Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

raddit.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 267 posts

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#201

Post by arkh »

CM30 wrote: post #160

I've said it in the last post about this site, but I'll say it again here regardless. This site makes the same mistakes as a lot of other 'alternative' social networks or systems, in that it offers nothing for people who aren't interested in talking about politics or the problems on the original site. It's entirely a hard left wing community laser focused on discussing American politics. There's virtually no discussi…

This.

An alternative to reddit would let you make dossiers: related news stories a little like some subreddit megathread do for huge news. So you could follow a developing story for multiple months or years. Have links to aggregate articles by authors, news site, area or protagonists.

A simple example of use: check r/science about old health breakthrough on mice and see if it fizzled or not or how advanced the human trials are.

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#202

Post by nthcolumn »

Semaphor wrote: post #150
nthcolumn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was on digg but stopped using the site as it was overrun by pedos and not wanting to be associated with child-rapists I was part of the reddit-exodus. Reddit was even worse than digg, still is. I complained about violentacres and his ilk to no avail. I gave up using the site 1009 days ago. I cannot understand how anyone would use a site that does not harshly punish anyone like that or want to be associated with suc…

> or want to be associated with such a site in any way. Because I see it the same way as if you replaced Reddit with Usenet or Internet in your comment. Reddit is a platform where I care and am active only in a very small part of it.

Reddit is a business. I don't support businesses that facilitate child rape forums. You do. That's how we are different. Other businesses should not suffer for what Reddit does so I use the internet, on usenet other providers likewise, on reddit you all share the blame because you support the same business. I can't tell myself I'm only using this tiny part and those nasty people aren't anything to do with me because it's bullshit, or to provide an extreme example - I don't think you'd use 'just the comments section' of 'Playpen' and be guilt free (or free outside jail). I think you conveniently ignore the fact that there are inappropriate images of children on the site not because you believe in free speech for pedos, you simply don't care enough. And no I don't think pedo sites are a free speech issue - there are things we will not tolerate nazis, pedos, being two of them. I can't believe I even have to have this conversation. I said HN had not succumbed, I should have said '...yet'.

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#203

Post by observation »

BooglyWoo wrote: post #161
mejin wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that make sense? If a culture is tolerant and somewhat smart they can add tolerance to their constitution. By doing so they will both allow tolerance and not have to worry about anyone (tolerant people or not) taking away their "ability" to tolerate.

Because it's hard to unanimously and unequivocally identify those who are intolerant as such. Owing to the beguiling nature of language and rhetoric, the intolerant can thrive and propagate by arguing that they're not in fact intolerant, and appealing to "free speech". This seems to be the MO of this so-called "alt-right" stuff; legal or constitutional barriers are almost impossible to define or enforce.

If you want to ban reactionaries then you are pushing out an entire political category of thought that historically and arguably presently includes a huge portion of the West's intelligentsia. Might as well throw in Socialism or Liberalism while you're at it.

> Because it's hard to unanimously and unequivocally identify those who are intolerant as such.

> This seems to be the MO of this so-called "alt-right" stuff; legal or constitutional barriers are almost impossible to define or enforce.

These are fairly creepy statements. Very difficult to apply a charitable explanation to what you're saying.

> Owing to the beguiling nature of language and rhetoric, the intolerant can thrive and propagate

Sounds familiar.

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#204

Post by nthcolumn »

arkh wrote: post #193
nthcolumn wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My free speech/opinion: >and even the Dark Web will allow paedophiles, hit men, and every type of criminal alt-right? Why don't you call them what they are - Nazis and fascists. They are lowest of all these. There is probably strong overlap. Fascists think nobody should have any rights but themselves. The vigilantism/collaboration was made necessary by the alarming fact that the people who should have been doing some…

"alt-right? Why don't you call them what they are - Nazis and fascists. " Maybe when the media stop putting a lot of people in the alt-right category who are not Nazis nor fascists. I'd also like to take the time to link to an old classic which I guess a lot of young Internet users don't know about: Godwin's Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law which feel more relevant every day.

Yeah I remember it doesn't apply. This isn't Godwin as we are talking about actual Nazis. The right, the vast majority of decent Republicans want nothing to do with these scum. If you call yourself alt-right then you probably are a fascist. I don't think it is a spectrum.

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#205

Post by pjc50 »

e12e wrote: post #25
blackguardx wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are anarchists considererd left wing? Anarchists and especially anarcho-capitalists have a lot of overlap with libertarians. If you talk to a serious anarchist, they sound like they are against big government and other authority structures. The far left is suppsed to be communist, which seems the opposite of anarchy.

> The far left is suppsed to be communist, which seems the opposite of anarchy. Communism: weak central government, strong communal (local) democratic decision making - let people make decision that effect them directly (locally). You may be thinking of the old-fashioned idea of a socialist state as a "tyrrany of the many" as a transition from an armed uprising towards a communist state?

> Communism: weak central government

This is not how it worked out in practice, no?

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#206

Post by pjc50 »

pamqzl wrote: post #175
chasing wrote: post #57

You know why Reddit and Twitter became some toxic environments? Because they're not designed for healthy community development. And neither is this. It's a mindless clone and it already looks like it's turning toxic.

If there's one neologism I'd love to get rid of, it's the use of "toxic" to describe speech that you dislike. It's all over this thread. Think about what the metaphor of "toxicity" does for speech. By all means, you can find speech to be disagreeable, or annoying, or factually or morally wrong. I read all sorts of things that I disagree with, and some that I find actively annoying. But the metaphor of "toxicity" impl…

> best dealt with by not reading them

If A is discussing with B their plans for my murder, or creating fictional dossiers of alleged crimes of mine and sending them to police and my employer, or sharing compromising photos without my consent, then ignoring them does not work.

Less hyperbolically, it's only safe to ignore the speech of others against you so long as it has no chance of having an effect. Whether that's through legislation or street violence.

Toxicity is exactly the right word for hate speech, because it can cause hate to spread out in ways that cause real injury or death.

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#207

Post by nthcolumn »

skrowl wrote: post #197
Can_Not wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Antifa is specifically against free speech Antifa is specifically against fascism. Some sects may also be against free hate speech.

A central tenent of facism is forcible suppression of opposing views through censorship or violence. What would you say Antifa is doing when they attack people with bike locks, throw bottles of urine on them, etc? 'Antifa is specifically against free speech' is provably correct. They are intolerant of any views they disagree with to the point of inciting violence to suppress those views. Look beyond their name standi…

The views they disagree with are fascist views so yes duh. they are literally anti-fascists. Have you any examples of them opposing any views which aren't fascist, violently or otherwise? We should oppose that.

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#208

Post by nextlevelwizard »

zimpenfish wrote: post #200
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, I remember the GamerGate idiots too. I hardly followed the topic. Refresh my memory, it was about some developer who had slept with some journalist at some point and the journalist gave the game a good review and people thought the game was bad? All I remember from it was that everyone who played video games was again labeled as misogynist and there were demands from SJW changes bunch of games to have female ch…

> Refresh my memory, it was [incorrect account of how GamerGate started]? No. > everyone No. > there were demands from SJW changes bunch of games to have female characters with less revealing clothing No.

It is almost as if I asked what it was about...

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#209

Post by pixelmonkey »

int_19h wrote: post #164
likeslogic wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say in a 100% tolerant society a group that is intolerant of every other group comes into existence. They just operate by the credo - you're either with us, or the enemy, and all enemies must be destroyed. No further logic can be applied (they may even declare all logic as one of the enemies). Now if as a society you tolerate them without the use of force, they will try to destroy everyone else who is not part…

The problem with this paradox is that it's applied to situations that are actually different from what's describe here. Suppose even we have this group that's intolerant of everyone else. But their intolerance is expressed in speech, not actions. In other words, they're saying, "you're all our enemies, and should be destroyed", but they aren't doing anything about it. Or maybe they are, but it consists of running a p…

Your comment is precisely the paradox, though. "You can absolutely tolerant them until they get the majority of votes." First of all, it's not every society where a "majority of votes" grants political power. In Greece, the White Supremacist group (Golden Dawn) holds parliament seats even though they are a small (but vocal and politically active) minority. White supremacists now influence policy in Greece despite being a minority.

In the Middle East, this kind of outsize influence might be even worse. I am no expert on Middle East politics, but I think it's fair to say that the most intolerant factions have striven to gain the most political power, in spite of the political leanings of the mass populations over which they rule.

One issue with intolerant groups is that they tend toward violence and oppression of opposing speech. The tolerant and pacifist among us can allow them to gain enough minority power to effect a political coup, which can result in a societal coup, since having political control can grant you some degree of societal control.

In such a society, espousing tolerance might carry with it the risk of violent retribution (since tolerance is viewed by the "in" group as heresy/dissent). This will cause the intolerance to spread, even if seemingly against the will of more tolerant citizens. In this way, certain ideologies can have a "toxic" societal effect. You don't need to look far in modern history to find examples. And, that's the paradox.

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#210

Post by observation »

enraged_camel wrote: post #183
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet no Nazi symbolism or chants were present in the Alt-Right's ranks before Antifa started to organize Black Blocks and turned protests violent. Remember this whole cycle started by grown adults wanting special treatment, such as safe spaces and forced usage special pronouns, and people who were against such non-sense.

>>Yet no Nazi symbolism or chants were present in the Alt-Right's ranks before Antifa started to organize Black Blocks and turned protests violent. I don't know where you get your news. This is from July 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijRE9eR6tX0 An Republican National Convention speaker openly doing the Nazi salute at the end of her speech. No one batted an eye. This is from November 21st, 2016: https://www.t…

Question: are neoreactionaries Nazis?
Post reply on HN