Reddit progress

[traceyracer]

MRA Reddit subreddits r/TheRedPill and r/MGTOW have now been identified as "shocking and offensive" and quarantined and scheduled for deletion!

We should complain to Reddit about r/MensRights and get that one quarantined too.

I agree, GCAcademic
Anyone that wants the left to ever regain power should watch this:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=3kf1YKeq7lA

one reason I ask if they are actually inciting violence - we could be shut down for being "shocking and offensive" too. That's not really a good enough reason is it?

I never saw any incitement to violence in my lurking days (circa 2014).
Excitement to ‘pump and dump’ definitely happened.
Mostly it was coaching men through text message exchanges of the ‘treat em mean to keep em keen’ variety and sharing stories of how Red Pill philosophy was getting them laid and how much they resented paying child support.

Dulang

mm, see I think it's a problem if they are shut down for that type of thing.
The Feminism board could be shut down for all kinds of things if they're just going with "offensive".

also it's quite good for sunlight to be shone on these attitudes - good for teenage girls even to know this kind of thinking exists and to watch out for red flags.

I've not really paid much attention to the MGTOW and Red Pill stuff. As AutumnRose1 mentions, as fas as I'm aware those who frequent such groups aren't inciting violence against women.

I don't have to like or agree with certain viewpoints. They are free to discuss what they like. There are topics discussed in feminist circles that people might find quite objectionable or extreme, for example, female separatism.

Bad ideas or ideology should be countered by rational and persuasive arguments. Banning or shutting down problematic conversations only proves that you have nothing of substance to actually counter such ideas.

What if sunlight is actually a recruiting tool?

Well there is no denying that it might be. I sympathise with where you're coming from. My initial reaction is to want somebody to shut it down and make it go away. But doing that won't in fact make it go away.

Some people consider my own views on gender to be just as bad. The flip side of censorship - the silencing of legitimate debate and inconvenient points of view - is too IMO dangerous.

I agree. Better to be able to see what some people are thinking than squash it underground.
Banning the Red Pill subreddit won’t magically stop men hating women.

And all it takes is a change of management and your own views are the ones that become unutterable.
Better to have it all out in the open and see how things shake down. That’s the idea behind parliamentary debates, not that it’s working well in these hyper partisan times!

But if we ban misogynist internet spaces won't that mean men will just spew more misogyny offline?

Banning "men's rights" subreddits is all very well but that doesn't address the underlying misogyny at all.

OP

I thought you posted this thinking it was good news? Sorry, bit confused now.

Meh just had a quick look at r/MensRghts, and altho I dislike it, I'm against quarantine and or deletion.

This ^ and this:

Be careful. If Reddit start banning subs, then the GC sub will almost certainly be deleted.

Either you are in favour of free speech (which means all speech including that you find distasteful, offensive and disagreeable) and we counter it with rational arguments or you are in favour of shutting down opinions which oppose yours. You can't have both.

I am in favour of free speech even if I find those subs unpleasant - what I do is ... avoid reading them.

I'm confused too traceyracer. Or have the arguments won you over?

I am in favour of free speech even if I find those subs unpleasant

So you wouldn’t ban a neo-nazi discussion forum? Or a paedophile one?

noble Paedophile isn't a valid comparison.

Neo-Nazi - erm, not sure. I'd go with "are they inciting violence" or are they discussing ideology? Are they inciting hatred? I know that's a tough line to tread.

So you wouldn’t ban a neo-nazi discussion forum? Or a paedophile one?

No I wouldn't ban a neo-nazi sub but I might counter it with arguments against and if it was actually inciting people to violence that becomes another matter - if there was evidence of a sub being explicitly connected to violence IRL then that would be about more than speech.

Pedophile one - see above, once it leaves the realms of talking and is connected to actual harm to another living thing then it leaves the realms of free speech.

The downside of free speech - and this is heavily connected to the policing of academics currently - is that we may not like all world views so we counter them as best we can displacing the hate with rationality and love. Once the speech spills into actual harm you are no longer championing people's right to say things but to act in a harmful way towards others (see also porn).

So in answer to your blunt question a blunt answer which is no - not for speech.

You know my answer to that question was implicit in what I had already said:

Either you are in favour of free speech (which means all speech including that you find distasteful, offensive and disagreeable) and we counter it with rational arguments or you are in favour of shutting down opinions which oppose yours. You can't have both.

I remember my student union debating whether to allow the BNP to speak - this discussion included many people who would be affect by this (BAME) the consensus was we might not like what they said but they could say it. Naturally we had security in case of violence - because that is another matter entirely. I abhore racism and pedophilia but if you believe in free speech you cant start having caveats - that is how we find ourselves in the position we are in now - i.e. cancel culture, totalitarian approaches to speech, women being thrown off twitter and female academics being accompanied by security guards. You need to really think about what free speech means to you.

I see. So a discussion forum about how a certain group of people are subhuman, full of arguments about why they are subhuman and how disgusting they are is ok, so long as there’s no proof that this forum is in any way linked to real life violence (and it has to be violence, other lesser actions don’t count) against that subgroup?

Because we have no evidence that words lead to actions ever, historically. Or that people are emboldened when they find people who agree with them.

It has always worked out just fine.

noblegiraffe what happens when your own ideas and viewpoints are considered inflammatory by those who disagree with you? What then?

Then you consider whether your views are more akin to legitimate discussion of immigration or the hate-filled rantings of a racist.

If the former, then the right to make your case should be protected. I’m aware this is currently being tested.

And who gets to define what is legitimate discussion and what are hate-filled rantings?

Should atheists be banned from discussing topics considered blasphemous by many?

Should feminists be banned for their discussions because their ideas can be viewed as a 'threat to the family structure'?

Should homosexuals be banned from discussing their views because many would find them 'perverted' and are concerned that allowing such viewpoints to be freely aired will only embolden others?

noble that’s why I said it’s hard to find the line. But that’s true of any group that’s anti anything.

Discussion of people as sub human sounds like it should be shut down.
But what kind of discussion? I was terrified when
Nick Griffin went on Question Time but he lost popularity, he didn’t gain it.

Should people propagating anti-vaxx lies be allowed to do so when it presents a clear threat to public safety? Should politicians be allowed to put fake news ads on social media?

It is easy to spout stuff like ‘all speech should be allowed’ but then the consequences of that need to be accepted. Ideas are not value-neutral. Some are dangerous.

It’s harder to say that some things shouldn’t be tolerated. Yes it is hard to say where the line should be drawn. No, I don’t have all the answers.

Noble “Ideas are not value-neutral. Some are dangerous.“

Of course. But I don’t want to ban the suffragettes under hate speech.

I’m not sure what your view actually is on the OP btw. It’s fine if you’re nit sure. I just feel you’re telling us off a bit and I’m not sure why.

Most parents who are anti-vaxxers are genuinely concerned about the safety of their children. Misguided they may be, but their concern is genuine.
It is vital for medical professionals and governmental agencies to regularly explain to the general public why vaccinations are important and how they are safe.
Compliance is easier and better in the long-term when it comes from a place of co-operation rather than enforcement.

Should politicians be allowed to put fake news ads on social media?
Most reasonable people would say no, but we are talking about subjective and contentious opinions in this thread, not objective facts.
If someone says 100k migrants entered the UK last year, but only 10k actually did, this means it can be objectively disproven. It is not the same as someone discussing something like 'increased migration is ruining British culture' which is a subjective opinion that can have a range of arguments for and against by different people depending on their personal outlook.

I’m disagreeing with you.

It’s Reddit’s right to ban discussions it doesn’t want to host.

And I think that just because it could be argued that suppression of discussion about immigration led to Brexit and that yes, people need to listen outside their echo chambers, it doesn’t follow that everything should be given a platform. Nazis and paedophiles should be no-brainers.

“ It’s Reddit’s right to ban discussions it doesn’t want to host.”

Separate issue. I would agree whoever owns the platform should be allowed to host or not host as they please.

Should those discussions be banned full stop is a different issue.