Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   Erin 💽✨ (erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net)'s status on Friday, 05-Dec-2025 21:32:26 JST Erin 💽✨

   To paraphrase a post I just read

   I have learned that (a named member of a community safety team) is saying that evidence against me exists, but they cannot share it without endangering others

   This means (said team) is effectively judging me based upon secret evidence against without opportunity for due process or defence

   This isn’t how a community safety team should act

   Actually, no, this is exactly how a community safety team must conduct its’ business.

   As a relatively extreme example: let’s say I’m a member of such a team, and I become aware that a project member has nonconsentually distributed nude photos of their former partner. The evidence there is the offence; clearly I cannot just publically republish those photos.

   Lets say you approach me with logs of a 1:1 conversation you had with a person. If I redistribute those, either to the accused or to the public, I am fundamentally revealing to the accused that you provided those logs; this fundamentally exposes you to harm and abuse from the accused person.

   Depending upon jurisdiction, publication of such accusations can also be a legal violation of the accused’s right to privacy under data protection law, or considered libelious or slanderous, or at least sufficient grounds for one to attempt such a lawsuit. This is not a risk that you can generally take or that most people would be willing to take. This is why, in general, safety and moderation teams will not comment on expulsions or bans except in the most general terms unless forced otherwise

   Yes, you have to trust the safety team’s assesment as to whether the provided information and/or evidence is fake, misleadingly quoted or genuine. Yes, you have to trust their decision. Yes, they might get it wrong. Yes, this is imperfect.

   A community safety team is not a court. They do not have the evidentiary standards of a court. They also do not have the powers of a court to compel release of evidence, nor to restrain from redistributing confidential evidence or to reasonably punish them for such mishandling. The court process is not the be all and end all of conflict resolution; there is a large gap between “proven to a court’s satisfaction to convict” and “disproven”, and there is also a large gap between “unreasonable behaviour within a community” and “unreasonable behaviour punishable by law”

   Now, I would say that in general a community safety team should not comment at all on their actions, but when you repeatedly publically name members of said safety team to your thousands of followers, with the inevitable consequential result being discreditation at best and in all likely circumstances harassment, you have to wonder whether you are actually a safe and responsible person to have as a part of a community.

2. Embed this notice
   HebrideanHecate (hebrideanhecate@spinster.xyz)'s status on Saturday, 11-Oct-2025 02:29:48 JST HebrideanHecate

   https://thecritic.co.uk/why-cousin-marriage-endures/

   But for Labour and many self-styled “centrists”, all of this is too much to consider. We have now had a generation or more in which they have made it imperative to remove “stigma” around people’s choices in terms of sex and relationships, especially if those choices are associated with ethnicity or race. That one of Britain’s largest ethnic minorities has been found to engage in a custom which, notwithstanding the medical consequences, is inherently revolting to most English people, is more than they can bear. For them, the entire subject is simply racist, let alone any specific opinions or policies one may come up with about it. They want it to go away, and the easiest way to do that is to stick firmly to the liberal line that whom people marry and have children with is their own business.As a result, cousin marriage is now in the same drawer as questions such as the wearing of the niqab, which divide liberal opinion between those who emphasise the autonomy of minority communities and those who place primacy on the individual. This is mainly a debate going on among people who consider themselves “progressive” in one manner or another. As such, their arguments tend to be couched in the language and assumptions of the Left. Many conservatives and populists are naturally in favour of banning what they regard as a backward foreign practice as a matter of principle, but they are happy to amplify arguments for doing so on grounds that sound more enlightened and humanistic if others are already articulating them.

   So we begin to see the argument that cousin marriage is a patriarchal imposition on the autonomy of individual women of Pakistani heritage, forcing them into marrying cousins with the risk of giving birth to unhealthy babies. Surely, they reason, no woman could possibly want that for herself, or for her potential children. It is a coercive practice, designed to shore up the power of the male elders of clans, by marrying their own offspring together. This is an argument which many progressives, especially male ones, know they have to treat far more cautiously than those from the Right which can be dismissed as racist or stigmatising. Especially since any perceived disregard for the specific rights of women from “marginalised” cultures risks making them look like the racist ones. This followed on from the public debate around the niqab earlier this year, in which nominally left-leaning or liberal feminists seemed to make the argument more stridently and confidently than they had done previously; that full face veiling was patriarchal and oppressive, and that a secular society had a duty to intervene. Unlike their counterparts in other English-speaking countries, the success of British feminists in halting and reversing the tide of gender ideology has clearly made many of them far less patient of other parts of any so-called progressive coalition insofar as they might infringe on the freedom and autonomy of women — and a bloody good show too.