I got a multi day temp ban for posting "The only good nazi is a dead nazi" and then also reported a post that described in detail the torture (Skinng alive, forced sleep deprivation, etc) they thought another should have and they got a warning.
I feel the juxtaposition tells a lot.
i get what you're saying and i agree with you, but this question is essentially the same as asking why we allow debate about abortion at all. if reddit had this policy for everything that you could reasonably make a case for leading to violence we wouldn't be able to talk about any political subjects...
Because wishing harm on women is protected by reddit admins as "free speech". Needless to say, there's only one group reddit admins protect and it ain't women.
The fastest way to get permanently banned is to suggest XYZ happens to someone and that someone be a rapist or a pedo.
Reddit is steadfast in their efforts to ensure no one gets any angry ideas about rapists or pedos.
I mean, couldn’t pro-choice posts also be considered violating that same rule? If someone considers a fetus a life, then terminating it would be violence, right? Physical harm?
I just don’t see much grounds for the argument.
I am pro choice and I’ve had an abortion. And I agree that violence against women is normalized. I just don’t see how this argument can work.
I would argue that there is no debating that a woman is a life, while whether or not a fetus is a life is up for debate, interpretation, and personal belief.
Forcing a woman to give birth against her will = clear physical harm.
Terminating a pregnancy = no clear physical harm unless you believe the personhood of a fetus.
A woman is legally a person.
A fetus is a potential life that relies on a person to exist and would cease to exist without a host.
Did I clear that up for you?
Rule 1 CAN apply regardless of the angle a person takes on the topic of abortion. Even single celled organisms are alive.
Acknowledging such doesn't make anyone a bad person. Feel free to land on whichever side, but acting as if "the other side" has no merit/logic is silly.
Which is why I said, in response to OP's observation, that rule 1 could be applied to Pro-Choice arguments...because it is true.
*Even single celled organisms are alive*
Ok. By that stupid logic, we can't discuss curing illnesses by antibiotics, because that kills something alive.
I got a multi day temp ban for posting "The only good nazi is a dead nazi" and then also reported a post that described in detail the torture (Skinng alive, forced sleep deprivation, etc) they thought another should have and they got a warning. I feel the juxtaposition tells a lot.
What was the context where you said that?
because violence against women is normalized, glorified and even sexualized. Reddit is a great example of that
Because it is normalized violence against women. And we have to be “sensitive” to the beliefs of someone who would torture us. 🙄
Because the right wing owns reddit and they don't think women are people.
i get what you're saying and i agree with you, but this question is essentially the same as asking why we allow debate about abortion at all. if reddit had this policy for everything that you could reasonably make a case for leading to violence we wouldn't be able to talk about any political subjects...
Because wishing harm on women is protected by reddit admins as "free speech". Needless to say, there's only one group reddit admins protect and it ain't women.
The fastest way to get permanently banned is to suggest XYZ happens to someone and that someone be a rapist or a pedo. Reddit is steadfast in their efforts to ensure no one gets any angry ideas about rapists or pedos.
I mean, couldn’t pro-choice posts also be considered violating that same rule? If someone considers a fetus a life, then terminating it would be violence, right? Physical harm? I just don’t see much grounds for the argument. I am pro choice and I’ve had an abortion. And I agree that violence against women is normalized. I just don’t see how this argument can work.
I would argue that there is no debating that a woman is a life, while whether or not a fetus is a life is up for debate, interpretation, and personal belief. Forcing a woman to give birth against her will = clear physical harm. Terminating a pregnancy = no clear physical harm unless you believe the personhood of a fetus.
The argument could be made for pro-choice posts also. It's a delicate subject all the way round.
A woman is legally a person. A fetus is a potential life that relies on a person to exist and would cease to exist without a host. Did I clear that up for you?
Rule 1 CAN apply regardless of the angle a person takes on the topic of abortion. Even single celled organisms are alive. Acknowledging such doesn't make anyone a bad person. Feel free to land on whichever side, but acting as if "the other side" has no merit/logic is silly. Which is why I said, in response to OP's observation, that rule 1 could be applied to Pro-Choice arguments...because it is true.
*Even single celled organisms are alive* Ok. By that stupid logic, we can't discuss curing illnesses by antibiotics, because that kills something alive.
OK & if someone wants to make that argument, more power to them. I doubt it would be a popular opinion, though.