Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ziq wrote (edited )

What makes you think she was being malicious in any way? She was clearly genuinely concerned that being critical of that industry was now considered grounds for a ban. I think it's a perfectly valid concern and when you explained the ban was for other reasons, she was super understanding and even apologetic (when she really had no need to be).

I'm very confused by what reads to me as a hostile attack on a valued user who did nothing more than ask an honest question as a feminist. Most rad women understand how the objectification of women's bodies feeds the culture of misogyny every woman is forced to endure. They understand that workers are exploited by their industry. This isn't swerf ideology, it's simply being a woman in a culture that treats women like disposable objects who only exist to serve as instant gratification for men.

Women can't just be expected to ignore the effect of the porn industry on their lives because some women make their living from porn. We all make a living from various industries and shouldn't be attacked for talking about the harm those industries do. This particular industry isn't some sacred entity that's above criticism, especially when the conversation is centred around a specific giant company that has made hundreds of millons off of thousands of hours of rape, pedophilia, voyeurism and involuntary revenge porn.

She clearly supports sex workers and their struggles, she hasn't blamed workers for their employers actions, so I think you should apologise for tarnishing her and implying she's somehow acting maliciously for caring enough about raddle to ask tough questions when she fears the policy on being able to talk critically about a multi billion euro industry is being shifted without discourse.


Hibiscus_Syrup wrote (edited )

Unfortunately ziq you've read it completely different to me. I'll try to explain and I hope you'll start to see what I'm talking about.

Between the initial straw man, reducing everything I said to "We're banning people who are anti-porn now?" - which, also, is obviously not a neutral question but an accusatory one. (I am genuinely confused about why you don't see that and keep framing this as some kind of simple engagement with me. It is the beginning and the frame of her whole engagement with me in the post)

imo ToS Breaches posts are built for admins to be able to make their best call and then lock the post so we don't have to deal with more bullshit from people. Admins shouldn't be expected to be perfect they just should be expected to be doing their best in good faith. You know this stuff so I don't get it.

bloodrose was in such a rush to make her post that she seemed not to care that she had already banned Browse for class reductionism in f/feminism, and instead did some kind of math to assume that I was banning primarily for the sex work stuff, instead of assuming I was taking a measured decision. All the way through looks like someone who has something personal against me (since the last thing) and has taken it upon herself to 'take one for the team' for raddle when I make a decision.
This is the first decision I've made since the last time she did that, and it should be considered in that context.

I'm not sure why you don't read the terms 'making nice' as a clear admission that she is acting completely phony towards me. Those words are only ever words that people use when they have an issue with someone that they would rather push under the rug with a fake smile than deal with. It's an admission that she does have an issue with me and that she's willing to pretend that she doesn't for appearances or site cohesion or whatever.

What you called 'apologetic' didn't actually have any apology, and that's no accident. If it had I might have taken the interpretation that she wasn't just "making nice" but was interested in a good faith relationship with me. Instead my interpretation is that she has an issue with me since last time (when she pushed things under the rug the first time, causing all this bullshit by not dealing with it then) and now will likely act as my personal cop and frame herself as bravely taking one for raddle whenever she takes issue with something I did.

And these aren't even all the things I took issue with in her interactions that day.

It makes me feel that if I can't take the time to write a one or two page essay explaining why I ban somebody, then I shouldn't be banning anybody.

I don't know why you've went on the tangent you did about women and feminism as if somehow I don't know these things. I don't need a lecture about feminism and especially about feminism in relation to porn or sex work. I'm deeply embedded in an anarchic sex worker community and these conversations make up the background to our everyday lives. That's why I could see and smell the stink of SWERF on Browse and that's why it made up (only part of) why I banned him, which I made clear when I did ban him.

Hopefully my reasoning is clearer to you. Sorry to make you read all this. I'm open to hearing what you think, whatever it is.


ziq wrote (edited )

It makes me feel that if I can't take the time to write a one or two page essay explaining why I ban somebody, then I shouldn't be banning anybody.

I don't object to your ban of the tankie at all, I object to you accusing bloodrose of being a bad actor for asking about the policy on being anti-pornhub, which arose from you saying you were banning the tankie for being 'swerfy' (and a tankie).

What she said didn't read as being in bad faith to me at all, it just looked like she wanted clarification on if by 'banned for being swerfy', you meant "banned for being anti-pornhub" - clarification which you kinda sorta gave her by saying it was a multifaceted ban, but then followed it up with words about her that have seemingly made her quit the site in frustration.

You once called me 'swerfy' for saying "reddit is a glorified porn site" (as in it's filled with mostly-stolen porn), so I especially relate to her frustration. I fully understand why she would be concerned that this ban would become official policy and speaking ill of the porn industry would get people labelled as swerfs and banned in the future. It would make a lot of feminists uncomfortable if people were being labelled anti-sex-worker for speaking ill of the porn industry.

She made clear this wasn't about browse, who she recognized as a problem user, but about site policy in regards to opposing the porn industry. You don't need to write an essay to explain you banned browse for glorifying the neo-fascist Chinese state and saying all states should emulate China - and not for being anti-pornhub.

For years Pornhub has repeatedly been caught profiting from videos of children being raped. Of course feminists are going to be wary after seeing someone who was critical of pornhub getting banned, regardless of that person's auth politics. They're not sticking up for browse or their politics, they're sticking up for themselves and anyone who opposes corporations who profit from child rape.


I don't know why you've went on the tangent you did about women and feminism

It's not a tangent, it's central to the issue. It's why some women can feel isolated, or even triggered by discussions where (mostly men) defend the porn industry or speak positively about a giant company that makes millions from child rape and work stolen from sex workers and people are accused of being swerfs if they don't fall in line.

I don't need a lecture about feminism

You're telling me not to lecture you, but you tried to tell bloodrose to read the f/sex_work sticky and sidebar, which really seemed like a roundabout way of accusing her of not supporting sex workers, so I feel my lecture was appropriate under the circumstances. Feminists can speak out against the porn industry without being swerfs.

Also, that sticky and sidebar don't say anything of relevance to that conversation, and probably just made her feel shitty. She's not a SWERF.


Hibiscus_Syrup wrote

I'm still hoping I'll have energy to give this a meaningful reply. Might take a while. Hope you are doing ok.


Kinshavo wrote

I don't to add more to this situation, but maybe the feeling of being scrutinized is what lead to Tequila reaponse (in no way I am trying to spoke on behalf of Tequila). And sure as sometimes occurs with /u/emma efforts with the coding, the userbase not always gives the admin team the proper recognition and/or understanding. Admin job is no easy, and more with our framework and dealing with ToS breaches. Maybe we can shift this workload to the mods somehow, not sure If I am making sense right now.

Maybe I am naive and at risk of being misunderstood, I can only add that I am genuinely concerned about two our most contributing user fighting over this issue.