Reddit banning users for sharing Julie Bindel article

Ahh, of course FromEden. And that's a very interesting connection to make.

A few years ago Aimee was invited to debate the proposition 'A University Should Be A Safe Space'.

Up against the likes of Peter Hitchens, Aimee chose to point out that trigger and content warnings enable debate, because that means that people otherwise too afraid to turn up will join the conversation. And to prove this point, err... "I looked at two DVDs on my shelves and they had descriptors on them like mild language, violence and some strong vampire horror."

A question (5 minutes in if you want to skip to it) about disenfranchised minorities not having a voice in so-called safe spaces (as these spaces are basically created by the privileged to discuss only things that they want discussed) completely flummoxes Aimee.

Result? 33 for, 267 against.

Hurrah! I wouldn't have heard about the article if this hadn't happened :)

We used to have campaigns for equal rights for LGB people. This got traction because everybody except the most virulent homophobes could see they had common interests and giving them equal rights wasn't going to cause problems for society as a whole.

The most brilliant wheeze of the T activists was persuading the LGB activists to take them in, rapidly followed by the Q and all the other letters. I'm straight so maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see for the life of me what T and Q have in common with LGB. From where I'm standing, Stonewall seems to have decided that all the money and publicity was in the T area, not the boring old LGB area they were founded to work for, so in comes T and like a cuckoo in the nest soon comes to dominate the entire work programme of registered charity Stonewall. Baffling.

So now we have people with assorted unusual and in some cases clearly harmful personality traits claiming to be oppressed, asking Stonewall et al to lobby for them, expecting the police to investigate anyone hostile to their position as perpetrators of hate crime, amending the school curriculum etc etc.

It's a mystery to me how they've got away with it.

It was being discussed in FWR in August 2018

And on reddit in the Gender Critical sub, before it was banned. I wonder was AC involved in that decision too?

@Cwenthryth

Exactly

Shining daylight

On twitter people are commenting about how this is big news that somehow has been hidden until now. It was being discussed in FWR in August 2018.

And some individuals turn up again and again with an astonishing level of influence which on the face of it makes no sense

I ‘get’ that they don’t want their staff harassed... however, being a moderator and potentially having access to private information and a direct line to posters surely would mean that you need to be someone trustworthy, with good judgement and integrity.

Someone who has been found guilty of not understanding safeguarding, etc etc etc is surely the type of person you would not perceive to have good judgement or common sense.

Wow, I am exploring Reddit. Some interesting subreddits, there.

Reddit has a huge hypocrisy problem here.

All the people who use it enough to mod their own reddits know what content doesn't get deleted. You can't make your reputation on being such a bastion of free speech that you're forced to permit truly infamous reddits, and then ban someone for posting an article from the Spectator.

Just as a point of information Aimee stood to be MP for Coventry South in the 2017 General Election, getting 604 votes. By contrast the Green candidate in 2015 had managed to get 1719 people to vote for him.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_South_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

determined to give them the benefit of the doubt no matter what.

That's Glinners repeated point. So these are outliers? Well they're very central outliers.

Why do they keep turning up in central positions, with people protecting them?

That means you have an institutional problem.

Karen White. Jonathan Yaniv. Amy Challenor. There's a couple more, I'm sure - people who've been enabled to victimise others again and again, and then been protected from criticism by organisations who were determined to give them the benefit of the doubt no matter what. For what? A bit of feel good policy that no-one bothered to follow up on to see how it actually landed? Every time, the cover-up has turned out to be even more shocking than the original mistake.

It's the enabling people and organisations in this who make me most angry.

I've had a look at the UK trans subreddit and they're not happy. Of course, there are posts supporting AC.

First Metro article I've ever seen that wasn't draped in rainbow flags and sympathy.

Amazing.

desperate to avoid and disown.

But not desperate enough to actually take action on, apparently. Just trying to sweep it under the rug.

Which in turn was what AC was criticised for in the Veritas report. It's a huge repeated pattern.

David Challenor bears some responsibility for this, but Aimee Challenor, as an officer of the party both nationally and locally, should have made sure that she gave enough information to people in positions of responsibility so that they could act on it. We believe that she did not do so because the primary issue in her mind was the reputation of the party in publicity terms.We do not believe she considered safeguarding issues. That was an error on her part.

From our conversations with her, it is clear that Aimee Challenor did not demonstrate a clear understanding of safeguarding and still does not see the safeguarding issues that this case gave rise to.

This is terrible for the trans community. AC's story has all the elements which they are deperate to avoid and disown.

Are you saying that someone is or someones are using AC to push through their own agenda?