Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

we really banning people who find porn misogynistic?

No. It was for the things I said in my explanation of the ban, which are different.

So, if this view is bannable, ban me.

It isn't.

Have you read the stickied article in f/Sex_Work and the sidebar article? Might be useful for some people here.

Sorry I don't have more time for this right now, if someone else has more time to explain this they are welcome.


bloodrose OP wrote

I did read your comment and it broke down into these areas:

  1. Swerfy stuff - but I honestly didn't see anti sex-worker sentiment. I saw that Browse should've engaged better than they did but not someone who was anti worker.

  2. Tank adjacency If we're banning them for going pro-China tankie, I retract my indignation. I'm kinda sick of "China is doing it right" comments, too. They send my yikes-meter off. But what it felt like, because we haven't outright banned some other pro-China folks, is that Browse's take on sex work was the bannable offense. Maybe that is a lack of consistency on our part and we're only human...but that is how I our humanness led me to read the ban.

  3. Class-reductionism I missed that one. But they've done it in the past so I believe it.

I guess since we inconsistently ban for #2 and I didn't see #3, I assumed the real ban was over #1. If it was more complex than that, should we lock this thread? Or leave it open to discuss defining swerfy for future reference?