Because it's unnecessary in almost all cases. So far there is only one community which forbids people to comment based on who they are, but otherwise the rules boil down to standard acceptable behavior according to common sense. It's also a nuisance for users: I am quite sure nobody wants to click several times and be derailed to check rules (on mobile) for every comment they want to write in every post they see on a feed. If this would be expected as standard behavior, I would guess even less interactions will happen.
loudwhisper
joined 2 years ago
Based on the comments here and in the previous similar post I have seen, the vast, vast majority of people (presumably men) highlight how this is a problem of visibility of posts in public feeds.
It's a tradeoff between having the community public for discoverability and accepting that many people will not check the rules and violate them, some inadvertently.
The alternative is to make the community private, and accept that women will need to discover a women-relates community by searching for "women", which doesn't seem incredibly unlikely.
From the sentiments I read, most people wouldn't care at all if the community was private and wouldn't have a desire to "invade" it. I definitely feel part of this group.
Considering that it's in the interest of the community (apparently) to have only women, I think it's fair to expect the (minimal) effort from future members to look for it (plus advertising it in posts etc.) on them instead of expecting the vast majority of the users (the fediverse is mostly males) to add friction and having to check the rules of every single community of every post they open (now it might be a community, more might come). Yes, community rules are important, but being realistic, if you don't behave like an asshole you don't need to worry about them in 99% of the times.
However, if this tradeoff is not deemed acceptable, I think there is no point complaining about people "invading" women spaces because it's guaranteed that many people will comment without reading the rules, as I am sure the almost totality of users does all the time. Even without counting the ones who intentionally violate the rule, there is always going to be an organic amount of people who will do so inadvertently.
At this point I think the tradeoff is so clear, that discussing the topic in such a confrontational way looks more like rage-bait than anything aimed at solving the problem.
Really annoying interaction. I am out. Cya.
That's not the argument, and you know it, which you need to understand, now it makes it even harder not to think maliciously about the good faith you bring to the conversation.
In case you actually care about it: I feel your statement not only unfairly characterizes white men (not all of them, taking blame for other demographics too etc., etc.,) which who cares, but also is completely exclusionary of all those women who were are not historically oppressed by white men, for example those in different parts of the world, those themselves part of racial minorities etc., and that's what I think is racist. Of course, in that US-centric perspective the world is the same as for Hollywood disaster movies...
You disagree for sure, but since you were interested in comedy...
Fair enough.
However, OP stood by his statement:
Including both in the same sentence is because of the common shared group of oppressors, white men.
So I guess your interpretation was too generous, mine slightly too strict.
You meant to write what you wrote, I assumed...?
But I see we are going in circles. So far you are leaning on "that's the common oppressor" which sounds silly to me if I am being honest. But anyway, whatever. I stand by the fact that your original statement is either extremely US-centric (and frankly a bit racist from multiple points of view) or just generally incorrect. Don't need to convince you or change your mind. So have a good day/evening/whatever.
Are you implying that minorities aren’t oppressed and don’t need safe spaces?
What? My only qualm is that you added white to a sentence about gender oppression. Of course minorities are oppressed and need safe spaces.
which I assert is true in the vast majority of the world where English (the language we are speaking) is the primary language for the country
What has the language we are speaking (which is not even my language) to do with what is "historically" true or not? Is this just a classic example of US exceptionalism or what?
Including both in the same sentence is because of the common shared group of oppressors, white men.
Minorities are also oppressed by way more demographics than white men (EDIT: example, gay people are also oppressed by non-white men, so technically the common group of oppressor is already larger than white men).
If you want any statement to be true for literally the entire world, then your expectations are unreasonable.
Saying that men oppressed women is a much, much, much more accurate statement, for example. There are always exceptions, but we are talking about different things.
Absolutely not true. The critique is based on adding a racial connotation to gender oppression, which is completely orthogonal to it.
To be even more frank, saying that women and minorities need safe spaces because white men historically oppressed them is complete bonkers. Women need safe spaces because men historically oppressed them, and that is true all around the world, in almost all communities.
I literally took your words literally, as I quoted and addressed the very sentence you wrote. You decided to add white to a sentence that didn't need it. It's already the second comment where you refuse to elaborate and instead you indulge in meta-conversation. So for the sake of clarity, discard everything I have said so far, and allow me to simply ask what did you mean with that sentence?
The rest of the critique remains nevertheless.
I wasn’t referring to technical communities and it’s strange you would assume that.
I didn't assume it. I made an example using those. You said "I have no relevant knowledge or experience", and technical communities are a perfect example of communities in which someone might not have "relevant knowledge or experience".
There’s a difference between not participating and being told not to participate. One requires self-moderation, and not everyone is great at it.
Yes, that is my whole point. However you answered to someone that said:
Being set to public is for a community that everyone in the public can participate in, while being set to private is for a community that only some people can participate in.
with (paraphrasing) "there are plenty of communities I can see that I don't participate in", which confuses me now in light of your acknowledgement that it's completely different choosing not to engage and being told not to engage (via rules).
The existence of exclusive, toxic groups doesn’t make exclusivity toxic.
Which is also not what I said. I said that "harsh form of gatekeeping" is considered toxic.
Weird you’re comparing a women’s only instance to communities who are cruel to outsiders/beginners.
I am not. I made you examples of toxic forms of harsh gatekeeping since you said:
Do we? And is that form of gatekeeping harsh, or do you think anything that excludes you is “toxic?”
The rest of your comment is completely off topic, since this whole comment chain was holding on the whole idea of "make the thing private instead". I don't have any problem, in fact I perfectly agree and support, with the creation of private, exclusive spaces. I have no problem with a women shelter not allowing me in, but if a hotel does that, I probably won't take it as well.
P.s. Maybe hold off on the assumptions, because you made a lot of them in your comment about my positions.
No it doesn't exclude that, but it also unnecessarily mixes racial with gender discrimination, and in a general statement like that is odd to do that. The intention I perceived was to link the creation of spaces that women (or minorities) require to white men discrimination only, which is absurd in my opinion.
To make a similar example, saying "gay people need their spaces, because they are historically discriminated by black women" doesn't "exclude" that also men discriminate them, or that also white women do, but I hope you can see what an odd statement that is, and if someone would find it misogynistic or racist, I think they would be right.
Thinking maliciously, I would say that's the classic way for a white guy (the commenter stated that about himself) to make a statement that is less controversial because it only "accuses" their own demographic and the most acceptable demographic to critique.
If I were in the security team of that company, I would never accept ACLs on the bucket as a sufficient compensating control for this risk. Here the ~~best~~ most reasonable would be encryption, which would make the bucket being public relatively unimportant.
When you are collecting so sensitive data (potentially including personal data of people not using your service), you simply can't even imagine doing that by storing the data unencrypted.
Edit: grammar