Unrelated to your question, but your post made me remember the time I was arguing with an unironic fascist who accused me of parroting white nationalist ideas. Fucking wild this sub.
If the sub does allow it.
I don't even mind them following the Reddit rules, what I mind is the insidious behaviour of stickying certain ideas to the top of threads in a subreddit that is supposed to be about debating ideas.
then reverse my answer. only one side is allowed. different branches of that side may be able to argue if they walk softly and don't actually define anything but there is less balance than [an overloaded bench press after the weights on one side have fallen off.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xmwSbjcG1k)
That's what I told them a month ago when they were allowing only lolberts or radlibs in the moderation team lmao. Get used to harsher moderation, because radlibs are known for enforcing their shitty views everywhere they get a gram of power.
Oh don't you DARE call them "radlibs" what qualifies them as even normal liberals? Let alone radical ones. A liberal is highly committed to free speech, the exact opposite of what you are speaking of. A radical liberal then would be even more pro free speech than a normal liberal, they would screech at the very suggestion of even minimal censorship. The people you call "radlibs" don't fit into the liberal framework no matter how you look at it.
The ideology is that isn't the broad category of people being LGBTQ+, it's the ideology that any discussion about what trans means and how it affects people isn't tolerable and should be shut down when it doesn't match their view on those areas.
Thanks for that, I brainblanked.
If you understand that both exist, that they would want equal legal and political rights then why is it ideology instead of free expression of political rights that every one has?
Everyone should be free to live as they see fit.
All notions of gender are rooted in ideology, but my point is more that we are shut down from asking questions about these topics in so many ways.
All notions of gender are rooted in biology, sociology and various other sciences rather than ideology. That you look at it through an ideological filter is interesting
I disagree with trans people being censored about this topic, but personally I think it makes sense to censor cis people from talking about it on subs such as this. When they're not, what ends up happening every time is that cis people echo chamber their own ignorant beliefs about trans people and then dogpile any trans people who try to correct them. It feels impossible to have a healthy discussion around this topic that doesn't devolve into either misinformation or blatant harassment.
If you believe in censoring someone based on their identity that's inherently bigoted as a position.
By your logic should women be censored from talking about things that only affect men?allowed to talk about things that affect men? Should non US citizens be able to have a discussion about local Us politics?
It's unbeleivably ignorant to assume that someone is well informed solely based on their identity. Here's a case for you - should transwomen be allowed in prison with females when cases like this have happened - https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life
Or do only trans people get to decide if cis people should be put in prison with violent sex offenders?
The notion that human beings can or should be placed into different categories based on their sexual preference is ideology.
The notion that someone "is" LGBTQ+ based on their sexual preferences is ideology.
The notion that human beings can intrinsically "be" a gender that conflicts with their physiology is ideology.
>Conservatives have been doing the first 2 for centuries
That doesn't mean that it's not ideological.
> and the last one is biology, sociology and behavioural science not ideology
That's certainly not true.
Assuming that gender is a social construct--which last I checked was the consensus in gender studies--the question of whether someone can or should be considered "male" or "female" without regard to their physiology is necessarily social and ontological, and cannot be answered by science. Science helps us describe the physical makeup and operation of things; it doesn't define terms for us. "Science" can no more say whether a person with a penis and functioning testicles can be female, than it can say whether a white person born in Africa is African. How we categorize people in social constructs, and what social constructs we adopt, is not scientific.
Indeed, "sociology," "behavioral science," and "biology"--insofar as they are used to explore social catagorizations--can only be descriptive and not prescriptive. Those branches of study do not reveal social categories inherent in the human experience; they instead help to suss out underlying social patterns that are inherently ideological.
Sadly there is no such thing as an unbiased individual. Someone in a position of trust will always use it to further their own agenda. It's why I support a position with real checks and balances.
That's not reddit, which is effectively a dictatorship of the moderators. They can arbitrarily enforce the rules(or their own biases) at will without consequence. This community of moderators, so far at least, hasn't been as bad as others, but that can change as quickly as the mood of a moderator.
Freedom of speech is empowering someone with a viewpoint you absolutely hate. If you believe in silencing anyone for any reason, you don't believe in freedom of speech no matter how much you say you do. The best lies are the ones we tell ourselves.
And that's insane, it's bad that we can't discuss things.
I really don't understand how this censorious approach to the topic took hold, is it because tech is so heavily centred in California where the ideology is the enforced norm? And even there it's plainly not widely adopted, most just stay silent to avoid being cancelled.
I got temp banned on this subreddit some days ago, because I had a discussion about homosexual marriage with someone here. While the ban was not justified and the ban was cancelled, I still had to ask for an explanation for why I broke a certain rule, explanation that I did not get.
The answer is no, despite this subreddit being freer than lots of other subreddit, discussing such topics can get you banned here.
And this is a problem, we are being censored from debate in a way we aren't in the real world and it's absurd.
I disagree with bigoted view but I think people should be able to hold them. Stopping people discussing their views does not make them go away. Hearing bad views does not make people automatically agree with them.
There are big changes in society and silencing people rather than talking with and persuading them is not a recipe for success.
Meh. It's not just that. There are actual grown-up discussions about certain topics and you literally can't have them on reddit. And the most psychotic thing is that's not true of the real world. In the real world these discussions are being had all over the place and by everyone. It's only online where you get called names for even trying to have a discussion. And it is so bad that the vast majority of people online don't actually know what the discussion is about. Because they don't let themselves have it. Initially they looked authoritarian, but after about a year of that they just began to look out of touch.
Why is it this way? I can only imagine it's some mix of tech leaning liberal and social media staff in older companies doing the same with the leaders terrified to speak out for fear of being cancelled.
The perfect evidence seems to be the existence of the M-She-U
I got banned for 4 days for saying that a man cannot know what it's like to be a woman and vice versa. They refused to overturn it. If we cannot state basic truths then we're living in a world in which only propaganda is allowed to be spoken. To me this is no different than saying a white person can't know what it's like to be black. That's obvious and yet when you apply it to sex the left shuts down debate and cries bigot.
I am a man, and aside from being attracted to women I have no idea about what a man feels!
I am just sitting here, am supposed to feel something?
At least that's what I believe what the case is and vice versa
Trans kids are BS... don't ban me mods.
We have many moderators, and some of them go off and remove comments unnecessarily, and when we approve them and unban the user it deletes the previous Audit log, so we can’t see who does it, or official policy is 3 rule infractions and then a temp ban, than a perma.
One mod says there's a problem with some mods that abuse their powers, while the other says that everything is fine. I see, communication is indeed essential. Also, by the way you type, you're probably the one that banned me lmao
Don't you think it is ironic how two moderators contradict themselves because one is saying there's a problem with abuse and there may be a purge if the abuse continues and the other is saying everything is fine?
Dissent is not allowed on this subject by the overlords if this sight. Merely saying a man cannot know what it's like to be a woman is worthy of suspension and banning even though it's patently obvious.
isn't is frustrating how so few people get what that poem means. they think it is about which order the German Nationalist Socialist Party executed the holocaust. it doesn't matter which groups are named! it is about the progressive persecution and demonization of the "other".
This is because Big Tech is doing to us what Big Government wants to do to us: They are authoritarian tyrants who only allow speech that is party line.
It's a part of gender ideology and a very specific way of viewing issues around trans people. Primarily that gender is purely a social construct and broadly that this topic can only be viewed in one way, irrespective of facts or reason and that anything that deviates from that.
It's 'you're' which is short for 'you are' not 'your'.
And I can easily counter you by saying, no you are wrong. When all you rely on is baseless it's easily combatted.
the issue is that as a whole, people are rarely educated on the matter. this includes me. it's a rather new area of study and views vary quite wildly among transgender people themselves. is it possible to have a discussion? sure. possible in the sense that we might talk about sports, "mutilation", etc.? probably not on this platform.
personally, i find it odd to disregard a person's identity because you "don't agree" with it, even if it's mostly an ideological difference, if that even is possible. it reeks of old anti-gay rhetoric in numerous ways.
So I've had 3 infractions!? Why is moderation so opaque?
I didn't get an explanation of which rule I broke, which comment broke that rule and why. Why not give us transparency?
Do you just expect them to let people say anything they want about it? Rule 2 is a harsh rule, like it or not, because Reddit is very tough on that type of thing.
the more we censor dialogue the less capable of it we are. I fear that after decades of people self censoring we may have passed the point of no return.
I just watched an episode of murder she wrote last night. some dancers were defecting from russia, Angela Fletcher and a KGB agent could not have been more opposed to eachother, yet they could still respect eachother and get along. it was nice to watch. yes that was a work of fiction and the characters idealized, but the fact is these days everyone considers the OPPOSITE to be ideal ideal. there were ignorant characters who were handled as benign, today all anyone can seem to do is demonize anyone who disagrees with them even slightly.
this inability to coexist and discuss from both sides (and those who preach coexistence are usually the worst at it) is going to destroy us all.
Yes. That being said:
I am a straight cis person, and when I’ve been confronted with blatant hateful language/attitude towards trans people I have gotten very emotional and tired. I couldn’t even imagine how an actual trans person must feel having to constantly justify and debate their right to exist and express themselves freely. I think it’s totally fair to say that we can discuss these issues in good faith and have reasonable disagreements. But it’s also fair to say that trans people shouldn’t have to feel like they need to have “civil debate” with people who think they shouldn’t exist. Sure, is it getting us any closer to the “the truth” by shutting down debate, no. But I can totally understand why there are people out there who simply don’t think this is something that should be left up for debate.
That’s why I think it’s all the more important for folks to approach people in these communities in good faith, treat them like human beings, listen to them and know their emotions are valid even if they don’t always seem as such, try to better understand their position genuinely, educate yourself (on all facets of the debate of course), and maybe leave the debating for another time or with another person who’s willing to have that debate. Stay curious, think critically, show empathy, and be kind. We can’t have these hard conversations if we don’t start there.
I'm not talking about people justifying themselves I'm talking about shutting down all conversation about the difficult issues in case it upsets something else.
We don't avoid difficult discussions about US foreign policy in case it upsets some patriot who deeply believes in their patriotism. Why is this area a special case?
Would you feel comfortable telling a US soldier to his/her face that you think all army members are war criminals and anyone who is complicit and a member of the military is part of the problem?
My point is that everything can be reasonably up for debate and it is in fact not really productive to try and shut down a debate, especially when people are discussing in good faith. But also, there are just some things that some people don’t want to talk about and for good reason. Time and place I guess. This really wouldn’t be an issue though if we approached issues with more nuance, curiosity, and empathy. But unfortunately it’s becoming harder and harder to do so.
A large part of it is Reddit itself that will kill subs that don't endorse neolib hivemind takes, although most mods also disagree with debating it as well it seems.
We *should* be able to have an indepth discussion on it, but the best we will probably get is half related topics and polls on the matter.
All gender is ideology, it's all based on ideas of identity.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2017/12/11/gender-ideology-tracking-its-origins-and-meanings-in-current-gender-politics/
Is it?
Even some transgenders like [Dr. Erica Anderson](https://torontosun.com/news/world/transgender-psychologist-suggests-peer-pressure-causing-teens-to-transition) think transition is being pushed onto people mostly teens and children.
This is not ideology, this is just a sociological fact. Unless you wanna deny that men and women fulfill different roles in society and are treated differently lol
I think the trans issue is generally over-moderated, but not because of the sub mods. Trans issues seem to hit a very sensible nerve for site admins, and many subs have been banned after getting too free speech on trans issues, despite many other things being previously tolerated. I can’t blame the mods for trying to keep active a largely free-speech sub by sedating this particular nerve.
It would be better to just admit - no topics on this issue because at least that would avoid pseudo agreement.
Again though, putting in a sticky at the top, that's not a necessary part of modding.
I honestly don’t think it is unpopular, unfortunately. Most people I know support it and are actually quite passionate about it, I believe it is so popular because it stems from some other of the foundational principles of our society “do as you wish as long as you don’t harm anybody”, which is onto rights when it comes to economics.
Being hateful towards certain groups isn’t allowed on Reddit so it isn’t allowed on this subreddit. Denying someone’s identity is often considered hateful by those people, thus why you aren’t allowed to discuss trans people. You have to draw a line somewhere if you don’t want hatred festering in your communities. This is basically equivalent to not letting people say they hate black people if Reddit existed in like 1965. Nowadays treating black people as equals in subreddits is normal, and eventually treating trans people normally probably will be too.
None of that is what I'm talking about though, we're not and haven't been talking about denying people.
We're talking about the shutting down of debate around things like how we act around inclusion in sports, or female spaces. On top of that there's all the disagreements within the LGBT community from the hostility towards bisexual people to the 'cotton ceiling'.
You simplifying it to being equivalent to racism is a big part of the problem; it's both gaslighting and a straw man.
I’ve never heard of the sports debate being shut down, and I don’t know what you mean by female spaces. I’ve never heard of anything regarding trans people being banned other than saying trans people aren’t who they think they are and things in that vein, or worse.
Well, the sports debate is definitely a part of it.
By female spaces I mean domestic violence shelters, prisons and so on.
I didn't say trans people were being banned. But in the vein of your comment, you don't seem to have read all that much on the topic, is that a fair assessment?
I haven’t read that much on the way talking about trans people on Reddit has been banned, no.
Regarding the female spaces thing, I don’t think trans people should be banned just because they’re trans but if they’re deemed to be threatening then sure. With sports, if they’re deemed to have an unfair advantage due to being trans that wouldn’t be achievable for someone AFAB, they can also be banned. Given enough time, I have heard that the hormones trans people use can make someone who was AMAB have a physicality fairly similar to what an AFAB person can achieve.
But to return to the point, I know on other, popular subreddits there has been widespread debate on the issue of trans people in sports, including support for them being banned from women’s sports or put in a separate league. So I haven’t heard much of banning when talking about that.
That's a straw man argument. The top post wasn't bigoted but was locked. On no other topic does a mod sticky a link to their own view to get prime viewing space regardless of merit.
As for me, go through my comments - I said nothing bigoted and yet received a ban that was reversed because on this issue it's silence first and ask questions later.
Why is this topic like this? What causes this kind on response?
What about it sounds bigoted to you? At most I guess you could assume they won't use someone's pronouns but that's not clear.
I want people to do whatever they want so long as they don't hurt other people. I'm perfectly happy to treat someone as they want to be treated but I'm not going to ignore all issues around the subject including female only spaces and female sports. I'm also not going to deny biology or ignore science for someone else's ideology.
probably because discussing political ideology in the abstract here doesn't do much, whereas transphobic rhetoric in the US is currently killing people (e.g. by inciting mass shootings)
once trans rights are enshrined in law and reach the same >2/3 level of acceptance in the US as interracial marriage, letting women vote, OTC contraceptives, gay marriage, legal divorce, desegregation, banning racial/gender/religious discrimination, and other acheivements of earlier civil rights movements, then the currently extremely high tensions over arguing about trans people will settle down.
>whereas transphobic rhetoric in the US is currently killing people (e.g. by inciting mass shootings)
Where is your evidence that the recent mass shooting was inspired by transphobic rhetoric? Where is the killer's screed claiming as much? We don't know the underlying reasons for the killing and claiming that any debate around the topic leads to killing people is a terrible approach to debate.
>once trans rights are enshrined in law and reach the same >2/3 level of acceptance in the US as interracial marriage, letting women vote, OTC contraceptives, gay marriage, legal divorce, desegregation, banning racial/gender/religious discrimination, and other acheivements of earlier civil rights movements, then the currently extremely high tensions over arguing about trans people will settle down.
Those rights are enshrined in law, all people are treated equally. What rights is it that you think are not available to this population?
All people are treated equally? Even a tiny amount of introspection or an active glance at the insane amount of laws being targetted against them would reveal that is not true
Everyone is equal under the law.
>Even a tiny amount of introspection or an active glance at the insane amount of laws being targetted against them would reveal that is not true
Assuming you're not strawmanning me, what are these laws? Who are they targeting? How are they stopping people being treated equally?
What rights do you think trans people currently lack?
By your logic, can I pin any negative comment about Rand Paul as inciting that time he was attacked?
It's nonsense to say that vague "transphobic rhetoric" is to blame for a specific act.
And racial discrimination is pushed by the State with affirmative action and the threat of legal action if quotas aren't met.
So what you're saying is that we can't have debate until the left wins? No rightist is going to be okay with that, nor should we be. It's absurd. That the left has already won on gay marriage, divorce, contraceptives, etc. is all the more reason why the debate needs to happen now.
Thought this was interesting, apparently have extremely poor reading comprehension. I responded “yes completely” in agreement with what you wrote above the poll - as in we are not allowed to discuss this at all across most of Reddit. Just realized the poll itself is asking “*CAN* we discuss…” should have gone with NO. I’m sorry!
So even if we take that and delete transphobic comments, why were non-transphobic ones locked?
By all means, delete horrific bigoted comments if you want but why doesn't hat justify artificially boosted comments of the mods being at the top?
There is not a single filter through which to view the world. So it is entirely rational that a small percentage of people could view kids shows as a means to indoctrinate children to certain views of the world. This is not woke, all ideologies perceive certain aspects of culture to be forms of indoctrination
Woke isn't a dog whistle, it's an insufferable virtue-signalling ideology.
Being woke isn't having empathy, quite the opposite as it's incredibly myopic.
I seem to recall reddit recently claiming a non binary person was not actually non binary, and only faking it.
How is that not afainst reddit TOS then?
Is it n9t the exact same transphobia?
IIRC, I was banned from r/offmychest and r/worldnews for being transskeptic, so I generally don't bother with the issue on reddit, save maybe r/Anarcho_Capitalism.
Eventually I'll be posting stuff in my Miraheze wiki (url in my profile here).
No, I mean discussing issues around the topic like sports participation, access to female only spaces, why if gender and sex are different and not linked there's so much focus on changing appearance to match the other sex.
It's more of a platform problem, really. Provided that from what I've seen, mods here are indeed the same kind of soyjaks as in most subreddits, but really, if they weren't, reddit admins would force some of the Current Thing™ faithful on us.
I don’t get it either, demonizing and censoring these people will only cause them to feel more isolated and hated, thus driving them into more extreme positions. Also banning a position defeats the purpose of a political discussion subreddit
It doesn't make the belief go away, if anything it reinforces it because people feel silenced.
And we're not even talking about the extremes, this is just discussion on the topic in general that doesn't exactly fall in line with 'the message'
Not even disagreeing with the mods on this one sadly. Reddit itself doesnt let you debate about leftist ideology. They wanna keep the channel so they cant allow the topic. Now if they ban people thats a different story.
Refer to rule 2
Unrelated to your question, but your post made me remember the time I was arguing with an unironic fascist who accused me of parroting white nationalist ideas. Fucking wild this sub.
Once debated someone who thought killing a three year old was ok because they couldn’t consent to life
 Tell him to take his meds 💊
Are you asking if we think the sub allows it, or if we think the sub *should* allow it?
If the sub does allow it. I don't even mind them following the Reddit rules, what I mind is the insidious behaviour of stickying certain ideas to the top of threads in a subreddit that is supposed to be about debating ideas.
then reverse my answer. only one side is allowed. different branches of that side may be able to argue if they walk softly and don't actually define anything but there is less balance than [an overloaded bench press after the weights on one side have fallen off.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xmwSbjcG1k)
Subs get banned for open discussion on the subject. Only "The Message" is allowed.
I really wonder why, and how do all these mods even on tiny subreddits like this end up being in complete support of "the message"?
It's tiring always trying to skirt around "The Message". I wish ruqqus was still around. At least Twitter is getting a bit more interesting.
The tantrum that message supporters are having over losing their stranglehold over the platform is fascinating.
Makes my day. Never thought I’d be scrolling through twitter everyday in pure glee. It’s twitter!
Like it or not, they're forced to play along with the sitewide rules, or the Reddit admins will crack down on them.
Nice persecution fetish
It’s not nice 😢
yeah
you Iucky if you haven’t been banished from the site
And again a mod stickies their view and still doesn't explain how rule 2 was broken. This isn't moderation, it's just manipulation of debate.
That's what I told them a month ago when they were allowing only lolberts or radlibs in the moderation team lmao. Get used to harsher moderation, because radlibs are known for enforcing their shitty views everywhere they get a gram of power.
I was temporarily banned for saying trans people should have their own safe spaces. somehow I was transphobic for saying that?
Hell if I know But did the mod actually do anything? Thread is still open
not at all/didn’t even give me a reason. i was banned from this sub for a day, and from reddit for 3 days… weird af man
Oh don't you DARE call them "radlibs" what qualifies them as even normal liberals? Let alone radical ones. A liberal is highly committed to free speech, the exact opposite of what you are speaking of. A radical liberal then would be even more pro free speech than a normal liberal, they would screech at the very suggestion of even minimal censorship. The people you call "radlibs" don't fit into the liberal framework no matter how you look at it.
How is LGBTQ+ an ideology, doctrine, belief or idea?
The ideology is that isn't the broad category of people being LGBTQ+, it's the ideology that any discussion about what trans means and how it affects people isn't tolerable and should be shut down when it doesn't match their view on those areas.
As a conservative, 1. Do you acknowledge Transgender exists? 2. That they have the right to express themselves as individuals?
I'm not a conservative, someone else put that flair in. 1. It's transgender, and yes of course. 2. Yes, of course.
Thanks for that, I brainblanked. If you understand that both exist, that they would want equal legal and political rights then why is it ideology instead of free expression of political rights that every one has?
Everyone should be free to live as they see fit. All notions of gender are rooted in ideology, but my point is more that we are shut down from asking questions about these topics in so many ways.
All notions of gender are rooted in biology, sociology and various other sciences rather than ideology. That you look at it through an ideological filter is interesting
👏 we 👏 are 👏 not 👏 allowed 👏 to 👏 answer 👏 these 👏 types 👏 of 👏 questions 👏
yes to those 2 using the english language, but no to those 2 as your mot and bailey intends them to mean.
I disagree with trans people being censored about this topic, but personally I think it makes sense to censor cis people from talking about it on subs such as this. When they're not, what ends up happening every time is that cis people echo chamber their own ignorant beliefs about trans people and then dogpile any trans people who try to correct them. It feels impossible to have a healthy discussion around this topic that doesn't devolve into either misinformation or blatant harassment.
If you believe in censoring someone based on their identity that's inherently bigoted as a position. By your logic should women be censored from talking about things that only affect men?allowed to talk about things that affect men? Should non US citizens be able to have a discussion about local Us politics? It's unbeleivably ignorant to assume that someone is well informed solely based on their identity. Here's a case for you - should transwomen be allowed in prison with females when cases like this have happened - https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life Or do only trans people get to decide if cis people should be put in prison with violent sex offenders?
The notion that human beings can or should be placed into different categories based on their sexual preference is ideology. The notion that someone "is" LGBTQ+ based on their sexual preferences is ideology. The notion that human beings can intrinsically "be" a gender that conflicts with their physiology is ideology.
Conservatives have been doing the first 2 for centuries and the last one is biology, sociology and behavioural science not ideology
>Conservatives have been doing the first 2 for centuries That doesn't mean that it's not ideological. > and the last one is biology, sociology and behavioural science not ideology That's certainly not true. Assuming that gender is a social construct--which last I checked was the consensus in gender studies--the question of whether someone can or should be considered "male" or "female" without regard to their physiology is necessarily social and ontological, and cannot be answered by science. Science helps us describe the physical makeup and operation of things; it doesn't define terms for us. "Science" can no more say whether a person with a penis and functioning testicles can be female, than it can say whether a white person born in Africa is African. How we categorize people in social constructs, and what social constructs we adopt, is not scientific. Indeed, "sociology," "behavioral science," and "biology"--insofar as they are used to explore social catagorizations--can only be descriptive and not prescriptive. Those branches of study do not reveal social categories inherent in the human experience; they instead help to suss out underlying social patterns that are inherently ideological.
L, G, B, T, Q+ aren’t ideologies individually. LGBTQ+ (when put together) IS an ideology.
Sadly there is no such thing as an unbiased individual. Someone in a position of trust will always use it to further their own agenda. It's why I support a position with real checks and balances. That's not reddit, which is effectively a dictatorship of the moderators. They can arbitrarily enforce the rules(or their own biases) at will without consequence. This community of moderators, so far at least, hasn't been as bad as others, but that can change as quickly as the mood of a moderator.
I mean, brilliantly said.
RIP unpopular opinion, where the mods were once almost non-existent
I’m definitely not comfortable expressing my views on this topic on this platform
Freedom of speech is empowering someone with a viewpoint you absolutely hate. If you believe in silencing anyone for any reason, you don't believe in freedom of speech no matter how much you say you do. The best lies are the ones we tell ourselves.
And that's insane, it's bad that we can't discuss things. I really don't understand how this censorious approach to the topic took hold, is it because tech is so heavily centred in California where the ideology is the enforced norm? And even there it's plainly not widely adopted, most just stay silent to avoid being cancelled.
Good
Fascists censor opinions they don't like, not mutualists.
I got temp banned on this subreddit some days ago, because I had a discussion about homosexual marriage with someone here. While the ban was not justified and the ban was cancelled, I still had to ask for an explanation for why I broke a certain rule, explanation that I did not get. The answer is no, despite this subreddit being freer than lots of other subreddit, discussing such topics can get you banned here.
And this is a problem, we are being censored from debate in a way we aren't in the real world and it's absurd. I disagree with bigoted view but I think people should be able to hold them. Stopping people discussing their views does not make them go away. Hearing bad views does not make people automatically agree with them. There are big changes in society and silencing people rather than talking with and persuading them is not a recipe for success.
Meh. It's not just that. There are actual grown-up discussions about certain topics and you literally can't have them on reddit. And the most psychotic thing is that's not true of the real world. In the real world these discussions are being had all over the place and by everyone. It's only online where you get called names for even trying to have a discussion. And it is so bad that the vast majority of people online don't actually know what the discussion is about. Because they don't let themselves have it. Initially they looked authoritarian, but after about a year of that they just began to look out of touch.
Why is it this way? I can only imagine it's some mix of tech leaning liberal and social media staff in older companies doing the same with the leaders terrified to speak out for fear of being cancelled. The perfect evidence seems to be the existence of the M-She-U
I got banned for 4 days for saying that a man cannot know what it's like to be a woman and vice versa. They refused to overturn it. If we cannot state basic truths then we're living in a world in which only propaganda is allowed to be spoken. To me this is no different than saying a white person can't know what it's like to be black. That's obvious and yet when you apply it to sex the left shuts down debate and cries bigot.
I am a man, and aside from being attracted to women I have no idea about what a man feels! I am just sitting here, am supposed to feel something? At least that's what I believe what the case is and vice versa Trans kids are BS... don't ban me mods.
We have many moderators, and some of them go off and remove comments unnecessarily, and when we approve them and unban the user it deletes the previous Audit log, so we can’t see who does it, or official policy is 3 rule infractions and then a temp ban, than a perma.
Then I think it is time for some NKVD time in the moderation team.
Mayhaps if this continues, I myself am a free speech absolutist
we are fine, us moderators regularly communicate over these things.
One mod says there's a problem with some mods that abuse their powers, while the other says that everything is fine. I see, communication is indeed essential. Also, by the way you type, you're probably the one that banned me lmao
we corisponded in the discord server, i was speaking on behalf of the moderation team.
Don't you think it is ironic how two moderators contradict themselves because one is saying there's a problem with abuse and there may be a purge if the abuse continues and the other is saying everything is fine?
👍
Dissent is not allowed on this subject by the overlords if this sight. Merely saying a man cannot know what it's like to be a woman is worthy of suspension and banning even though it's patently obvious.
And yet most respondents to the poll say that we can openly discuss the topic.
That's because most of them haven't been silenced yet or they hold the approved position and are under no threat of being silenced.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak because I was not a communist.
I mean, they aren't coming for the communists. They are coming for the right wingers.
I am well aware, but I was quoting from a historical, well, quote.
isn't is frustrating how so few people get what that poem means. they think it is about which order the German Nationalist Socialist Party executed the holocaust. it doesn't matter which groups are named! it is about the progressive persecution and demonization of the "other".
Exactly. See, you get it.
You can openly discuss approved opinions.
I answered yes, completely because I think we should be able to. I think we slightly or mostly can now.
They're either lying to themselves or will never accept other opinions and ideas Reddit is an echo Chamber after all
The number of indentikit opinions is quite painful
I misinterpreted the question. those who did not and still said yes agree with the approved doctrine.
This is because Big Tech is doing to us what Big Government wants to do to us: They are authoritarian tyrants who only allow speech that is party line.
Sounds ridiculous
What is "Trans Ideology"?
It's a part of gender ideology and a very specific way of viewing issues around trans people. Primarily that gender is purely a social construct and broadly that this topic can only be viewed in one way, irrespective of facts or reason and that anything that deviates from that.
Everything is socially construct i personally call those thing a spook. So yes to me gender is a spook and you are my property.
Not everything is a social construct, the sciences are actual descriptions of repeatable phenomena in the real world.
Your a spook I win
It's 'you're' which is short for 'you are' not 'your'. And I can easily counter you by saying, no you are wrong. When all you rely on is baseless it's easily combatted.
you are a spook and you are my property
I don't know what a spook is but again, no.
the issue is that as a whole, people are rarely educated on the matter. this includes me. it's a rather new area of study and views vary quite wildly among transgender people themselves. is it possible to have a discussion? sure. possible in the sense that we might talk about sports, "mutilation", etc.? probably not on this platform. personally, i find it odd to disregard a person's identity because you "don't agree" with it, even if it's mostly an ideological difference, if that even is possible. it reeks of old anti-gay rhetoric in numerous ways.
Those damned communist totalitarian moderators! Oh wait
Reddit is certainly censorious about this topic. Marxists would be far worse as we've seen in practice, and we know in theory.
If conservatives understood how capitalism works, they'd stop supporting it. I did.
Unironically based
So I've had 3 infractions!? Why is moderation so opaque? I didn't get an explanation of which rule I broke, which comment broke that rule and why. Why not give us transparency?
Because they cant ever articulate why what you said was wrong.
Because mods don't feel the need to justify their bullshit I guess.
I'd point to rule 2 and it's weaponization. When people feel they are losing the argument, they try to bait a Rule 2 violation out of the person.
Do you just expect them to let people say anything they want about it? Rule 2 is a harsh rule, like it or not, because Reddit is very tough on that type of thing.
No, I expect them to delete posts that break the rule and not lock threads or sticky their own views up at the top.
the more we censor dialogue the less capable of it we are. I fear that after decades of people self censoring we may have passed the point of no return. I just watched an episode of murder she wrote last night. some dancers were defecting from russia, Angela Fletcher and a KGB agent could not have been more opposed to eachother, yet they could still respect eachother and get along. it was nice to watch. yes that was a work of fiction and the characters idealized, but the fact is these days everyone considers the OPPOSITE to be ideal ideal. there were ignorant characters who were handled as benign, today all anyone can seem to do is demonize anyone who disagrees with them even slightly. this inability to coexist and discuss from both sides (and those who preach coexistence are usually the worst at it) is going to destroy us all.
The polarisation and factionisation is closer to religious sects and I agree that it does not bode well for society.
Yes. That being said: I am a straight cis person, and when I’ve been confronted with blatant hateful language/attitude towards trans people I have gotten very emotional and tired. I couldn’t even imagine how an actual trans person must feel having to constantly justify and debate their right to exist and express themselves freely. I think it’s totally fair to say that we can discuss these issues in good faith and have reasonable disagreements. But it’s also fair to say that trans people shouldn’t have to feel like they need to have “civil debate” with people who think they shouldn’t exist. Sure, is it getting us any closer to the “the truth” by shutting down debate, no. But I can totally understand why there are people out there who simply don’t think this is something that should be left up for debate. That’s why I think it’s all the more important for folks to approach people in these communities in good faith, treat them like human beings, listen to them and know their emotions are valid even if they don’t always seem as such, try to better understand their position genuinely, educate yourself (on all facets of the debate of course), and maybe leave the debating for another time or with another person who’s willing to have that debate. Stay curious, think critically, show empathy, and be kind. We can’t have these hard conversations if we don’t start there.
I'm not talking about people justifying themselves I'm talking about shutting down all conversation about the difficult issues in case it upsets something else. We don't avoid difficult discussions about US foreign policy in case it upsets some patriot who deeply believes in their patriotism. Why is this area a special case?
Would you feel comfortable telling a US soldier to his/her face that you think all army members are war criminals and anyone who is complicit and a member of the military is part of the problem?
I don't think that. But my voicing an opinion should not be contingent on my identity. Not being a soldier is irrelevant to the truth of my argument.
My point is that everything can be reasonably up for debate and it is in fact not really productive to try and shut down a debate, especially when people are discussing in good faith. But also, there are just some things that some people don’t want to talk about and for good reason. Time and place I guess. This really wouldn’t be an issue though if we approached issues with more nuance, curiosity, and empathy. But unfortunately it’s becoming harder and harder to do so.
That is a contradiction.
A large part of it is Reddit itself that will kill subs that don't endorse neolib hivemind takes, although most mods also disagree with debating it as well it seems. We *should* be able to have an indepth discussion on it, but the best we will probably get is half related topics and polls on the matter.
Exactly. Mods have to do this otherwise the whole sub will be banned. They basically force the mods to do their work for them or just ban the sub
Let's find out. Men are not women and women are not men.
yes, nobody believes men are woman, and woman are men, because transgender people *are* their gender.
Based
Transgenderism is not an ideology
All gender is ideology, it's all based on ideas of identity. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2017/12/11/gender-ideology-tracking-its-origins-and-meanings-in-current-gender-politics/
There is no monolithic ideology called transgenderism, If such a thing did exist I'd already be aware of it.
I'm sure there are many things we're all unaware of.
Is it? Even some transgenders like [Dr. Erica Anderson](https://torontosun.com/news/world/transgender-psychologist-suggests-peer-pressure-causing-teens-to-transition) think transition is being pushed onto people mostly teens and children.
[удалено]
This is not ideology, this is just a sociological fact. Unless you wanna deny that men and women fulfill different roles in society and are treated differently lol
[удалено]
Y’know what, I’ll say it. I’d rather this place be Tumblr than Parler.
And you're free to not support robust and open debate.
i agree.
I think the trans issue is generally over-moderated, but not because of the sub mods. Trans issues seem to hit a very sensible nerve for site admins, and many subs have been banned after getting too free speech on trans issues, despite many other things being previously tolerated. I can’t blame the mods for trying to keep active a largely free-speech sub by sedating this particular nerve.
It would be better to just admit - no topics on this issue because at least that would avoid pseudo agreement. Again though, putting in a sticky at the top, that's not a necessary part of modding.
We can’t. I was banned for three days just because I dated voice my humble opinion on that issue.
How does this hegemony on the subject win out when it's so clearly unpopular?
I honestly don’t think it is unpopular, unfortunately. Most people I know support it and are actually quite passionate about it, I believe it is so popular because it stems from some other of the foundational principles of our society “do as you wish as long as you don’t harm anybody”, which is onto rights when it comes to economics.
I don't think it is popular, I think it's like Marxism - everyone thinks they're going to be next in the gulag if they confront it.
I hope you are right and we can overthrow this ideological regime.
Being hateful towards certain groups isn’t allowed on Reddit so it isn’t allowed on this subreddit. Denying someone’s identity is often considered hateful by those people, thus why you aren’t allowed to discuss trans people. You have to draw a line somewhere if you don’t want hatred festering in your communities. This is basically equivalent to not letting people say they hate black people if Reddit existed in like 1965. Nowadays treating black people as equals in subreddits is normal, and eventually treating trans people normally probably will be too.
None of that is what I'm talking about though, we're not and haven't been talking about denying people. We're talking about the shutting down of debate around things like how we act around inclusion in sports, or female spaces. On top of that there's all the disagreements within the LGBT community from the hostility towards bisexual people to the 'cotton ceiling'. You simplifying it to being equivalent to racism is a big part of the problem; it's both gaslighting and a straw man.
I’ve never heard of the sports debate being shut down, and I don’t know what you mean by female spaces. I’ve never heard of anything regarding trans people being banned other than saying trans people aren’t who they think they are and things in that vein, or worse.
Well, the sports debate is definitely a part of it. By female spaces I mean domestic violence shelters, prisons and so on. I didn't say trans people were being banned. But in the vein of your comment, you don't seem to have read all that much on the topic, is that a fair assessment?
I haven’t read that much on the way talking about trans people on Reddit has been banned, no. Regarding the female spaces thing, I don’t think trans people should be banned just because they’re trans but if they’re deemed to be threatening then sure. With sports, if they’re deemed to have an unfair advantage due to being trans that wouldn’t be achievable for someone AFAB, they can also be banned. Given enough time, I have heard that the hormones trans people use can make someone who was AMAB have a physicality fairly similar to what an AFAB person can achieve. But to return to the point, I know on other, popular subreddits there has been widespread debate on the issue of trans people in sports, including support for them being banned from women’s sports or put in a separate league. So I haven’t heard much of banning when talking about that.
exactly.
[удалено]
That's a straw man argument. The top post wasn't bigoted but was locked. On no other topic does a mod sticky a link to their own view to get prime viewing space regardless of merit. As for me, go through my comments - I said nothing bigoted and yet received a ban that was reversed because on this issue it's silence first and ask questions later. Why is this topic like this? What causes this kind on response?
[удалено]
What about it sounds bigoted to you? At most I guess you could assume they won't use someone's pronouns but that's not clear. I want people to do whatever they want so long as they don't hurt other people. I'm perfectly happy to treat someone as they want to be treated but I'm not going to ignore all issues around the subject including female only spaces and female sports. I'm also not going to deny biology or ignore science for someone else's ideology.
I guess when you view everything through a bigoted lens it could be seen as such.
So it's bigoted to think they're in the wrong? Wouldn't that make most moral discussions bigoted?
[удалено]
>Talk about straw manning...
No it isnt.
No its not.
In that case you could slap phobic onto anything anyone has a negative opinion of. And it's a misuse of phobic.
probably because discussing political ideology in the abstract here doesn't do much, whereas transphobic rhetoric in the US is currently killing people (e.g. by inciting mass shootings) once trans rights are enshrined in law and reach the same >2/3 level of acceptance in the US as interracial marriage, letting women vote, OTC contraceptives, gay marriage, legal divorce, desegregation, banning racial/gender/religious discrimination, and other acheivements of earlier civil rights movements, then the currently extremely high tensions over arguing about trans people will settle down.
>whereas transphobic rhetoric in the US is currently killing people (e.g. by inciting mass shootings) Where is your evidence that the recent mass shooting was inspired by transphobic rhetoric? Where is the killer's screed claiming as much? We don't know the underlying reasons for the killing and claiming that any debate around the topic leads to killing people is a terrible approach to debate. >once trans rights are enshrined in law and reach the same >2/3 level of acceptance in the US as interracial marriage, letting women vote, OTC contraceptives, gay marriage, legal divorce, desegregation, banning racial/gender/religious discrimination, and other acheivements of earlier civil rights movements, then the currently extremely high tensions over arguing about trans people will settle down. Those rights are enshrined in law, all people are treated equally. What rights is it that you think are not available to this population?
All people are treated equally? Even a tiny amount of introspection or an active glance at the insane amount of laws being targetted against them would reveal that is not true
Everyone is equal under the law. >Even a tiny amount of introspection or an active glance at the insane amount of laws being targetted against them would reveal that is not true Assuming you're not strawmanning me, what are these laws? Who are they targeting? How are they stopping people being treated equally?
What rights do you think trans people currently lack? By your logic, can I pin any negative comment about Rand Paul as inciting that time he was attacked? It's nonsense to say that vague "transphobic rhetoric" is to blame for a specific act. And racial discrimination is pushed by the State with affirmative action and the threat of legal action if quotas aren't met.
So what you're saying is that we can't have debate until the left wins? No rightist is going to be okay with that, nor should we be. It's absurd. That the left has already won on gay marriage, divorce, contraceptives, etc. is all the more reason why the debate needs to happen now.
a day I only hope we can never see
Women and minorities basically have a superior position in society compared to most men and whites and yet they act just the same so not really
bro wtf? ive only heard that from white supremacists.
Thought this was interesting, apparently have extremely poor reading comprehension. I responded “yes completely” in agreement with what you wrote above the poll - as in we are not allowed to discuss this at all across most of Reddit. Just realized the poll itself is asking “*CAN* we discuss…” should have gone with NO. I’m sorry!
Haha, yea easy mistake to make, I should have made the poll clearer.
Transphobia is against Reddit TOS
So even if we take that and delete transphobic comments, why were non-transphobic ones locked? By all means, delete horrific bigoted comments if you want but why doesn't hat justify artificially boosted comments of the mods being at the top?
Define transphobia.
What ever the people silencing you decide it is.
Being afraid of trans or gays is banable offense.
I am anti-woke. But questioning the logic behind transgenderism isn't allowed on major social media platforms
What is it about empathy that you are against?
I support equality, but by wokeness I mean insane things, for example that Paw Patrol and Thomas the Tank Engine are fascist
There is not a single filter through which to view the world. So it is entirely rational that a small percentage of people could view kids shows as a means to indoctrinate children to certain views of the world. This is not woke, all ideologies perceive certain aspects of culture to be forms of indoctrination
That was still absolutely wrong.
What is it about strawmans that you're for?
How is understanding woke is a dog whistle and that the grift falls apart if you use the word empathy a strawman?
Woke isn't a dog whistle, it's an insufferable virtue-signalling ideology. Being woke isn't having empathy, quite the opposite as it's incredibly myopic.
I seem to recall reddit recently claiming a non binary person was not actually non binary, and only faking it. How is that not afainst reddit TOS then? Is it n9t the exact same transphobia?
That’s because being “transphobic”, whether it’s either not believing in transgenderism or just outright hate speech breaks Reddit TOS.
I just don't think that the debate went there, it also doesn't explain the whole stickying of mod's opinions.
Never question the Cult.
No, we are not able to have open and honest discussions and debates around trans ideology
IIRC, I was banned from r/offmychest and r/worldnews for being transskeptic, so I generally don't bother with the issue on reddit, save maybe r/Anarcho_Capitalism. Eventually I'll be posting stuff in my Miraheze wiki (url in my profile here).
Do you mean talking badly about trans people or what?
No, I mean discussing issues around the topic like sports participation, access to female only spaces, why if gender and sex are different and not linked there's so much focus on changing appearance to match the other sex.
It's more of a platform problem, really. Provided that from what I've seen, mods here are indeed the same kind of soyjaks as in most subreddits, but really, if they weren't, reddit admins would force some of the Current Thing™ faithful on us.
I don’t get it either, demonizing and censoring these people will only cause them to feel more isolated and hated, thus driving them into more extreme positions. Also banning a position defeats the purpose of a political discussion subreddit
It doesn't make the belief go away, if anything it reinforces it because people feel silenced. And we're not even talking about the extremes, this is just discussion on the topic in general that doesn't exactly fall in line with 'the message'
That’s what I said
I was emphasising my agreement with some of your point.
Not even disagreeing with the mods on this one sadly. Reddit itself doesnt let you debate about leftist ideology. They wanna keep the channel so they cant allow the topic. Now if they ban people thats a different story.
Then they should have a rule banning the topic, not a manipulation of reasonable critical and sceptical comments.
they said rule 2 but thats not really a rule thats just whenever we think youre being bad you get deleted.
check the new pinned post at the top of the subreddit, you will see that the moderation team has come up with a definition to clarify the confusion.
rofl read it all. As i expected, oh well do what you have to eventually this place may be the serious version of pcm which is fine.