Do you want an insular community that's effectively just the size of a small clique, and still manages to be constantly at war with itself? Because that's how you get there.
Call me naive but I've operated under the principle of "we're all friends commies here". Many people I know IRL were caught up in a social circle that did constant witch-hunting, and it imploded after people realized it was a proto-cult formation.
Mostly not a bad thing, it depends on what is labeled as "misogyny". I once had a very brief and measured pro-vegan question removed for "racism", this was in a struggle session about vegans that we later learned was instigated by a wrecker. But if someone has a clear record of being hostile and/or reactionary or otherwise being particularly problematic for certain demographics, it's okay to kick them. I will fully own up to my limited awareness of what people are like on this site, but my picture is very rosy.
In the site's early days I spoke up about mass bans, a user was critical of me for it, I messaged them about 20 banned accounts that I'd grown used to seeing, they responded by saying that 3 users on the list were problematic and demanding that I never message them again. At least 2 on the list were unbanned and remain active users to this day.
Of course, they could just make new accounts, but is it wrong to want to grow that familiarity with each other?
There was also at least one mod who would hand out bans for disagreeing with them, including for criticizing them for being too trigger-happy with banning.
Idk I'm just very wary of most purges, and I think I have reason to be. In cases like this it would at least be a lot clearer if there was a count of strikes against someone visible on their profile.
I have an opinion about one thing I think could make stronger socialist movements but at this point I'll keep it to myself, as it feels less certain and important than many other things, and the climate still isn't right for it.
I just looked through those (normally I rarely can justify keeping track so closely).
There was the new account who said he was pro-women's liberation but was terrified of women having autonomy (real life cumtown bit, almost tagline material), and there was AndJusticeForAll, who- even to a casual like me- very obviously came off as DayOfDoom's alt. Those two had it coming.
Other than that, there were a couple temp bans of people arguing in good faith, and a couple bans of people merely being slightly rude. Idk I don't think making a rash reaction without considering all the potential consequences is the same as misogyny. I don't think our friendly neighborhood plumber dad was being misogynistic, especially because he later felt ambivalence, he had just acted without full consideration (which we all do all the time to some extent). The struggle session over Loss felt weird bit I'm not gonna tell someone they shouldn't have a take like that.
Do you want an insular community that's effectively just the size of a small clique, and still manages to be constantly at war with itself? Because that's how you get there.
Call me naive but I've operated under the principle of "we're all
friendscommies here". Many people I know IRL were caught up in a social circle that did constant witch-hunting, and it imploded after people realized it was a proto-cult formation.Yeah but are you gonna say the misogynist purges are a bad thing? That's the sort of purge I mean.
Mostly not a bad thing, it depends on what is labeled as "misogyny". I once had a very brief and measured pro-vegan question removed for "racism", this was in a struggle session about vegans that we later learned was instigated by a wrecker. But if someone has a clear record of being hostile and/or reactionary or otherwise being particularly problematic for certain demographics, it's okay to kick them. I will fully own up to my limited awareness of what people are like on this site, but my picture is very rosy.
In the site's early days I spoke up about mass bans, a user was critical of me for it, I messaged them about 20 banned accounts that I'd grown used to seeing, they responded by saying that 3 users on the list were problematic and demanding that I never message them again. At least 2 on the list were unbanned and remain active users to this day.
Of course, they could just make new accounts, but is it wrong to want to grow that familiarity with each other?
There was also at least one mod who would hand out bans for disagreeing with them, including for criticizing them for being too trigger-happy with banning.
Idk I'm just very wary of most purges, and I think I have reason to be. In cases like this it would at least be a lot clearer if there was a count of strikes against someone visible on their profile.
I have an opinion about one thing I think could make stronger socialist movements but at this point I'll keep it to myself, as it feels less certain and important than many other things, and the climate still isn't right for it.
Huh, I don't disagree with this actually. I can say I'm finding the misogyny removals (very few bans yet) to be pretty even handed at least.
I just looked through those (normally I rarely can justify keeping track so closely).
There was the new account who said he was pro-women's liberation but was terrified of women having autonomy (real life cumtown bit, almost tagline material), and there was AndJusticeForAll, who- even to a casual like me- very obviously came off as DayOfDoom's alt. Those two had it coming. Other than that, there were a couple temp bans of people arguing in good faith, and a couple bans of people merely being slightly rude. Idk I don't think making a rash reaction without considering all the potential consequences is the same as misogyny. I don't think our friendly neighborhood plumber dad was being misogynistic, especially because he later felt ambivalence, he had just acted without full consideration (which we all do all the time to some extent). The struggle session over Loss felt weird bit I'm not gonna tell someone they shouldn't have a take like that.