Reddit banning users for sharing Julie Bindel article

[Cwenthryth]

twitter.com/bindelj/status/1374372934379204608?s=21
Julie Bindel has shared on Twitter that Reddit is banning any mention or sharing of her Spectator article & banning users for discussion Aimee Challenor/Knight as well.

Here’s the spec article
www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-green-party-s-growing-contempt-for-women-s-rights

FWIW, I do feel there was an excessive generalisation in what I was quoting. It was hyperbolic.

But the problem is that what we're fighting is an excessive generalisation IN THE OTHER DIRECTION. This belief that being under this "umbrella" makes you somehow unquestionable - any questioning or pointing out problems is from evil bigots.

The rule is:

Sweeping negative generalisations about any group, including trans people and gender-critical feminists, won’t be tolerated.

But why should sweeping positive generalisations be permitted? They are the root of the AC problem.

To put it in perspective, consider William Hague. I expect we've all seen that speech where he addressed the Conservative party conference at 16 years old.

Regardless of whether you agreed with his politics (I don't!), he was evidently passionate about politics, and confident. Checking wikipedia, he became the Conservative Party's then-youngest MP after being assigned a safe seat at the age of approximately 29. Then it was a meteoric rise to becoming conservative party leader at 36.

He obviously always aspired to be an MP, but he was obliged to go to university and do student politics first, wasn't he? The eighties were a different time, but I don't think the Tories today would tell a modern day teenage William Hague that he could go straight into politics with them.

Good analogy. I wouldn't want to move to a model where all MPs have to be graduates, but when I am looking at a list of people I could vote for, I always want to know something about their education, qualifications, work experience, life experience. If I see a candidate who appears to have next to nothing in any of those areas, I would discount them. Leaving aside everything else we've learned about AC, someone as young as that would need to be an absolutely exceptional person to justify being appointed to the kind of roles AC has had.

Malala, for example. She rose to global prominence because of what happened to her in Pakistan, but she's clearly extremely bright and hard-working, and highly articulate.

I hope Reddit follows through and looks very carefully now at who they have moderating groups for children and teenagers, and other vulnerable groups. Common sense dictates that people applying for those positions should be vetted with great care.

You'd have thought that would be a basic rule, wouldn't you?

You would, Errol, but what we would we know? We're just silly old mummies whose brains have been surgically removed with the placenta.

I'm not an expert on safeguarding, but I know we have many here. Isn't the saying 'there can't be any protected castes'?

Can we also talk about how not one mainstream outlet has covered the Reddit thing? Metro and the Verge. That's it.

This story is HUGE. Over 200 subreddits went private. A significant number have over 1 million members. The Music one alone has 27 million and yet somehow The NYT's super woke tech reporter has missed this story? Shocking.

Oh and it actually resulted in the CEO coming out and personally announcing the firing of this person all while they're trying to prepare for an IPO.

And yet tumbleweed...

Apparently there's something about it in The Times today. US media need to wake up.

@FightingTheFoo

Can we also talk about how not one mainstream outlet has covered the Reddit thing? Metro and the Verge. That's it.

This story is HUGE. Over 200 subreddits went private. A significant number have over 1 million members. The Music one alone has 27 million and yet somehow The NYT's super woke tech reporter has missed this story? Shocking.

It may be more the sort of thing which needs some investigation and a more in-depth look rather than a quick report. If you don't already know the various backstories it wouldn't make any sense.

@Cwenthryth

The modern “public square” is social media and online discussion forums - none of which are actually public, they’re owned and controlled by private individuals and corporations, and most of which seem to be beyond a lot of jurisdiction. We rely on the benevolence of whoever is running these sites for free some of speech and association in many ways. When they choose to discriminate against a particular group - how do you combat that?

I guess it’s just sunlight, more sunlight needed.

I’m really quite chilled by this. Not that I held any level of respect for Reddit previously. But seriously....next level. Is there no one in control at Reddit that thinks this is just not cricket?

This.

I hadnt appreciated the value of media in general, until the last few years when its impartiality in general has been quietly eroded.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

I'd also be hell to the no about making a degree compulsory, but again our other MPs without degrees still didn't go straight into politics, post school. It's uni or workplace. (Indeed I've frequently complained that for some of the graduates it should have been uni and workplace!)

I'm very far from being a conservative voter, but in this case I think the Greens should have been following their example and certainly should not have been considering a 21-year old for a position of co-leader. It should have been as out of the question as it would have been for a 21-year-old William Hague to take over the conservative party in 1982.

@MonkeyNotOrgangrinder

I'm pretty sure I remember something about AC being photographed in front of the attic door in his father's house for a publicity photo or something? Apologies if I've misremembered and if so I will ask for this post to be deleted.

You are correct. I can't remember where I saw that photograph but I definitely saw it. Aimee was smiling broadly in the photograph.

It was by the steps/ladder leading to the attic I think.

Was that the T-shirt photo?

iirc it said something like "Some people are trans, get over it"

Is AC history and connections with certain people not public knowledge? If so, why are they allowed the roles they’ve been granted? Surely someone in a position of power over those roles has a modicum of intelligence and can see how inadvisable that is?

I can't figure out how to link directly, but FPFW posted it on their FB page in September 2018.

@PotholeHellhole

For the attic picture, go to Fair Play for Women's facebook post, 26th September 2018.

Thank you! Yes it is still there. AC in front of a loft ladder, looking at the time on a watch, and wearing a t-shirt saying 'twaw get over it' 😳

Here. If you use sensible search terms in the facebook search field, you should be able to get to it directly.

Cross-post!

Honestly, the people I blame most in all this are the actual adults. I find it terribly easy to sympathise with Aimee, given what conclusions I can draw about that family. Aimee may still go through significant positive character development in the years to come. AC is only 24 now!

But a young person like Aimee should never have been put in a position by a political party where their incapacity to comprehend safeguarding mattered.

Arty gives a really good overview of the situation here:

And also talks about the phenomena which seems to happen where people lose their critical thinking skills when it comes to people like AC. They can't see the safeguarding implications because they are working hard to overcome the sense of "something here is not right".

Can we also talk about how not one mainstream outlet has covered the Reddit thing? Metro and the Verge. That's it.

Aimee has been on mainstream news outlets previously though, ostensibly as a spokesperson for trans rights. At least newsnight, probably others. Maybe that means they're trying to be careful now in order that they don't get pulled into this?

I wonder if reddit is going to do anything about all the subreddits concerning things such as feminism, pregnancy and gynaecology that got banned (while extremely dodgy ones are allowed to remain)?

I've always found Challenor's employability odd. There is the mediocre man to winner woman phenomenon, where people (male ones) seem to get magazine columns, broadcasting deals and positions of influence purely because they are trans, with no evidence of either brilliance or popularity.

They can't see the safeguarding implications because they are working hard to overcome the sense of "something here is not right".

I've had safeguarding training as part of a volunteering commitment that involves people with learning and physical disabilities. The main point the trainer wanted to reiterate was that if anything ever felt "off" you should report it, and that it can be looked at discreetly by someone senior. You never ignore a situation which has made you instinctively uncomfortable. This is basic stuff.

Share token for the Times article. This is a disappointing article. Zero mention of ACs trans status - ‘spokeswoman’ and demoted the husband to ‘friend’.

Minimise minimise and ‘nothing to see here’ just a bit of a techy falling out.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/52120fe2-8ce4-11eb-8f69-0367b6f4fca7?shareToken=a5f18d9ff7ae92390f333c340b8dd920

Haven’t had a chance to watch/listen to that yet (thanks for the link) but this is a very good point

They can't see the safeguarding implications because they are working hard to overcome the sense of "something here is not right".

We are continually encouraged to ignore our instincts and told our boundaries make us bigots. Acceptance without exception. Cognitive dissonance becomes normalised. Why, who benefits?