6 ms·

That's not really surprising, is it? Any minimally functional group eventually lead to opportunities. The outgroup (women in this case) want to access those o

That's not really surprising, is it? Any minimally functional group eventually lead to opportunities. The outgroup (women in this case) want to access those opportunities. Any push back against that will be labeled as misogynistic or ridiculed. Men have no other choices than to open up the group and let it become just another open space for everyone. What is surprising is how some groups: 1) just lay down and accept this unilateral loss... 2) even when it is never reciprocated.

dang 7y ago
I understand the feeling but I think this is too zero-sum. You know who has the most positive reactions by far to men doing healing work in men-only circles? Their wives/girlfriends. Not because the men somehow become more 'feminine' or lose power, but usually because they get something that they badly needed and were stuck about for a long time.
- FakeComments 7y ago
  This is using anecdata to dismiss another poster, and isn’t the kind of comment you’d tolerate from others in a sensitive topic. It’s wonderful that’s been your experience of women, but don’t invalidate what others experience — particularly with a citation free comment. For those wondering why my comment is flagged: dang engages in political censorship, and flagged my account because of my views. I look forward to the upcoming rules on social media censorship, and the accountability that will bring to dang’s actions.
  - dang 7y ago
    We banned you for breaking HN's guidelines (with multiple accounts) and ignoring our requests to stop. Someone breaking the site guidelines to promote opposite views would get banned just the same. There's nothing wrong with anecdotes on HN. On the contrary, the threads here are supposed to be conversation, and anecdotes are the life blood of good conversation. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20conversation%20anecdote&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
    - FakeComments 7y ago
      As we’ve discussed before, that’s merely a convenient pretext, and the application of it — indeed, the description of it you have in the rules — makes it clear you hold different ideologies to different standards, because you censor in alignment with group biases. In short, the guidelines say “if you don’t agree with us, and use the same rhetoric we do, you get banned”. That is ideological censorship: the thresholds for censorship are based on the speaker’s ideology. I look forward to incoming rules about social media, where companies such as yours who benefit from safe harbor are required to provide an open public forum rather than engage in ideological discrimination. Google, FB, et al use the same pretext as you, and are being investigated ahead of legislation on social media discrimination — due to their rampant ideological censorship masquerading ad decorum. I hope to see you in court, once the ban on public forum discrimination passes. - - - - - > There's nothing wrong with anecdotes on HN. This is also an outright dishonest reply to what I said. You tolerate insulting and unsubstantive comments from yourself and others you agree with you wouldn’t tolerate from those you don’t. You weren’t merely telling an anecdote: you were dismissing another poster’s experience based on your anecdote — something you routinely harp about when going the other ideological direction. This is why they’re making new laws, biased censors like you.
DollarGuru 7y ago
As a group men are our own worse enemy. We aren't fearful of or controlled by women. It is other men that choose to align themselves closer to women's beliefs at the active detriment of healthy male attitudes and behaviours that force other men to fall in line. Men aren't obligated or motivated to open up men only social groups until other men start to take issue with them (and usually for their own self interest).

dang 7y ago

I understand the feeling but I think this is too zero-sum. You know who has the most positive reactions by far to men doing healing work in men-only circles? Their wives/girlfriends. Not because the men somehow become more 'feminine' or lose power, but usually because they get something that they badly needed and were stuck about for a long time.

FakeComments 7y ago
This is using anecdata to dismiss another poster, and isn’t the kind of comment you’d tolerate from others in a sensitive topic. It’s wonderful that’s been your experience of women, but don’t invalidate what others experience — particularly with a citation free comment. For those wondering why my comment is flagged: dang engages in political censorship, and flagged my account because of my views. I look forward to the upcoming rules on social media censorship, and the accountability that will bring to dang’s actions.
- dang 7y ago
  We banned you for breaking HN's guidelines (with multiple accounts) and ignoring our requests to stop. Someone breaking the site guidelines to promote opposite views would get banned just the same. There's nothing wrong with anecdotes on HN. On the contrary, the threads here are supposed to be conversation, and anecdotes are the life blood of good conversation. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20conversation%20anecdote&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
  - FakeComments 7y ago
    As we’ve discussed before, that’s merely a convenient pretext, and the application of it — indeed, the description of it you have in the rules — makes it clear you hold different ideologies to different standards, because you censor in alignment with group biases. In short, the guidelines say “if you don’t agree with us, and use the same rhetoric we do, you get banned”. That is ideological censorship: the thresholds for censorship are based on the speaker’s ideology. I look forward to incoming rules about social media, where companies such as yours who benefit from safe harbor are required to provide an open public forum rather than engage in ideological discrimination. Google, FB, et al use the same pretext as you, and are being investigated ahead of legislation on social media discrimination — due to their rampant ideological censorship masquerading ad decorum. I hope to see you in court, once the ban on public forum discrimination passes. - - - - - > There's nothing wrong with anecdotes on HN. This is also an outright dishonest reply to what I said. You tolerate insulting and unsubstantive comments from yourself and others you agree with you wouldn’t tolerate from those you don’t. You weren’t merely telling an anecdote: you were dismissing another poster’s experience based on your anecdote — something you routinely harp about when going the other ideological direction. This is why they’re making new laws, biased censors like you.

DollarGuru 7y ago

As a group men are our own worse enemy. We aren't fearful of or controlled by women. It is other men that choose to align themselves closer to women's beliefs at the active detriment of healthy male attitudes and behaviours that force other men to fall in line. Men aren't obligated or motivated to open up men only social groups until other men start to take issue with them (and usually for their own self interest).