VulpesLeonesque 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

                  Not at all. Here's a thought, though; people from heavily-moderated, ban-happy reddit echo-chambers are like animals which have evolved on islands with no natural predators; they have no defenses against trolls, and minimal ability to even recognize them.

                  This place will be some people's dream come true; reddit's format, 4chan's freedom of expression.

                  My main problem so far is remembering not to self-censor, and that I can say anything and not get downvoted!

                  [–]WrongToy 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

                  People who join themed groups--esp ones like this--are not interested in being lectured to as they hear it all the time in society.

                  A childfree group does not want to hear about a woman's infertility treatment and how the resulting 3-year-old is the best blessing ever. A dogfree group does not want to hear about how your dog just needs to run and how people's kids need to be educated in case it runs up on the child at a playground. A gender-critical feminist group does not want to hear about trans women's oppression or how men can be oppressed too.

                  That's why they're there, to discuss things amongst themselves. Not everything has to be a debate sub and in fact in any themed sub or forum the debate part is usually sectioned off.

                  I

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

                  Is this post incomplete? I was going to reply but there's a trailing "I" at the bottom which makes me think I should wait until you've had a chance to complete what you wanted to say.

                  [–]WrongToy 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

                  Typo, sorry,

                  Globally though asking people to just accept and debate all views and be open minded is antithetical to most themed groups.

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

                  Well to give my reply, then:

                  I don't think it's an issue of things being off-topic. I think these things would be considered off-topic, like posting about conventional gardening practices in a sub strictly about permaculture gardening.

                  A childfree group does not want to hear about a woman's infertility treatment and how the resulting 3-year-old is the best blessing ever.

                  A dogfree group does not want to hear about how your dog just needs to run and how people's kids need to be educated in case it runs up on the child at a playground.

                   

                  A gender-critical feminist group does not want to hear about trans women's oppression or how men can be oppressed too.

                  I can agree that those things could be considered off-topic, but I don't think that's what's going on here with the censorship.

                  What about the post about censorship being locked, that I mentioned in the OP? What about this being removed (copied below)?

                  I only feel comfortable using the word Lesbian to describe actual Lesbians, see here for an explanation & discussion

                  That has nothing to do with LGBT though. LGBT is a dogmatic group that tries to censor opinions it doesn't like about "sexual orientation" and human sexual behavior.

                  What you're talking about does not only affect women involved with LGBT ideology. It affects all women who do not have an interest in reproductive or erotic interaction with men.

                  Women involved in LGBT ideology can also behave in ways that are sexually predatory towards other women, which is also a form of harmful behavior that all women deserve protection from.

                  Women involved in LGBT ideology also often try to coerce other women into holding certain beliefs about human sexuality, whether those women actually agree or not. Sometimes this is more mild, like trying to mildly shame a woman for thinking for herself on these topics, and sometimes it involves attempts at economic coercion though it rarely seems to involve violence.

                  There's no reason a woman can't believe that "sexual orientation" isn't any more real than "gender identity" and also believe that sexual coercion isn't ok for any woman, whatever her erotic interests or behavior.

                  How is that comment any more "off-topic" than this one, which was left alone?

                  I would consider this an example of ideological censorship (equivalent maybe to a permaculture group that allows only one opinion about the role of trees in a permaculture garden, and removes other perspectives, without disclosing this to forum participants, and instead implying that anyone who doesn't use trees their way is a bad person who should be avoided anyway. Or maybe patiently "educated," but never actually engaged with.)

                  It's something that always bothered me about GC and its sister subs, especially because it's the same sort of censorship women come to GC specifically to escape when it's being done in accordance with transgender ideology.

                  SaidIt was built in part specifically to prevent this kind of censorship, which was/is extremely common on reddit. That's why I wanted to see this get publicly addressed.

                  I also would really love to see pro-women spaces change or emerge so that the women participating in them aren't being subjected to this sort of hidden ideological censorship. I don't think it's a pro-woman behavior. Free speech and transparent, fair policy matter for women for the same reasons they matter for anyone else.

                  [–]WrongToy 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

                  GCers fundamentally acknowledge sexual orientation. They don't believe in gender identity. That's really just it

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

                  That doesn't address why the "censorship" thread was locked in an environment where few threads were it is not general practice to lock threads.

                  Nor does it address the censorship around valid criticisms of activities of Jewish groups, or the toleration of open anti-Whiteness.

                  If "sexual orientation" is obviously real, then it doesn't need to be defended via censorship, it can simply be discussed like any other topic in womens lives.

                  I would consider this an example of ideological censorship (equivalent maybe to a permaculture group that allows only one opinion about the role of trees in a permaculture garden, and removes other perspectives, without disclosing this to forum participants, and instead implying that anyone who doesn't use trees their way is a bad person who should be avoided anyway. Or maybe patiently "educated," but never actually engaged with.)

                  I still think my analogy here is a good one. As I explained above, I don't think it's an issue of theme, I think it's an issue of using censorship and stigmatization to enforce a hidden dogma.

                  [–][deleted]  (3 children)

                  [deleted]

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

                    It happens regularly. Go to any NFL team board for example. If you're for the Seahawks you don't want the whole forum to be inundated with 49ers fans and the same goes for them.

                    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                    [deleted]

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

                      That's just it. A common platform is different from distinct subs within that platform. Vox has a platform across all 32 NFL teams and you can't go to another team's platform and start talking trash (even if warranted) over the rival.

                      [–]theoracle 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

                      I despise censorship. I would direct people to read my post https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/52rx/attention_magnora7_my_ideasolution/ and recent comment about abolishing banning and deleting and instead using a flagging system, which user can choose to show, collapse or disappear. With the default behavior being any, but I prefer collapsing.

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

                      Optional moderation is the solution https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/54cp/can_we_make_moderation_optional_can_we_have/

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

                      Solution?

                      I think that it is ok to have some stricter rules for discussions in some subs, as long it is clear.
                      Like discussions can be disturbed by people that have totally different world-views
                      or in this case totally different biological experiences.

                      For example: on C_S_T on reddit, we had restrictions on discussions, where one could start with a certain premise. And this premise was accepted for the full discussion. A discussion of "How would spirits see the world?" starts with the premise that there are spirits in this world, somehow. It gives the possibility to explore a certain idea, without having to discuss everything else.

                      Criticism on such discussions can be started with a different post, so it does not disturb the original discussion.
                      Like I could post: "Do spirits actually exist?" And this is a whole different discussion.
                      In a religious discussion one would like to start with: "How did god create the world" with the idea that there is a god that created it.
                      The discussion would not even make sense, if you (or someone else) started to dominate the discussion questioning where the proof of such a god would be.

                      But if this starts to dominate the subsaidit, someone might even create a different subsaidit where all these more atheist topics are discussed. Not to fight the other subsaidit, but to get deeper discussions about certain topics.

                      For example, I also have a /r/plasmacosmology subsaidit.
                      That is because mainstream astronomy does model space, plasma and electromagnetism the same way as plasmacosmology does.
                      This resulting difference is so big, that there is no "big bang" in the plasmacosmology model and no "dark matter" and no "black hole". There are other solutions for the observations that we see. So the premise of the subsaidit is that we have made a mistake in some theories, and that this has led to different models. And with this premise it would make no sense to state that it is wrong, because it breaks with mainstream theories. Instead one could claim that it is wrong, because we saw a "black hole" in a picture recently. And so we get into a discussion about how this picture is computer generated and that it is not really accurate at all.

                      In that sense moderation becomes more like a guide instead of a restriction.

                      [–]america_first_1776 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

                      THIS! I brought up a question to them and one of their mods said it wasn't the appropriate time to address it and that they would have a debate sub specifically designed for answering questions. I politely said that's fine, and left it at that. But they still banned me anyways.

                      [–]radfemanon 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

                      The debate sub is my next priority when I am able to make it in 6 days.

                      You were banned by a different mod, and we are still establishing ground rules between us and how to work together.

                      I may step down from being a mod at GC and be the mod on the debate sub as I would like to see more discussion.

                      [–][deleted]  (9 children)

                      [removed]

                        [–]radfemanon 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

                        ^ it's comments like these that we have been deleting so far.

                        Thank you for demonstrating succinctly why it is your comments are getting removed.

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

                        This kind of informationless insult stuff (the guy who just replied "c-nt" for no reason) isn't supposed to be allowed anywhere on SaidIt, afaik, as described by the Pyramid of Debate rule. You can report these comments, but many subs on SaidIt don't seem well moderated yet. You can mention spam or users that are clearly just here to post insults (like this person) in /s/SaidItCleanup if you want to.

                        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                        [removed]

                          [–]radfemanon 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

                          OK. You could at least be a little creative with your insults instead of throwing a tired old jibe that 12 year olds think is edgy.

                          Have you cleaned your room today?

                          [–][deleted]  (3 children)

                          [deleted]

                            [–]radfemanon 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

                            So far I haven't banned anyone, it has been other members of the mod team during periods where I was sleeping or unable to mod. I have removed comments that are using slurs and contributing nothing to the discourse.

                            We have literally been on the site for 2 days, trying to get our bearings and we are trying to make more subs to better reflect the topics and themes around gender critical discourse.

                            Can we please just have some time to get our subs sorted out without being told we're cunts every five minutes by random users? Is that too much to ask? That's a genuine question by the way, because if it IS too much to ask then we will need to reassess our use of the subs here.

                            [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                            [deleted]

                              [–]radfemanon 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                              Thank you for your comments. I will recommend our users go elsewhere.

                              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                              [deleted]

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

                                Please check out the pyramid of debate. Making fun of people is very low on that pyramid.

                                I am working with the rules as outlined by Saidit.

                                Calling me a hypocrite isn't going to unban you.

                                The debate sub will be available in 6 days.

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

                                wait /s/GenderCritical already banned you?

                                [–]america_first_1776 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

                                Yup. For this

                                [–]teelo 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

                                Cant see the comment as it was removed. You'll have to tell us what it said.

                                [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

                                what did it say? I can't see the comment, for me it just says [removed].

                                [–]pequenoloco 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

                                I don't know this site works, but in my opinion moderation does not have to equal censorship. In my opinion, insular subs should exist, subs that may even use heavy handed moderation to control discussion, for the reasons the top comment pointed out.

                                However, I do feel that subs that meet this criteria should not be visible from the front page or receive visibility outside from those participating in the sub. Let them, and honestly everyone else who wants one have their echo chamber. If commies, nazis, or terfs, or whatever want their sub free from outside influence, let them have it, just don't give them mainstream visibility while doing so, they have no right on s/all in that case. If they want that, they must be forced to accept outside criticism while doing so and cannot censor dissenting views. It's the same crap T_D, and later latestagecapitalism did on Reddit, fuck that shit.

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

                                It's also important that they're honest with their userbase about what's being censored so they understand that it's the mods creating the consensus. That's it's not organically emerging from whatever makes most sense since people can't argue for some positions.

                                [–]radfemanon 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

                                I locked your thread because I answered your question and you said 'thanks'. There was nothing more to add to it.

                                You even privately messaged the mods asking what we were removing and we told you. We have updated our side bar to be in keeping with the rules of the site.

                                We are working hard to moderate the new GC space as this has all been very quick and to ensure that the on topic content is left on and off topic content is moderated.

                                You are entitled to be upset at your perceived censorship, but we are not mass editing, banning or censoring anything as of yet. If you are concerned you can check our moderation activity on the log.

                                [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

                                I know you're new here and just getting set up, but that's why I wanted to get these things addressed early on; it's the right time.

                                You even privately messaged the mods asking what we were removing and we told you. We have updated our side bar to be in keeping with the rules of the site.

                                I checked my DM log and I don't have any DM history with the GC mods. Are you thinking of a different user?

                                Locking threads does not seem to be a standard practice in general on the sub, and I do still feel it's a bit troubling that someone would find the need to lock that thread in particular. The purpose of locking a thread is to stop women who want to from continuing that discussion.

                                You are already engaging in ideology-based censorship in a way I believe is not transparent, just as it was not on GC. This is dogma-based censorship that has nothing to do with being pro-female or anti-abuse, but with enforcing LGB dogma.

                                It's not "perceived censorship," it's just normal censorship. Same exact kind GC just experienced in getting kicked off reddit, same kind Meghan Murphy experienced earlier getting kicked off twitter. (This is the same language my abusive family used towards me when I tried to call what they were doing "abuse" -- "I'm sorry you feel abused". "No I'm not willing to call it 'abuse', maybe 'mistreatment' but not 'abuse'." It's not "all in my head".)

                                What has bothered me about GC:

                                1. you claimed to be speaking for the general benefit of women, yet you did not allow all women to weigh in on what that means

                                2. you allowed anti-Whiteness but remove anti- content for other groups of women.

                                3. the group has not been honest that it is enforcing a dogma. (the exception being its position on abortion). It has instead presented its position as "just true based on science/reality" or "not hateful". But this is not the case.

                                The existence of "sexual orientation" is even disagreed with by large swaths of women involved in radical feminism because they believe women can (and should) choose to avoid interest in men. Same for censorship of positions regarding various ethnic groups. Non-hateful content is removed, but the rules imply that only hateful, evil, disproven content is removed ("racism, anti-semitism, bigotry"). It is not about protecting all groups of women, because open hate of some groups of women is not removed. It is not about protecting all vulnerable women, because open hate of some vulnerable women is allowed. It is not about removing all hate, because content that would be considered hateful towards other groups is allowed when directed towards men (c.f. "name the problem").

                                It shouldn't be possible for a woman to go onto GC and think "oh they allow open discussion here, it's so nice" or to think "oh they only remove hateful content." She should know right away that many viewpoints are being censored for dogmatic reasons, and she should know which viewpoints are being censored for dogmatic reasons. This allows her to recognize when an apparent consensus is the result of a dogma-based moderation policy, and is not a genuine organic consensus.

                                I know the old GC sidebar said stuff like "here are some resources to learn more about radical feminism," and yes Dworkin and Mary Daly and all that stuff is interesting, as is "pronouns are rohypnol" and all that stuff, but it leaves women without a clear understanding of what positions are being dogmatically enforced, and who counts as a "real radical feminist" for the purposes of sub moderation.

                                To avoid gaslighting women into perceiving a false consensus, more clarity is needed about what positions are being dogmatically enforced. And it needs to not euphemistically stated as "removing bigotry," or "not radical feminist." The actual positions that are censored need to be clearly stated (as it was clearly stated that certain positions regarding abortion are censored).

                                That's my opinion anyway. If this is done right, every women there will know exactly what dogma is being enforced in the space and can participate in a fully informed way.

                                [–]radfemanon 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

                                That's fine. As radical feminists all throughout our lives we are derided and told that we cannot discuss amongst ourselves about the issues that affect us the most without having to constantly justify our sex based struggles to others.

                                As I have said previously, if its simply the case that we have to be consistently answering and fielding questions justifying our ideas and ideologies and we must do this in the main GC sub at the same time as offering and creating a debate space then I'm not sure saidit is the right format for us.

                                We want to have a space where we can talk together. We can clarify in the sidebar about the commonalities of radical feminism that aren't up for debate as we see them. S/GC has existed for 2 days. We are doing our best whilst juggling jobs and lives around a sudden upend none of us expected.

                                If that's not something that is OK despite us removing GC from s/all I will advise our users to go over to another site as we have alternatives.

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

                                As a woman who has always tried to avoid bowing to dogma, all my life I've been derided and ostracized and told that I'm stupid, crazy, or hateful for simply for thinking and speaking for myself.

                                As far as I understand it, the new GC is in compliance with SaidIt's policies already since you have removed from /all and have stated in the sidebar that you remove opposing opinions. You are of course free to go wherever you like at any time.

                                My request for transparency about what positions are dogmatically enforced on the sub was a personal appeal to ethics. Many women come to GC for support and I think it's harmful to hide the fact that a dogma is being enforced.

                                We can clarify in the sidebar about the commonalities of radical feminism that aren't up for debate as we see them.

                                That's what I'm asking for with point #3. Again to be clear, I'm asking because I believe it is ethical thing to do. I'm not an admin or anything but it's my understanding that the sub is already in compliance with SaidIt's policies.

                                Again, I believe the honest way to say this is e.g. "we remove content arguing against the right to abortion." Or "we remove content that points out negative group traits about X or Y ethnic groups, but we do not remove that sort of content about Z ethnic group" rather than the unclear and slanderous "we remove bigotry".

                                I also believe points #1 and #2 above are problems. The sub should be open that it does not speak for all women but only for ideologically compliant women, and that it is anti-White. Or it should change these policies so that is no longer the reality on the sub.

                                I would also personally appreciate an acknowledgement that what you have done in banning women like me for non-compliance with dogma is the same thing that transactivists have done to the women seeking refuge in GC and the same thing that reddit has just done to GC.

                                [–]radfemanon 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

                                When we have time, I can put together a full document on Radical Feminist ideas as a FAQs. I work a full time job and don't have time to do it immediately.

                                I personally have never banned anyone as a moderator. I personally would have advised you to stay on topic and not to derail. You describe your conduct as "challenging dogma" but if you are consistently playing devil's advocate or derailing conversation or discussion in order to debate ideas that are not congruent with radical feminist ideas, it's highly likely your content would get removed. This is why my next priority is a debate sub to allow discussion of this nature that doesn't derail discourse on GC.

                                I don't agree with you that gender critical ideology is "anti-white". I don't agree with a lot of your assertions about radical feminism and gender critical ideology.

                                GC has always been a space for radfems to discuss these issues freely without constantly having to justify our beliefs. We should be allowed these spaces. However we constantly have to fight for them. A bit like right now.

                                I don't think banning people with genuine questions is productive, but I am far more patient than a lot of radfems and so cannot expect my standards to apply to all radfems.

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

                                My openly refusing to bow to dogma is not the same thing as "challenging dogma," "playing devil's advocate," "derailing," or "stopping radfems from talking to each other." I do not appreciate the insinuation (one I have experienced repeatedly from many different groups) that I'm hurting anyone simply for speaking as a woman whose mind does not belong to a dogma.

                                a full document on Radical Feminist ideas as a FAQs

                                That's not what I'm asking for. I was very specific in my criticisms and requests.

                                1. State clearly that you do not speak for all women, but only for ideologically compliant women. OR stop censoring non-ideologically-compliant women.

                                2. State clearly that this space is anti-White. OR moderate with the same standard for anti-White content and other anti-<race/ethnicity> content. (the moderation standards were not the same on r/GC, I saw the unchallenged anti-White content with my own eyes. that is an example of anti-Whiteness.)

                                3. State clearly exactly which opinions are censored. (As r/GC did regarding anti-abortion arguments. Not an FAQ about what mods believe radical feminism is, but a clear, concise statement of what content is being removed.)

                                I would also personally appreciate an acknowledgement that what you have done in banning women like me for non-compliance with dogma is the same thing that transactivists have done to the women seeking refuge in GC and the same thing that reddit has just done to GC.

                                I meant "you" in the more general sense I suppose, though it's nice to know you personally don't usually like to ban women. I would still appreciate an acknowledgement that "you" as in GC and radfem as a group have done the same thing to me as TRAs and reddit have done to radfem-leaning women.

                                [–]radfemanon 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

                                I don't speak for all women. All women do not agree with me, or with radical feminism. You acknowledge that so I'm not sure why suddenly at the end you want some kind of universal acknowledgement to come from me. I don't speak for all radical feminists.

                                Once again, I don't agree that radical feminism is anti-white.

                                I also don't think it needs to be said that we don't speak for ALL women. That goes without saying. We describe ourselves as gender critical feminists - that is a very specific label to start with.

                                I will make content for the sidebar which outlines areas that are not up for debate.

                                You are entitled to your feelings, criticisms and requests, I just don't agree with most of them.

                                I have already outlined multiple times what i will do over the coming week. I am not going to continue to repeat myself.

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

                                I don't agree that radical feminism is anti-white.

                                Then why did I see all those Y Pea Pull posts on radfem tumblr? Why did I repeatedly see unremoved anti-White content on /r/GC?

                                I also don't think it needs to be said that we don't speak for ALL women.

                                Radfem claims to be acting in the interest of women as a group, which includes all women, yet is unwilling to accept input from any woman who is not ideologically compliant. An impression is created that radfems represent the interests of women as a group, not just the interests of ideologically compliant women as a group.

                                I will make content for the sidebar which outlines areas that are not up for debate.

                                I think that would be great.

                                some kind of universal acknowledgement to come from me. I don't speak for all radical feminists.

                                Then I would appreciate your personal acknowledgement of what happened to me, even if it was not you personally who carried it out. That GC did to me the same things TRAs do to non-compliant women and Reddit just did to GC.

                                [–]radfemanon 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

                                Also, with locking threads - I locked yours as you asked a direct question and were given a direct answer. I'm not sure what else could be added by other users, hence why I locked it.

                                If discourse has finished, I lock threads. If that isn't the etiquette here then our sub is going to get very clogged up, very quickly. It was an expedient method to keep the sub organized, not to censor.

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

                                But wouldn't it have also been well-organized if someone still had questions about what was being removed, and came to ask a follow-up?

                                [–]radfemanon 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

                                If someone has questions about their circumstance then they can message us. We don't need to have an open thread for people to chime in. We respond to mod mail.

                                I have given my rationale for why I locked the thread. You don't have to agree with it, and you are entitled to feel however you want to feel about it, but it wasn't for censorship, it was literally moderation to keep the sub on topic and tidy as the query had been answered and completed.

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

                                Yes, that's understandable, and I know this is common policy on many subs. It does still leave me with a bit of an uneasy feeling, which I hope is understandable.

                                I would be very happy to have things turn out that censorship within the GC and radfem communities is transparent and a topic women can discuss and reach positive solutions for if it ever becomes an issue.

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

                                I understand and I wish I could do more to make both sides happy.

                                Unfortunately the only middle ground I can think of is a debate sub which I will be moderating assuming I make it first.

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

                                I'm not asking for a debate sub here. I'm asking for transparency regarding the censorship taking place in the GC sub for the benefit of any women who participate there.

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

                                I have already said this. I will spend some time putting together a FAQs which document basic concepts in radical feminism and outline the areas that won't be debated on the sub.

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

                                We very specifically say in the sidebar that our sub is not a debate sub and we will make one when we are able.

                                [–][deleted]  (4 children)

                                [deleted]

                                  [–]radfemanon 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

                                  We have amended our sidebar and taken GC off of s/all

                                  We were advised this by established saidit users.

                                  We are settling in to the site after the Reddit bannings and we realize as a mod team that we cannot operate similarly to on Reddit.

                                  We want to keep the sub on topic and female orientated as has always been our goal.

                                  I don't think that it is unfair or against site rules to remove comments and ban users who are calling us "cunts" and that is their only contribution. That isn't censorship. We aren't censoring peoples ideas or stopping debate, in fact that is my own personal priority in 6 days when I can create another sub - to create a debate sub and moderate that one.

                                  Myself and the mod team are doing our best to walk this fine line given the circumstances.

                                  [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                                  [deleted]

                                    [–]radfemanon 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

                                    As a mod seeing the reports coming through, we are letting comments stay that 100% would have been removed and banned on Reddit. We are trying our best to navigate the new site.

                                    We aren't banning anyone flatly without justification. That is not something I am witnessing the other mods do and is not something I am doing.

                                    I have full trust and faith in the female users of GC here to ignore and not react to baiting questions or comments that are intended to detail or insult. I have told users to do this rather than presume that we can ban at will.

                                    As far as I know it wasn't an ulitimatum but a suggestion on how to honor the site rules.

                                    [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                                    Well, r/PussyPassDenied is still alive and well and unbanned on r/Reddit. That should tell you something.

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

                                    Tell them to fuck off back to Reddit if they want censorship! Said it's tag line is literally say your truth. It is inevitable it will be infiltrated, bought out and controlled then another migration will begin. I would like to get a few years of freedom of speech here first though.

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

                                    Please dont everyone should be welcome. It's reddit we want to burn down.

                                    Optional moderation is the solution to everyone getting along . https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/54cp/can_we_make_moderation_optional_can_we_have/

                                    [–]spezz 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

                                    threadly reminder feminism was created by jews and is an inherently jewish ideology

                                    [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

                                    do you have sources on this history? was it exclusively jewish, or just highly jewish influenced?

                                    [–]spezz 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

                                    Of course I do and it was heavily jewish influenced, and of course I mean second and third wave feminism, first wave feminism was gentile and was influenced by enlightenment thinkers. Starting in the second wave of feminism, a predominently Jewish Marxist school of thought, the Frankfurt School, had it's ideas of sexual liberation, egalitarianism, gay acceptance, and most notably Cultural Marxism, pushed to the forefront of these movements that were once about women being able to own property.

                                    (((Feminist Figures)))

                                    Kathy Acker

                                    Ellen Willis

                                    Brenda Howard

                                    Nina Hartley (half-jewish)

                                    Laura Kipnis

                                    Judy (Sussman) Blume

                                    Judith Butler

                                    Andrea Dworkin

                                    Betty Freidan

                                    Shulamith Firestone

                                    Erica Jong

                                    Gloria Steinem

                                    Naomi Wolf

                                    I've only listed a few it's quite an exhaustive list

                                    Lists:

                                    https://www.returnofkings.com/72572/why-is-there-a-prolific-jewish-presence-in-the-american-feminist-movement

                                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_feminists (Incomplete)

                                    Frankfurt School:

                                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

                                    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/the_frankfurt_school_and_cultural_marxism.html (Right Wing Site)

                                    https://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/ (obviously a commie site but you can read their works here)

                                    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

                                    Were those women you listed by name all Jewish?

                                    What was first wave feminism about? It was led by gentile women?

                                    [–]spezz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

                                    First question: yes

                                    Second question: Voting rights and women being able to own property were two of the main issues pushed, and yes it led gentile women

                                    edit: I forgot to leave that it eventually got co-opted by marxists, among those marxists the ratio was 50/50 jew and gentile

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

                                    that's actually fascinating, it's like people buying chick fil a and then no longer standing up to the LGBT stuff

                                    Do you have more to share about first wave feminism?

                                    [–]spezz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

                                    I do. So one of the earliest feminists was an English woman by the name of Mary Wollstonecraft. Her writings were heavily influenced by the French Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. She was for social and moral equality of both sexes. Although, she was around before any formal feminst movement came into existence a sort of "pre-feminst". Her writings would go on to influence some female abolitionists, because early feminism was directly correlated with the abolitionist movement. So yeah, her writings influenced some early American feminists: Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Blackwell, Jane Addams, and Dorothy Day. And yeah that how the womens' rights movement started before Judeo-Marxism took hold of it. You read more off the wikipedia page and probably some other history sites since I just gave a tl;dr

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

                                    Interesting, thank you for the summary. Was Rousseau a gentile? Where did his ideas come from?

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

                                    Yes he was a gentile, he was born into a Protestant family in Geneva (the city in Switzerland it was a republic at that time though). His ideas came other earlier enlightenment philosopher such as, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Volatire. And then he was also influenced by ancient greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. You may know Plato wrote a book, "Republic". This is important because Rousseau's ideas were very influential for the French Revolution.

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

                                    I'm trying to remember who the players were in the French Revolution. I have this vague memory of there maybe being a more gentile influence and a more jewish influence ("jacob-in"?) But I don't remember the details.

                                    I will have to look more into it myself, I think, if I want to piece together these threads through history... it is interesting to know more about first wave feminism and how it was potentially co-opted... much like we've seen companies get bought and co-opted recently. Thank you for taking the time to share this perspective.

                                    [–]MarquisBoniface 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

                                    Feel free to use s/Gender_critical for whatever

                                    I'm a man and have little interest in intervening at all, but I see the accusation of "crypto-men" to be dangerous in providing a pretext for censoring other opinions

                                    I'll step down and leave my mod position if you want to mod it

                                    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

                                    Thank you. I'll take you up on that, if you want to send the mod invite?

                                    [–]MarquisBoniface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

                                    Just sent it

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

                                    Thank you!!

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

                                    Ok I accepted the mod invitation, now what?

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

                                    I stepped down, you're now the head mod

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

                                    Wow! Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Hope I do a decent job.

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

                                    /u/MarquisBoniface made a post offering some advice to help the sub. Since I decided to make the sub female-only I'm removing the post, but I want to copy it here in the interest of anti-censorship.

                                    original post: /s/Gender_Critical/comments/54rj/tips_to_grow_and_sustain_this_sub/

                                    content:

                                    Tips to grow and sustain this sub

                                    submitted by /u/MarquisBoniface 3 days ago [as of this copying]

                                    There is a time period essential for galvanizing growth and determining whether a sub will catch on or not.

                                    I've seen way too many subs get a ton of subscribers then just completely drop off with activity, no posts/comments for months and months at a time.

                                    It's important to remember you don't actually need a lot of people to establish a sub, the vast majority of subscribers just lurk anyway, a few regular posters/commentors is all that's needed.

                                    So I'd say posting/comment quota goals (ie reaching 5 posts and 5 comments a day) is a good and attainable goal to set for now, such a thing only requires like two or three people (about 10% of the current sub size, 24). Such a goal serves to keep contributors expectations completely in line with reality, and well groudned expectations prevent the onset of demoralization. Preventing demoralization (and neutralizing shills pushing it) is essential because demoralization is the number 1 killer of online forums.

                                    I've argued with a metric ****-ton of shills and, through such arguments I slowly learned more and more how they strategize and attack. Demoralization is the most common tactic they use because it's EFFECTIVE. But once it's understood, it can be prevented. The best way to counter shilling is simple awareness.

                                    I'd also recommend OP explicitly advertise the sub as the true "gendercritical successor" in well received posts, like editing this one: https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/53n9/theres_some_censorship_going_on_in_the_newly/

                                    That's my two cents.

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

                                    I am not in favour of out right censorship but we need to make s/all a welcoming neutral place if saidit is going to grow and survive. People don't want to visit /pol/ in reddit format. People don't want to see posts stirring up resentment and hatred based on race or sex or religion. Speech shouldn't be censored but it should be mature and aware of it's audience if it's taking up the central stage, and if a person isn't willing to do that then they should be put in their own room with others like themselves. So I think any sub that allows content that is off the classically liberal center, that which a moderate left winger and moderate right winger could usually agree on or politely agree to disagree, should be removed from s/all instead of moderate subs being forced to remove themselves if they don't want to have to deal with randoms wandering into their sub from the online equivalent of a Nuremberg rally. Saidit's aim should be trying to be a reflection of what the majority of the people in the western world think, whilst allowing the radicals a space at the back. And race baiters and supremacists have never been part of the west's center stage. It's been 80 years since WWII and racial supremacism is as repellent now as it was then.

                                    Polite speech and free speech are not mutually exclusive.

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

                                    I disagree that SaidIt should regulate what opinions are acceptable on the front page. And I strongly disagree that it's a problem if people with what seem like extreme views visit spaces for moderate politics.

                                    Important truths have often been suppressed by being smeared as "extreme" or "vile" or whatever.

                                    I think the pyramid of debate rule is supposed to be the way to get to high quality discussion on SaidIt, instead of doing viewpoint censorship. (though I do think some of that goes on too, which I don't like.)

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

                                    I'm sure at some point in history some drunk, crazy, homeless, crackhead figured out an important truth and yelled it out at passers by... in the middle of a sea of other crazy, meth heads who were talking absolute rubbish. Should we let them all take centre stage of a platform designed for good discussions, or have some sort of code of conduct?

                                    I don't think posts that essentially just say "da Jews dun did it" or look to frame every black person like they're an ape or a criminal have any place in reasonable discourse. Even under the pyramid of debate rule absolute nonsense can take over the site if extremist looms are allowed to take it over.

                                    I don't want to see this platform become another Voat and it will.

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

                                    Anti censorship in subs is not something that should be enforced. Those subs should simply not be promoted on the front page.

                                    There is no reason not to allow "safe space" subs. So long as they don't invade free spaces. You don't want "thedonald", which spams upvotes to dominate the front page when they don't allow criticism. But at the same time banning brainwashed people just isolates them further from reality.

                                    [–]StBlops2cel_is_Lord 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                                    Feminism is all about penis envy and cultural Marxism. But true TERFs are pretty based.

                                    [–]bald-janitor 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

                                    Gc mods banned me, they all stink 😠😠

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

                                    (permanent: other: pretty intense racism in post history - not gencritfeminist)

                                    This is the reason for your ban stated in the mod log

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

                                    Hmm 😐