NationStates

Purgatio wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Arguably yes, VAW is a misandrist concept given that the overwhelming majority of violence is suffered by men, and VAW has been pushed to the point that it distorts public perceptions of violence and they believe women suffer more of it. It's also misandrist in issues like female genital mutilation in that it seperates those concerns from genital mutilation as a whole in an attempt to segregate the discussion, resulting in men being left uncovered. This is also the case for forced marriages in most cases.

More specifically, the concept that if men are allowed into womens spaces, violence against women will be the result, is a misandrist concept without any backing to it.

Not really, I think there are valid concerns that an end to sex-segregated spaces could lead to problems like exhibitionism, indecent exposure, and voyeurism, which have occurred in the past from men to women, examples of which can easily be found in the news. I wouldn't say there is 'no backing' to it either, there are specific examples of people like Katie Dolatowski who have assaulted natal women in sex-segregated bathrooms and spaces.

And its not inherently-misandrist to recognise certain cases where women suffer disproportionate types of violence, be it sexual harassment or rape or domestic violence (and I'm well aware that its controversial to suggest that women are disproportionately likely to suffer rape or DV, I've done papers on this in university and a lot of the debate centres on how you define these concepts, which statistics you cite etc. etc., suffice to say whatever your view is on that matter, my point is its not inherently-misandrist to think that women disproportionately suffer certain categories of violence, because its not suggesting that male victims of those same types of violence should be ignored or are unimportant).

I disagree, I think it is misandrist to say women suffer disproportionate types of violence where an honest evaluation of those statistics doesn't bare that out, especially as this is merely the first step in then criticizing men and masculinity while lauding women and femininity, which is itself merely a step towards them censorship and imposition of a pro-female, anti-male narrative and dynamic, as well as discrimination against men.

If I define murder in a way that excludes almost all cases of it except when Jews do it and then pump a bunch of money into claiming Judaism causes murderous violence and all the other stuff, that would be anti-Semitism.

By defining terms in such a way that excludes male victims of rape and DV in order to claim women suffer it more, that is in fact suggesting male victims of those types of violence are unimportant and should be ignored in that discussion. It also has relevance in terms of public funding, and so on.

We've seen the results of this hate movement being allowed to operate in this way, male victims being more likely to be arrested than female perpetrators, a total lack of investment, and a public tolerance of violence from women against men as "turning the tables" and so on.

Recognizing these concepts as misandrist in and of themselves and in terms of producing systemic misandry and unjust negative outcomes for men is important.

You claim they're not demonizing men, but then note that they're cooking the books to come to these conclusions. Would it be demonizing Jews to cook the books in order to claim Judaism causes murderous violence and 90% of murderers are Jews?

Or would it just be "Controversial".

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Not really, I think there are valid concerns that an end to sex-segregated spaces could lead to problems like exhibitionism, indecent exposure, and voyeurism, which have occurred in the past from men to women, examples of which can easily be found in the news. I wouldn't say there is 'no backing' to it either, there are specific examples of people like Katie Dolatowski who have assaulted natal women in sex-segregated bathrooms and spaces.

And its not inherently-misandrist to recognise certain cases where women suffer disproportionate types of violence, be it sexual harassment or rape or domestic violence (and I'm well aware that its controversial to suggest that women are disproportionately likely to suffer rape or DV, I've done papers on this in university and a lot of the debate centres on how you define these concepts, which statistics you cite etc. etc., suffice to say whatever your view is on that matter, my point is its not inherently-misandrist to think that women disproportionately suffer certain categories of violence, because its not suggesting that male victims of those same types of violence should be ignored or are unimportant).

I disagree, I think it is misandrist to say women suffer disproportionate types of violence where an honest evaluation of those statistics doesn't bare that out, especially as this is merely the first step in then criticizing men and masculinity while lauding women and femininity, which is itself merely a step towards them censorship and imposition of a pro-female, anti-male narrative and dynamic.

If I define murder in a way that excludes almost all cases of it except when Jews do it and then pump a bunch of money into claiming Judaism causes murderous violence and all the other stuff, that would be anti-Semitism.

By defining terms in such a way that excludes male victims of rape and DV in order to claim women suffer it more, that is in fact suggesting male victims of those types of violence are unimportant and should be ignored in that discussion. It also has relevance in terms of public funding, and so on.

So the bolded part is honestly what we disagree on at the end of the day, and I'm hesitant to get into a full discussion of it here at the risk of a threadjack (which I got an official warning for a few weeks ago). I disagree with the idea that women don't disproportionately suffer rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence, and I don't think an "honest evaluation" necessarily debunks that idea, I'm willing to accept there is an open debate on the issue but I definitely don't accept that a reasonable person can't look at the available ONS and CDC statistics on these issues and reach the conclusion that women are, in fact, more disproportionately likely to suffer both rape and intimate partner violence.

Regardless, if you disagree with that view, then yes, I can understand from that perspective why you think the very concept of VAW is misandrist, and papers over or ignores violence perpetuated against men. But that's really the core of our disagreement here. At best, however, even accepting your argument and position, a person who thinks women are more likely to suffer DV and rape is, on your view, misguided about the statistics. There's nothing misandrist or hateful about being misinformed or interpreting the data in a way you regard to be unsupported.

Purgatio wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:

I disagree, I think it is misandrist to say women suffer disproportionate types of violence where an honest evaluation of those statistics doesn't bare that out, especially as this is merely the first step in then criticizing men and masculinity while lauding women and femininity, which is itself merely a step towards them censorship and imposition of a pro-female, anti-male narrative and dynamic.

If I define murder in a way that excludes almost all cases of it except when Jews do it and then pump a bunch of money into claiming Judaism causes murderous violence and all the other stuff, that would be anti-Semitism.

By defining terms in such a way that excludes male victims of rape and DV in order to claim women suffer it more, that is in fact suggesting male victims of those types of violence are unimportant and should be ignored in that discussion. It also has relevance in terms of public funding, and so on.

So the bolded part is honestly what we disagree on at the end of the day, and I'm hesitant to get into a full discussion of it here at the risk of a threadjack (which I got an official warning for a few weeks ago). I disagree with the idea that women don't disproportionately suffer rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence, and I don't think an "honest evaluation" necessarily debunks that idea, I'm willing to accept there is an open debate on the issue but I definitely don't accept that a reasonable person can't look at the available ONS and CDC statistics on these issues and reach the conclusion that women are, in fact, more disproportionately likely to suffer both rape and intimate partner violence.

Regardless, if you disagree with that view, then yes, I can understand from that perspective why you think the very concept of VAW is misandrist, and papers over or ignores violence perpetuated against men. But that's really the core of our disagreement here. At best, however, even accepting your argument and position, a person who thinks women are more likely to suffer DV and rape is, on your view, misguided about the statistics. There's nothing misandrist or hateful about being misinformed or interpreting the data in a way you regard to be unsupported.

We should return to the main discussion, but i'm willing to continue this elsewhere.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
So the bolded part is honestly what we disagree on at the end of the day, and I'm hesitant to get into a full discussion of it here at the risk of a threadjack (which I got an official warning for a few weeks ago). I disagree with the idea that women don't disproportionately suffer rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence, and I don't think an "honest evaluation" necessarily debunks that idea, I'm willing to accept there is an open debate on the issue but I definitely don't accept that a reasonable person can't look at the available ONS and CDC statistics on these issues and reach the conclusion that women are, in fact, more disproportionately likely to suffer both rape and intimate partner violence.

Regardless, if you disagree with that view, then yes, I can understand from that perspective why you think the very concept of VAW is misandrist, and papers over or ignores violence perpetuated against men. But that's really the core of our disagreement here. At best, however, even accepting your argument and position, a person who thinks women are more likely to suffer DV and rape is, on your view, misguided about the statistics. There's nothing misandrist or hateful about being misinformed or interpreting the data in a way you regard to be unsupported.

We should return to the main discussion, but i'm willing to continue this elsewhere.

Sure. Is there some kind of feminist or MRA megathread on NSG?

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
So the bolded part is honestly what we disagree on at the end of the day, and I'm hesitant to get into a full discussion of it here at the risk of a threadjack (which I got an official warning for a few weeks ago). I disagree with the idea that women don't disproportionately suffer rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence, and I don't think an "honest evaluation" necessarily debunks that idea, I'm willing to accept there is an open debate on the issue but I definitely don't accept that a reasonable person can't look at the available ONS and CDC statistics on these issues and reach the conclusion that women are, in fact, more disproportionately likely to suffer both rape and intimate partner violence.

Regardless, if you disagree with that view, then yes, I can understand from that perspective why you think the very concept of VAW is misandrist, and papers over or ignores violence perpetuated against men. But that's really the core of our disagreement here. At best, however, even accepting your argument and position, a person who thinks women are more likely to suffer DV and rape is, on your view, misguided about the statistics. There's nothing misandrist or hateful about being misinformed or interpreting the data in a way you regard to be unsupported.

We should return to the main discussion, but i'm willing to continue this elsewhere.

To return to the main discussion though, whatever your disagreements with their views, do you think r/GenderCritical should have been banned off Reddit?

Purgatio wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
We should return to the main discussion, but i'm willing to continue this elsewhere.

Sure. Is there some kind of feminist or MRA megathread on NSG?

There is, page 5.

On the topic of reddit censorship, I think it's noteworthy that the subs which got banned are the ones that make reddit look bad to outsiders, but those familiar with reddit know there's much worse subs.

Ostroeuropa wrote:I disagree, I think it is misandrist to say women suffer disproportionate types of violence where an honest evaluation of those statistics doesn't bare that out,

An "honest evaluation" is not conclusive, so it's valid to hold either point of view. To call someone who holds that there's more sexual and DV violence against women a "misandrist" is going too far, it's denying that they honestly believe what they say. It implies that only hate could explain their belief, and if you go down that line you're wide open to being called out for the same.

especially as this is merely the first step in then criticizing men and masculinity while lauding women and femininity, which is itself merely a step towards them censorship and imposition of a pro-female, anti-male narrative and dynamic, as well as discrimination against men.

Yeah fine. THAT is misandrist, because it takes a valid opinion and then builds on it as though it is fact.

EDIT: Yeah I agree it's heading off-topic.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Sure. Is there some kind of feminist or MRA megathread on NSG?

There is, page 5.

On the topic of reddit censorship, I think it's noteworthy that the subs which got banned are the ones that make reddit look bad to outsiders, but those familiar with reddit know there's much worse subs.

Page 5?? Wow, is it normal for a megathread to be THAT inactive?

And yeah honestly this was a PR move, Reddit's been attacked and criticised for a very long time supposedly for 'hosting' 'hate movements', this was just caving into public pressure rather than applying any principally-consistent test as to which subreddits got banned and which got spared.

I mainly use Reddit for non-political (cats, tech, some games here and there), anyway. Debating politics for the most parts just drains me, or makes me hungry.

Anyway, referring to the OP, and I'm sure someone has posted it before, that Rule 1 has been shortened:

Reddit content policy (accurate as of 17:32, 2020-06-30, GMT +8) wrote:Rule 1
Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

So on paper, it sound pretty nice and noble, but since I obviously don't know too much about Reddit's political subs, I'd rather not comment too much. Seems like they are blanketing it as "hate groups" category in general to avoid loophole manipulation.

Purgatio wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
There is, page 5.

On the topic of reddit censorship, I think it's noteworthy that the subs which got banned are the ones that make reddit look bad to outsiders, but those familiar with reddit know there's much worse subs.

Page 5?? Wow, is it normal for a megathread to be THAT inactive?

And yeah honestly this was a PR move, Reddit's been attacked and criticised for a very long time supposedly for 'hosting' 'hate movements', this was just caving into public pressure rather than applying any principally-consistent test as to which subreddits got banned and which got spared.

I posted in it just now in case you're still looking for it.

Valentine Z wrote:I mainly use Reddit for non-political (cats, tech, some games here and there), anyway. Debating politics for the most parts just drains me, or makes me hungry.

Anyway, referring to the OP, and I'm sure someone has posted it before, that Rule 1 has been shortened:

Reddit content policy (accurate as of 17:32, 2020-06-30, GMT +8) wrote:Rule 1
Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

So on paper, it sound pretty nice and noble, but since I obviously don't know too much about Reddit's political subs, I'd rather not comment too much. Seems like they are blanketing it as "hate groups" category in general to avoid loophole manipulation.

If they wanted to avoid loophole manipulation, why put in a loophole that this doesn't apply to "Majority groups"?

A lot of these subreddits that got banned were absolutely toxic shitholes so i can understand why they banned them, however their wording for their new rules and stuff leaves much to be desired and some other subreddits that are pretty shitty are still up there (like R/Sino for example which is nothing more than a CCP propaganda mill)

Ostroeuropa wrote:I posted in it just now in case you're still looking for it.

Thanks, gonna craft a post now.

Ostroeuropa wrote:If they wanted to avoid loophole manipulation, why put in a loophole that this doesn't apply to "Majority groups"?

Looking through this thread, I think they realised how horrible that idea was. Seems like the content policy (from my original post) was shortened.

EDIT: Okay never mind, it's still here.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:A lot of these subreddits that got banned were absolutely toxic shitholes so i can understand why they banned them, however their wording for their new rules and stuff leaves much to be desired and some other subreddits that are pretty shitty are still up there (like R/Sino for example which is nothing more than a CCP propaganda mill)

Does it matter that we disagree with what they say though? It's about freedom from discrimination; that's why I think those people who only have a problem when views they like are silenced are total hypocrits.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:A lot of these subreddits that got banned were absolutely toxic shitholes so i can understand why they banned them, however their wording for their new rules and stuff leaves much to be desired and some other subreddits that are pretty shitty are still up there (like R/Sino for example which is nothing more than a CCP propaganda mill)

Does it matter that we disagree with what they say though? It's about freedom from discrimination; that's why I think those people who only have a problem when views they like are silenced are total hypocrits.

The wording of their new rules is incredibly problematic as it is some of the vaguest stuff i have ever read.

While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.

What does that even mean? And how will it be applied? Majority Race? Majority Religion? Majority nationality? Is it gona be applied based on the global population or is it just going to be based on the USA? Its such a vague arbitrary thing to say when they could have just said no discrimination will be tolerated at all.

And as for r/Sino, they literally justify mass murdering of protesters and spread misinformation about basically everything.

So I see this thread has become another screed about how feminism is evil because sexual assault and DV have consequences.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Does it matter that we disagree with what they say though? It's about freedom from discrimination; that's why I think those people who only have a problem when views they like are silenced are total hypocrits.

The wording of their new rules is incredibly problematic as it is some of the vaguest stuff i have ever read.

While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.

What does that even mean? And how will it be applied? Majority Race? Majority Religion? Majority nationality? Is it gona be applied based on the global population or is it just going to be based on the USA? Its such a vague arbitrary thing to say when they could have just said no discrimination will be tolerated at all.

Well the membership of Reddit would make the most sense, but how would they know that?

Vassenor wrote:So I see this thread has become another screed about how feminism is evil because sexual assault and DV have consequences.

No, the gentlemen have agreed to retire to the smoking parlour take it to another thread.

We've seen that companies don't particularly care about image when it doesn't affect their bottom line. Which leads us to the question, "how would retaining these subreddits affect Reddit's ability to make money?".

And the answer there is fairly simple, continuing to host the subreddits in question would result in other companies pulling their ads from Reddit. So, if "companies don't particularly care about image when it doesn't affect their bottom line", that leads us to a new question "how would running ads in association with the now banned content lead to financial loss?".

Well, running ads next to content that the general public doesn't like can expose companies to unwanted liability. They might get a negative news story about their ads appearing on questionable material. Or, perhaps worse, costumers seeing where you advertise get angry and boycott your products. Just reverse that saying from a few years back- It's now get woke or go broke.

All this to say that platforms have to dance a line- If they don't take action fast enough? Take the example of YouTube, who faced the terror of the adpocalypse after this story broke about ads being played on videos associated with white supremacists and pedophiles. If they take action that is too widespread? You get tumblr, where a ban on adult content basically halved activity on the platform.

As for Reddit and what they're specifically doing? Well, I'm going to roll with it. If Reddit turns into a mob of minorities telling me 'ur pp smol' because I'm white, I'd be somewhat surprised to say the least. But if my hunch is correct, society is at the point where telling r/theDonald users to buy dish soup is no longer profitable, and that, to me, seems like an optimistic sign for an otherwise rather trash year.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:What does that even mean? And how will it be applied? Majority Race? Majority Religion? Majority nationality? Is it gona be applied based on the global population or is it just going to be based on the USA? Its such a vague arbitrary thing to say when they could have just said no discrimination will be tolerated at all.

It's weasel words really to justify future actions. But yeah the majority line is stupid. I mean, it's worth noting women are 51% of the population in most countries and world-wide so obviously reddit admins are endorsing hate speech against women. And of course the Han Chinese ethnic group is the largest single ethnic group so obviously reddit admins are endorsing hate speech against the chinese, even though Tencent owns a share.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:The wording of their new rules is incredibly problematic as it is some of the vaguest stuff i have ever read.



What does that even mean? And how will it be applied? Majority Race? Majority Religion? Majority nationality? Is it gona be applied based on the global population or is it just going to be based on the USA? Its such a vague arbitrary thing to say when they could have just said no discrimination will be tolerated at all.

Well the membership of Reddit would make the most sense, but how would they know that?

Exactly, how would they know that? Its a load of vague bollocks.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Dawn Denac wrote:
Money makes problems disappear. As long as people keep using these sites, they'll keep having money to throw at their issues. Good luck with lawsuits too, cause they'll likely drown you in litigation and legal fees.

The situation with YouTube is particularly alarming. YouTube is a near monopoly in its space (bitchute and dailymotion will never be real threats), with deep institutional power, the ability to leverage Google's search engines, and deep relationships with traditional media companies that are using YouTube to forestall their coming obsolescence. And it's structurally set up to be this way. There can really over be one YouTube-like platform at any given time. If two exist at the same time, one will eventually win out. The reason is because content creators will gravitate towards the most accessible and concentrated platform, and viewers will gravitate towards the platforms with the most content. So it becomes a feedback loop. YouTube is dominant because that's where the content creators are, and content creators go to YouTube because YouTube is dominant. This is why it is practically impossible to develop a real alternative to YouTube. The only way these sorts of natural monopolies are disrupted is either through government regulation or the development of new technologies that make the prior models obsolete.

And given YouTube's accessibility by billions of viewers and content creators, it's essentially the closest thing there is a public platform for all, and is often the primary source of video information for millions across the world. Because of the centrality of YouTube to the flow of information in our daily lives, saying "lol it's just a private company they can do whatever the fuck they want" seems really dumb. In other sectors, when these monopolies arise, the government usually allows the monopoly but regulates them to prevent abuse. Such is the case with water, power, and telecom utilities.

If we're comfortable regulating utility and telecom monopolies, then it's probably time to seriously look into treating YouTube the same way. To get an analogy of how bad this could get it, imagine if AT&T could shut off your phone service because they disagreed with what you were saying over the phone.

A privatized, CCP-style, social credit system is what these leftist MSM and social media companies are aiming for. Don't support Black Lives Matter? Your Facebook subway pass has been invalidated. No reason given. You can't ride the high-speed train from NYC to L.A. You can't book a hotel room. You can't dine at McDonald's. You can't even find a fucking job because Facebook has blacklisted you for some reason. Socialism with Chinese characteristics is coming to a city near you. China Uncensored and other alternative news outlets have already been demonetized and shadowbanned for daring to go against the establishment grain and report the facts as they are simply because they contradict a simplistic, woke narrative of white man bad, orange man bad. Today, it's HK. Tomorrow, it's the world.

This kind of censorship that affects users not just in the United States, but all over the world, is the reason I'm seriously tempted to lend my support to Donald Trump and the Republicans even if a million Americans ultimately succumb to the coronavirus because mUh fReEdUmB and abortion is banned in many U.S. states, because the Trump administration is pushing back hard against this online censorship on top of its support for HK, Taiwan, and Israel and its defense of men's rights and genuine racial equality. Trump's Executive Order targeting social media censorship is a good start.

Social media censorship, especially if it is enforced in an inconsistent and one-sided manner, breeds absolute contempt for the rule of law as a principle and sets an extremely dangerous precedent for freedom of expression online and around the world, especially in places like HK and China. These hypocritical, woke companies that have no qualms about doing business with China are really no better than Trump himself. They and their fellow Democrat travelers are really staring at their own dark reflection and they dislike it intensely.

As much of a failure as Trump has been in dealing with a global pandemic, it seems that this really is about freedom vs tyranny and equality vs discrimination, at least on the non-pandemic-related front.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Qvait wrote:Reddit said they banned r/The_Donald for violating rules 1, 2, and 8. Let's go over those rules:



Source: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy

We are just going to take Reddit's ability to enforce its own rules objectively and impartially at face value...

It is increasingly odd to see nominally left-wing people suddenly become very laissez-faire on this issue.

"Let them eat cake", right? Defending neoliberalism? How very socialist of them. Just like the CCP in HK that is supported by wealthy oligarchs who have opposed democratic reforms in the territory for decades because real, left-leaning social democracy cuts into their bottomless wallets. These woke leftists really have more in common with the CCP than they care to admit.

Costa Fierro wrote:those views are detrimental to the cohesion of society and should rightfully be suppressed

This sounds EXACTLY like the kind of thing IM would say. A corporate, neoliberal dictatorship where Shinra literally governs Midgar is what you're defending. You could take it one step further and promulgate a National Security Law banning treason, secession, sedition, subversion, "theft of state corporate secrets", and foreign interference and collusion. Absolutely horrifying.

The Remote Islands wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
None of the banned subreddits were engaging in "blatantly illegal activity", just expressing political opinions that some people nebulously find 'offensive'.

I was referring to subs that had been banned before this most recent wave like bomb-making and jailbait, I should have been clearer. But even still...are we really going to defend places like r/fascism_forever and r/holocaustfake? Inciting violence and racist hatred is a little more than just 'offensive', at least in some countries.

In Malaysia, criticizing (i.e. "insulting") Islam is punishable by upward of ten years in prison and this is strictly enforced against non-Malay and non-Muslim critics of the racist, theocratic, political and economic status quo, but the law is rarely applied against the Malay/Muslim majority for hateful, disgusting, threatening stuff that's constantly and openly written and said about non-Malays and non-Muslims who are the minority in this country. Its inconsistent application means that the rule of law is undermined and anything goes. I doubt Facebook or Reddit really gives a shit about this double standard. I once complained to FB about death threats made by Malay Muslims to Malaysian atheists but they did absolutely NOTHING.

Is this the kind of terrifying dystopia you want your country to sleepwalk into? Because my country has been there for decades. I was also born and raised in HK, where a National Security Law has just been passed banning treason, secession, sedition, subversion, "theft of state secrets", and foreign interference and collusion.

I am SICK and TIRED of being muzzled both online and offline by the CCP, radical Islamists, racist, Malay supremacists, and Western, woke, PC leftists. What these companies are doing is adding yet another layer of censorship on top of that as if their users haven't suffered enough. I just want to be able to speak my mind freely and publicly without being arrested by the police or censored by ideologically biased, intolerant mods for "hate speech".

Costa Fierro wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote: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.

(I can't speak for Purg or GVH. Honestly, I find some of their views related to the HK protests and the rich-poor divide to be downright disgusting and nakedly hypocritical, and I have them both on ignore, so forgive me if I'm not entirely aware of the full exchange, but I digress.)

There are consequences to free speech in North Korea. There are consequences to free speech in HK. There are consequences to free speech in Malaysia. None of those consequences are very pretty. You are free to say whatever comes to mind, just as the government is free to have you and your family disappeared for doing so or at the very least, imprisoned for 10+ years for "hate speech".

Vassenor wrote:So I see this thread has become another screed about how feminism is evil because sexual assault and DV have consequences.

7 posts talking about Feminism in a thread of (currently) 270 posts is not a "screed" at all. It's a minor threadjack.

I don't think you really know how to read. Or count for that matter.

If society gets to the point where I need to connect a Facebook account to use the subway then I'd go live in the woods.

Valentine Z wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:If they wanted to avoid loophole manipulation, why put in a loophole that this doesn't apply to "Majority groups"?

Looking through this thread, I think they realised how horrible that idea was. Seems like the content policy (from my original post) was shortened.

EDIT: Okay never mind, it's still here.

Its an intellectual dodge or weasle-exception on Reddit's part, because they know that some of the banned subreddits could easily retaliate and argue some other threads are 'hating' on them as a protected group. r/GenderCritical could argue that the trans subreddits that reported them en masse were being sexist or misogynistic, and r/RightWingLGBT could argue some of the various subreddits that reported them en masse were being homophobic or targetting them for their sexual orientation. Reddit wants to be able to wash its hands off these kinds of battles and debates by trying a weird dichotomy between a "marginalised and vulnerable group", whose feelings deserve protection, and groups which constitute the "majority" (presumably they mean 'social majority', as in the sociological concept of the group with power in society), whose feelings don't deserve protection. These terms are vacuous, ambiguous, and nebulous enough that Reddit gets to decide arbitrarily in each individual case which group is the 'vulnerable' one being oppressed, and which group is the 'majority' one that is in a position of dominance and, thus, doing the oppressing.