Why I don’t like to ban and moderate

Feminists blogs are famous for being eager to block, ban and moderate. I want to avoid the same. It just looks bad, like you can’t answer their arguments, or you can’t stand the heat.

If trolls appear, it seems pointless to ban them. Unlike real-life debate, online debate allows all the debaters time, and quiet comfortable space, where they can think and respond well. In real life, the ones who outscreech everyone else, can’t actually win. Adding capslock just looks silly. Insults make them look like a bully with nothing of value to add. And the reader can choose whose comments they wish to read, since they are not listening to two people screaming simultaneously. I want to let the reader decide, instead of deciding for them what has merit and what has not.

Also, trolls and other unpleasant types will often just reinforce my points.

So, while individual MRA/Manosphere bloggers can do whatever they want with their blogs, I don’t think they should ban and moderate for any of those reasons. I can understand removing sensitive information about someone, or material that can land the blogger in jail. But banning and moderating to make the blog more pleasant seems superfluous. Free sharing of ideas is best, and we all become better and wiser people when we listen to everything that’s on people’s minds. Last thing I want is to become dumber or to lose out on more wisdom because I chose to protect sensitivity of my feelings. And I wish the same for any readers I have. You know, sticks and stones might break our bones, but words will never hurt us. If the insults of trolls hurt you, you must learn not to be hurt by them.

To end, I will link to this video made by Thunderf00t. He makes some great points. For example, that blogs are not like your private property/house, it’s more like a public space where people come to share ideas. Thus, extensive use of moderation is like conducting your site like a church. It’s allowed, but it says something about you.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Why I don’t like to ban and moderate

  1. Ashley says:

    I used to have pretty much the same view, and I still kind of do. Recently I started moderating new people. So you have to have a previously approved comment for your comment to show up without me having to approve it first. The reason for that is, well, certain members of the mra came to my blog and harassing me and other regulars at my blog and just all in all creating a really dramatic and negative discussion experience. I don’t mind when people disagree with me and even offer constructive criticism, but it can be necessary to moderate when there is a flow of hateful remarks for the sole purpose to putting people down. I can honestly say I’ve never banned anyone though. I respect your attitude towards allowing comments. I don’t see too much of that.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Ah, I have that feature too, I think, but I don’t know how to make it go away :c

      I had hateful comments too, but I would like to let them stay. If I’m right, I have nothing to really fear, and reasonable readers will see who’s right. As for them being unpleasant, I can always turn the computer off, or not look at the site for a while. Plus the more I get them, the more I get over any anxiety I get from that, and view it as self-improvement. I know that sometimes, people will call me names in real life, so it’s something I simply must face and learn to respond to correctly. This is why I say we get wiser, even from that unpleasant stuff.

      Also, I forgot to say, but everything I said in this post applies more to blogs which are very concerned with fighting stupidity and promoting truth. On more light-hearted blogs, where things are meant to be light-hearted, or to have a certain atmosphere, it looks fine to moderate. But if you take up serious issues and express strong opinions, oh my god, you SHOULD take it seriously and live up to your reputation as a truth-seeker. That means taking everything into consideration. You can’t do it only half-way. That is my personal ideal 🙂

  2. Chin Up, Chest High! says:

    Funny, isn’t it, the things that the MRA and the ultra feminists have in common yet both sides are too blind to see it. I had them on the previous blog, they came over and thought they could dazzle me with a few buzzwords like “manosphere”, “red pill / blue pill” and suggesting I read a book by Athol Kay. I read the blurb and called bullshit and I told them why yet they were up in arms that I had dared question them.

    I was incredulous when they said that I should become a bully to get what I want because women like being manipulated. I called bullshit there too and eventually they gave up realising that I wasn’t one of the regular knuckledraggers they were used to. They felt they were trying to “liberate” me and I told them I pitied them their gullibility.

    • emmatheemo says:

      I don’t know the details of that debate, so I can’t take sides. But did they really tell you to become a bully to get women? Lots of stuff they recommend sounds like “just be a jerk”, but when you look closer, it’s not about bullying. For example, raising your value; or negging – the latter is just playful banter most of the time. I noticed some guys doing very obvious game on me, and found it adorable more than anything.

      • Chin Up, Chest High! says:

        They didn’t use the world “bullying” but they did agree that manipulative behaviour was acceptable to “encourage” women to into a “natural” submissive role. But when I said “hang on, you’re saying I should bully her in order to win her respect? Assert my dominance?” they did not object to the word.

        Sort of wish I had never taken down the blog now so I could link to it.

        I just find the whole idea of negging and “game” incredibly manipulative, passive-aggressive and imposing a one-size-fits-all mentality on men AND women. At the end of the day we are all different.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I think you got the wrong information. Because this is not how I see game, or even dominance.

        I take issue with the description manipulative. Whoever thinks women are so stupid that they fall for cheap tricks, has a low opinion of them. (They’re not stupid, you can’t trick them into bed, unless you are lying). But if they happen to “fall for it”, is it, perhaps, because they were not offended, and found the behavior fun and the guy attractive (and thus they weren’t tricked, but simply chose the man)?

        However, I don’t understand why your conversation partners would agree that this is bullying. It’s not. Bullying a woman is bad. I know when I’m bullied, and when I’m gamed.

        As for submission/dominance… I’m personally not into it, but I think those things have an unwarranted bad reputation. A lot of women find themselves hating their man when he allows them to nag him into things, and to dominate him. And often they wish the man made the decisions (as a tiebreaker), because making decisions can actually be tiring. I have read blogs by women who felt this way. Being the BAD dominant partner is to micromanage everything, nag, and being a bully. Being the GOOD dominant partner means, I think, to be like a leader, tiebreaker in decisions, being someone the whole family/couple looks up and feels protected by.

        Of course it’s up to you what you choose to do. But I wouldn’t dismiss all that stuff just because someone made it look like bullying. If you’re a reasonable person, you can extract facts even from the most unpleasant writings, unless there is no truth in them (which your logic will determine).

      • Chin Up, Chest High! says:

        Some of what they said was true but in a nutshell they were saying that I should manipulate women into going along with what I want because they are incapable of making decisions for themselves – I referred to this as a form of bullying, they merely felt it was manipulative and therefore good if it was for my own personal gain.

  3. gregariouswolf says:

    Awesome video. Will look up thunderf00t on youtube. I prefer the wild and wooly freethought to progressive and politically correct atheism+ any day.

    I haven’t had to moderate on my blog yet, but then I’m a nobody. At some point, moderation becomes necessary or else people will spam your forum with the goal of making it worthless for communication. To follow the public soapbox analogy made by thunderf00t, spamming is the equivalent of setting up loudspeakers to project 100 decibels of white noise. Otherwise, I prefer a hands off moderation philosophy for public internet fora.

  4. You don’t ban and moderate because you’re a sensible, intelligent woman. But you would ban if you were anonymous and sickos were trying to publish your info on your blog.

    :anti-feminist circlejerk:

  5. gregariouswolf says:

    Reblogged this on There Is No Game and commented:
    Reblogging this entry because I thought the analogy was interesting. Some people run their blogs like a public soap box and others run their blogs like a church.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s