Reddit Starts One-Sided Censorship

[Ostroeuropa]

The issue is that we've allowed an anti-white, anti-male hate movement to infiltrate our institutions and society, and should discuss how to deal with them. The right wing is too laissez fairez about it and unwilling to use state power to crack down. The left is thoroughly overrun.

The problem is the Left is beginning to censor and repress people on their own side who disagree with Leftist orthodoxy on a variety of issues (transgender issues, gender politics etc.), there needs to be some kind of common ground between the political right and those on the political left who are increasingly threatened by this kind of toxic suppressive, de-platforming politics that's overtaken the Left.

I mean, sure, that's fine with me. But how do we *deal* with these people? They have overrun the institutions. Are you willing to have them fired?

[Purgatio]

I find people who are against freedom of expression to be very offensive.

You can stop with the whole "I SUPPORT FREEZE PEACH" because it's not what you're advocating for.

What you and other freeze peach advocates are trying to force on everyone else is not freeze peach but the freedom from consequences from whatever it is you are saying.

Again, still waiting for a coherent and cogent explanation, test, or criteria as to what kind of speech you deem so terrible it is deserving of these unnamed "consequences".

[Costa Fierro]

GenderCritical made the mistake of publicly affirming things that were doctrinal orthodoxy not long ago, things that make the continual gaslighting of this hate movement too difficult to ignore. They "Revealed their power level".

And now they've paid the price for being misandrist.

[Purgatio]

The problem is the Left is beginning to censor and repress people on their own side who disagree with Leftist orthodoxy on a variety of issues (transgender issues, gender politics etc.), there needs to be some kind of common ground between the political right and those on the political left who are increasingly threatened by this kind of toxic suppressive, de-platforming politics that's overtaken the Left.

I mean, sure, that's fine with me. But how do we *deal* with these people? They have overrun the institutions. Are you willing to have them fired?

Why not? Something has to be done, I mean people have been noticing the problem of Big Tech politically-biased censorship for a while. I think something akin to an 'Internet Bill of Rights' that extends the public square doctrine to online platforms would be incredibly useful at this point.

[Esternial]

When they realized they'd get more ad revenue if they cleaned up their platforms.

By 'clean up' you mean become an echo chamber?

I disagree with your wording but I think you've probably hit the nail on the head. The real problem then are these movements which try to get advertisers to pull out of websites for hosting opinions they disagree with.

You're close. With "clean up" I meant "become an attractive platform for advertisers".

The movements you refer to are indeed an active element, but I think advertisers themselves also push platforms towards enforcing the most "common denominator" ideology.

It's part of the free market economy. Public image has become a bigger and bigger deal in markets that grow more and more competitive, and it really shows sometimes in knee-jerk responses to try and conform as much as possible, which don't tend to come across as genuine.

[Purgatio]

GenderCritical made the mistake of publicly affirming things that were doctrinal orthodoxy not long ago, things that make the continual gaslighting of this hate movement too difficult to ignore. They "Revealed their power level".

And now they've paid the price for being misandrist.

Literally not misandrist. At all.

[Ostroeuropa]

I mean, sure, that's fine with me. But how do we *deal* with these people? They have overrun the institutions. Are you willing to have them fired?

Why not? Something has to be done, I mean people have been noticing the problem of Big Tech politically-biased censorship for a while. I think something akin to an 'Internet Bill of Rights' that extends the public square doctrine to online platforms would be incredibly useful at this point.

A good start, but it's downstream of the real problems which is the state funding these hate movements through the backdoor, and the infiltration of academia by this hate movement.

[Merther]

The problem is the Left is beginning to censor and repress people on their own side who disagree with Leftist orthodoxy on a variety of issues (transgender issues, gender politics etc.), there needs to be some kind of common ground between the political right and those on the political left who are increasingly threatened by this kind of toxic suppressive, de-platforming politics that's overtaken the Left.

I mean, sure, that's fine with me. But how do we *deal* with these people? They have overrun the institutions. Are you willing to have them fired?

Through natural selection the population will simply stop picking left-wing politicians as their leaders and as office holders. In less primal talk, the left is killing itself under its own stupidity and Stalinist ideas (If you do not conform exactly with the party leader's ideas, you're done.)

You don't have to specifically deal with them. It's like what cops do during gang wars, even. Let them go at each other's throat, sweep up the mess afterwards, and the stain is gone.

[Zapato]

I mean, sure, that's fine with me. But how do we *deal* with these people? They have overrun the institutions. Are you willing to have them fired?

Why not? Something has to be done, I mean people have been noticing the problem of Big Tech politically-biased censorship for a while. I think something akin to an 'Internet Bill of Rights' that extends the public square doctrine to online platforms would be incredibly useful at this point.

Such anti-capitalist ideas are non-starters.

[Ostroeuropa]

I mean, sure, that's fine with me. But how do we *deal* with these people? They have overrun the institutions. Are you willing to have them fired?

Through natural selection the population will simply stop picking left-wing politicians as their leaders and as office holders. In less primal talk, the left is killing itself under its own stupidity and Stalinist ideas (If you do not conform exactly with the party leader's ideas, you're done.)

You don't have to specifically deal with them. It's like what cops do during gang wars, even. Let them go at each other's throat, sweep up the mess afterwards, and the stain is gone.

Not all positions of power in our society are elected.

[Purgatio]

Why not? Something has to be done, I mean people have been noticing the problem of Big Tech politically-biased censorship for a while. I think something akin to an 'Internet Bill of Rights' that extends the public square doctrine to online platforms would be incredibly useful at this point.

A good start, but it's downstream of the real problems which is the state funding these hate movements through the backdoor, and the infiltration of academia by this hate movement.

Baby steps, we can't randomly snap our fingers and, voila, fire all the powerful people who are using their influence in the media, academia, social movements, and politics to push this increasing censorship of un-PC, 'offensive' viewpoints that fall out-with an increasingly-narrowing Overton window. The first step is legal reforms and extending anti-discrimination laws to include viewpoint discrimination and discrimination based on political opinion/affiliation, and then extends those protections and regulations to online platforms like Reddit, by treating them as public squares/public forums.

Once we've secured the digital marketplace of ideas, then it becomes possible to speak up, organise, build online communities that can criticise and call to account the people you are talking about now, by scrutinising their ideas and proposals.

[Ostroeuropa]

A good start, but it's downstream of the real problems which is the state funding these hate movements through the backdoor, and the infiltration of academia by this hate movement.

Baby steps, we can't randomly snap our fingers and, voila, fire all the powerful people who are using their influence in the media, academia, social movements, and politics to push this increasing censorship of un-PC, 'offensive' viewpoints that fall out-with an increasingly-narrowing Overton window. The first step is legal reforms and extending anti-discrimination laws to include viewpoint discrimination and discrimination based on political opinion/affiliation, and then extends those protections and regulations to online platforms like Reddit, by treating them as public squares/public forums.

Once we've secured the digital marketplace of ideas, then it becomes possible to speak up, organise, build online communities that can criticise and call to account the people you are talking about now, by scrutinising their ideas and proposals.

I suppose that's true yes.

[Costa Fierro]

It wasn't getting as much coverage. On my part you can assume that I disagree with any community getting banned, whether it's left wing, right wing, jihadi, or ginger supremacist.

If only we could believe you.

What the hell does "major rioting" have to do with r/The_Donald, how the hell is that their fault?

Their supporters are the kinds of people that went out to incite racial tensions and vote for politicians that support policies that disproportionately affect poor non-whites. They directly contribute to the social inequality that exists in American society because of their open contempt for anyone considered non-white.

Remember, they were quarantined for a long time before this new content policy update because people on that sub were advocating violence.

And how is r/GenderCritical responsible for 'misandry'?

If you've put misandry in inverted commas then you're not going to understand where I am coming from.

Suddenly advocating for sex-segregated spaces and protecting women against VAW is 'misandry'?

Again, you're not going to understand where I'm coming from so it'd be a waste of my time explaining it to you.

Many of the lesbians on r/GenderCritical have been openly supportive of gay and bisexual men on affiliated platforms like r/LGBDropTheT (which is now in danger of becoming banned too), so where exactly is the 'misandry' there? I'm struggling to find it.

You don't know what misandry is or how it manifests.

Still waiting for an explanation as to how r/RightWingLGBT is contrary to social cohesion. Being right-wing and LGBT is now inherently bad?

It was banned for a reason. Chances are whatever views they had contributed to the erosion of social cohesion.

[Purgatio]

Why not? Something has to be done, I mean people have been noticing the problem of Big Tech politically-biased censorship for a while. I think something akin to an 'Internet Bill of Rights' that extends the public square doctrine to online platforms would be incredibly useful at this point.

Such anti-capitalist ideas are non-starters.

Anti-discrimination laws on private business are a thing in most US States already you know. And the Civil Rights Act already imposes non-discrimination obligations on places of public accommodation.

All I'm suggesting is something similar, but for discrimination based on viewpoints and political affiliation, and applied vis-a-vis online businesses and platforms and domains instead.

[Costa Fierro]

And now they've paid the price for being misandrist.

Literally not misandrist. At all.

You don't know what misandry is, so you can't really say what is and what isn't.

[Purgatio]

It wasn't getting as much coverage. On my part you can assume that I disagree with any community getting banned, whether it's left wing, right wing, jihadi, or ginger supremacist.

If only we could believe you.

What the hell does "major rioting" have to do with r/The_Donald, how the hell is that their fault?

Their supporters are the kinds of people that went out to incite racial tensions and vote for politicians that support policies that disproportionately affect poor non-whites. They directly contribute to the social inequality that exists in American society because of their open contempt for anyone considered non-white.

Remember, they were quarantined for a long time before this new content policy update because people on that sub were advocating violence.

And how is r/GenderCritical responsible for 'misandry'?

If you've put misandry in inverted commas then you're not going to understand where I am coming from.

Suddenly advocating for sex-segregated spaces and protecting women against VAW is 'misandry'?

Again, you're not going to understand where I'm coming from so it'd be a waste of my time explaining it to you.

Many of the lesbians on r/GenderCritical have been openly supportive of gay and bisexual men on affiliated platforms like r/LGBDropTheT (which is now in danger of becoming banned too), so where exactly is the 'misandry' there? I'm struggling to find it.

You don't know what misandry is or how it manifests.

Still waiting for an explanation as to how r/RightWingLGBT is contrary to social cohesion. Being right-wing and LGBT is now inherently bad?

It was banned for a reason. Chances are whatever views they had contributed to the erosion of social cohesion.

Lol, great debate tactic. "I have a very profound and totally-correct point and argument to make in response to you, but I won't reveal this totally-correct argument because I don't see the point, just take my word for it that it definitely exists and IF I had shared it, it would have destroyed your argument completely. But I won't reveal it because I don't see the point".

If you're gonna advocate en masse censorship of people's opinions, you really are gonna need something a bit more concrete and certain than this nebulous notion of "erosion of social cohesion", which you clearly can't explain, articulate in detail, or justify when applied to individual cases.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

It wasn't getting as much coverage. On my part you can assume that I disagree with any community getting banned, whether it's left wing, right wing, jihadi, or ginger supremacist.

If only we could believe you.

What the hell does "major rioting" have to do with r/The_Donald, how the hell is that their fault?

Their supporters are the kinds of people that went out to incite racial tensions and vote for politicians that support policies that disproportionately affect poor non-whites. They directly contribute to the social inequality that exists in American society because of their open contempt for anyone considered non-white.

Remember, they were quarantined for a long time before this new content policy update because people on that sub were advocating violence.

And how is r/GenderCritical responsible for 'misandry'?

If you've put misandry in inverted commas then you're not going to understand where I am coming from.

Suddenly advocating for sex-segregated spaces and protecting women against VAW is 'misandry'?

Again, you're not going to understand where I'm coming from so it'd be a waste of my time explaining it to you.

Many of the lesbians on r/GenderCritical have been openly supportive of gay and bisexual men on affiliated platforms like r/LGBDropTheT (which is now in danger of becoming banned too), so where exactly is the 'misandry' there? I'm struggling to find it.

You don't know what misandry is or how it manifests.

Still waiting for an explanation as to how r/RightWingLGBT is contrary to social cohesion. Being right-wing and LGBT is now inherently bad?

It was banned for a reason. Chances are whatever views they had contributed to the erosion of social cohesion.

You are aware right that I've criticised governments for banning jihadi content? I believe you are because I'm pretty sure you were involved in the same thread.

[Ostroeuropa]

Purgatio, while the mission statement of GenderCritical was anti-trans, there was a considerable amount of misandry there that was normalized. Their reasoning for supporting sex-segregated spaces was uniformly about demonizing males too.

There's also their rhetoric and discussion of male bodies and the visceral disgust they hold them in.

They were also a feminist movement, so misandrist by default.

[Purgatio]

Literally not misandrist. At all.

You don't know what misandry is, so you can't really say what is and what isn't.

Again, r/GenderCritical was a gender-critical and gender-abolitionist feminist subreddit. They believe that natal women and girls are oppressed by patriarchal ideals, including gendered expectations of masculinity and femininity, and they want to live in a world in which socially-constructed gender roles are abolished for all, men and women alike.

Literally nothing misandrist about the gender-critical worldview. Responding "you don't know what misandry is" isn't really an argument, its a bare assertion. If you're gonna justify an online platform getting destroyed or eliminated, you could at least proffer a coherent rationale as to what their thought-crime was that rendered them deserving of such censorship. But you're clearly not gonna do it. You're just gonna keep asserting that r/GenderCritical deserved to get banned and we should just take your word for it that they are very, very bad people.

[Merther]

Through natural selection the population will simply stop picking left-wing politicians as their leaders and as office holders. In less primal talk, the left is killing itself under its own stupidity and Stalinist ideas (If you do not conform exactly with the party leader's ideas, you're done.)

You don't have to specifically deal with them. It's like what cops do during gang wars, even. Let them go at each other's throat, sweep up the mess afterwards, and the stain is gone.

Not all positions of power in our society are elected.

The top ones are, and I'm not just talking about the obvious president or whatever your leader is called. And not just the political world as well. And it's the top ones that matter most as they've got the most media coverage. Without the top positions serving as propaganda beacons, the rest loses its utility and eventually disappears.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Purgatio, while the mission statement of GenderCritical was anti-trans, there was a considerable amount of misandry there that was normalized. Their reasoning for supporting sex-segregated spaces was uniformly about demonizing males too.

There's also their rhetoric and discussion of male bodies and the visceral disgust they hold them in.

The thing is Ostro, we can't just advocate for freedom of expression for groups we agree with. That's totally hypocritical.

I disagree with pretty much everything there is to be found on genderCritical. I still don't think it should be shut down, because their opinions are just as valid as those opinions with which I agree.

[Zapato]

Such anti-capitalist ideas are non-starters.

Anti-discrimination laws on private business are a thing in most US States already you know. And the Civil Rights Act already imposes non-discrimination obligations on places of public accommodation.

All I'm suggesting is something similar, but for discrimination based on viewpoints and political affiliation, and applied vis-a-vis online businesses and platforms and domains instead.

You know what can be done?

Build your own platform. If the market likes your idea, customers will flock to it (and Big Tech will try to steal it).

Like that conservative Twitter-alternative which I can't remember the name of. The Free Market has provided you with an alternative. No need to use governmental force to change the way private companies are doing business.

[Ostroeuropa]

Purgatio, while the mission statement of GenderCritical was anti-trans, there was a considerable amount of misandry there that was normalized. Their reasoning for supporting sex-segregated spaces was uniformly about demonizing males too.

There's also their rhetoric and discussion of male bodies and the visceral disgust they hold them in.

The thing is Ostro, we can't just advocate for freedom of expression for groups we agree with. That's totally hypocritical.

I disagree with pretty much everything there is to be found on genderCritical. I still don't think it should be shut down, because their opinions are just as valid as those opinions with which I agree.

I broadly agree with you. Incitement to violence would be a different matter though. I'm merely noting that yes, they were misandrists.

[Costa Fierro]

If you're gonna advocate en masse censorship of people's opinions, you really are gonna need something a bit more concrete and certain than this nebulous notion of "erosion of social cohesion", which you clearly can't explain, articulate in detail, or justify when applied to individual cases.

I don't. It's what it says on the tin.

[Purgatio]

Purgatio, while the mission statement of GenderCritical was anti-trans, there was a considerable amount of misandry there that was normalized. Their reasoning for supporting sex-segregated spaces was uniformly about demonizing males too.

There's also their rhetoric and discussion of male bodies and the visceral disgust they hold them in.

They were also a feminist movement, so misandrist by default.

They really weren't 'demonising' males at all, they regard trans women as biologically male because they believe biological sex is real and important, and they support sex-segregated spaces because they believe its essentially to prevent VAW. None of that is demonising of biological males. I'm a man who has been on that subreddit fairly regularly and very rarely saw anything that was hateful or misandrist or vitriolic of men in general.

There's a big difference between recognising a difference between biological sex and gender identity, which was at the core of what r/GenderCritical was about, and just straight up hating biological males for being biologically-male. The people on r/GenderCritical were gender-abolitionist, they were advocating for a society where biological sex does not carry or entail any gendered societal expectations. That's not a misandrist opinion to hold. Neither is it misandrist to suggest trans women are biologically different from cis women.