I call it the "unaccounted-for activist problem". Certain people will, without fail, like clockwork, if given the chance, ban or "silence" a LOT of other people from anywhere and everywhere that they can whether a bus, a playground, a public or private space, or a social media site. You have to account for these kinds of people, and you have to see through their bullshit of "speech is violence", no violence is violence and speech is speech and any platform that confuses the two will either fail or enslave everyone to many other lies.
> On both networks, it makes it virtually impossible for minorities (like black Americans) to speak to each other without a flood of freaks rolling in to interrupt. Interrupting conversations is the real anti-social behavior. The point is supposed to enable and encourage conversation.
Despite all its flaws, reddit got this mostly right. Having explicit sub-communities allows groups of people to keep to themselves if they want to and ban anyone who's not welcome.
No, OP is being transphobic and referring to trans women as men:
> Note that the "banning controversy" is that they're not banning enough people for having entirely mainstream political opinions, and mostly targets journalists. Or let's be more specific: mostly targets people who don't think that men can identify into being victims of misogyny.
While I can't read OP's mind, there is a problem with bad actors abusing pro-trans policies to benefit themselves. One of the most outrageous examples is the literal Nazi[1] who started identifying as female after being sentenced. Some gatekeeping is required here.
How is it possible that this tiny minority of "[things I don't like] men" has such an impact on your bubble of the internet? It should be tiny compared to hundreds of millions of men in Africa, China, India, etc.
I call it the "unaccounted-for activist problem". Certain people will, without fail, like clockwork, if given the chance, ban or "silence" a LOT of other people from anywhere and everywhere that they can whether a bus, a playground, a public or private space, or a social media site. You have to account for these kinds of people, and you have to see through their bullshit of "speech is violence", no violence is violence and speech is speech and any platform that confuses the two will either fail or enslave everyone to many other lies.
> On both networks, it makes it virtually impossible for minorities (like black Americans) to speak to each other without a flood of freaks rolling in to interrupt. Interrupting conversations is the real anti-social behavior. The point is supposed to enable and encourage conversation.
Despite all its flaws, reddit got this mostly right. Having explicit sub-communities allows groups of people to keep to themselves if they want to and ban anyone who's not welcome.
Do you mean "misandry?"
> Do you mean "misandry?"
No, OP is being transphobic and referring to trans women as men:
> Note that the "banning controversy" is that they're not banning enough people for having entirely mainstream political opinions, and mostly targets journalists. Or let's be more specific: mostly targets people who don't think that men can identify into being victims of misogyny.
While I can't read OP's mind, there is a problem with bad actors abusing pro-trans policies to benefit themselves. One of the most outrageous examples is the literal Nazi[1] who started identifying as female after being sentenced. Some gatekeeping is required here.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3r4zrg35vlo
Oh, I see.
[flagged]
How is it possible that this tiny minority of "[things I don't like] men" has such an impact on your bubble of the internet? It should be tiny compared to hundreds of millions of men in Africa, China, India, etc.
Well said. Very much agree with your edit too.