@MNHQ — Do you understand that when LangCleg referenced “monitors” she wasn’t using that word as a synonym for “moderators”?
That she meant an entirely different group of people?
But when you side with these “monitors” over the women who are the products you’re selling to your advertisers, I do hope you’re aware of just who you’re siding with. And when you describe women protesting those decisions as “aggressive” when these same women are subject to violent threats of rape and death, threats to their employment, FFS threats to their children elsewhere, all over the internet, from these “monitors,” I really question your definition of “aggressive” and your sense of proportion.
The discussion on these boards is not taking place in a vacuum.
And the threats of violence, the demand for silencing, the threats to employment are all coming from one direction only — and that’s not from GC feminists. GC feminists have been pleading for the very opposite fo silencing — for actual discussion and debate. And over and over what we hear is: NO. This cannot be discussed, cannot be debated, one cannot even raise a question.
All the threats feminists are enduring are forms of coercive control. All over the internet, women post anonymously or use pseudonyms precisely because of those threats — they have very realistic fears of losing their jobs. Look at how even tenured professors’ employment is under threat, merely for discussing and questioning. Look at how women striving to meet to discuss women’s rights in the context of gender identity rights have to wait to notify attendees of the meeting site until the very last minute —to avert violent protest and both attempted and actual assault.
What Lang was telling you was that each time you side with those issuing these threats, you function, even if unwittingly, as an extension of those threats. Silencing female critical voices is the number one goal of these monitors.
And you have done that.