161–170 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're ignoring the subs which are the same thing, from a leftward slant. It does say some pretty nasty things about mankind, that so many of us love to hate.
Which ones do you have in mind? What left-wing sub is there advocating racism or misogyny?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Nazi came to power largely because the communists would constantly fight them in the streets and "no-platform" them. You'd think someone would have read a history book. Downvoting does not change facts. The constant street battles between the Communists and Nazis helped the Nazi far more than the Communists.
While the KPD made many stupid mistakes, and frankly given their Stalinist policies at the time were not much better than the NSDAP in most respect, it was the power hungry right wing parties that entered into a coalition government with Hitler and voted for the Enabling Act.
The left wins elections when it is the victim of violence, it loses when it tries to use violence itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, that's the crux: racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct. For me personally, the echo chamber on both sides is enough to keep me far away from both /r/politics and /r/The_Donald. For example, you cannot say anything positive about Trump on /r/politics. Nothing. There was a screenshot showing that there were 231 negative articles posted and zero positive articles. It's lite…
It's not propaganda if he's actually THAT bad. I'm being deadly serious. He is not a normal candidate and claiming that it's biased because there are lots of true stories about a bad person is a feature of our media, not a bug! It says more about Trump's fans that they're willing to overlook his egregious failings and attack and undermine quasi-impartial institutions just to point score than it does about bias.
Your hypocritical hivemind tends to overlook that your queen bee accepted tens of millions from the KSA/Qatar in campaign contributions with the knowledge that, in her OWN words, they provide clandestine and logistic support to ISIL. It's OK to be white, it's OK to be American, and it's OK to love your country.
Reddit is swarming with Russian bots and they still have a whole network of white supremecy and various hate subs, operating both out in the open and ‘quarantined’.
Is it really easier to believe that Russian bots are behind the lion's share of this content rather than other westerners?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of left-wing subreddits with equal measures of vitriol. Somehow they avoid earning the same opprobrium that the right-wing ones do. This apparent double standard creates the appearance of bias.
If there are plenty, and you are familiar with them, please name a few. It's not possible for us to "investigate on our own" if we don't know what you are considering "equal measures of vitriol".
/r/anarchism is a slightly more complicated case. They do advocate violence in a "bash the fash" way. But their intended victims are often those who advocate for genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other racist or misogynistic methods. Their violent earnestness is also often mocked by the rest of political Reddit.
/r/LeftWithoutEdge was a sub formed for serious discussion for lefties without resorting to violent speech. It doesn't get enough traffic so I urge any leftists / anarchists here to visit it occasionally.
Edit: I should add that one reason /r/anarchism and /r/socialism are still on Reddit is because they took the warnings of the admins seriously. /r/anarchism dialed their rhetoric back after being told they were on the verge of being banned. Most of the banned right wing subs ignored the warnings, and often doubled-down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of left-wing subreddits with equal measures of vitriol. Somehow they avoid earning the same opprobrium that the right-wing ones do. This apparent double standard creates the appearance of bias.
If there are plenty, and you are familiar with them, please name a few. It's not possible for us to "investigate on our own" if we don't know what you are considering "equal measures of vitriol".
/r/strikeaction
/r/militant
are some of the more obvious choices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"This might be the case for traditional media, but social media is different. " Please explain. Unlike "traditional social media" Reddit is organized into "like-minded" or themed mini-communities. Advertisers certainly know the type of content posted to these communities.
I'm thinking of the bigger picture here, especially taking into account the way YouTube was unfairly attacked. The whole point of social media is for users to generate the content and to decide for themselves what makes content good or bad. In the past, advertising would fund the service, targeting specific demographics. It was never seen as endorsement of specific content. Now advertisers want to start dictating the…
“But it’s only 0.002% of the content!”
It doesn’t matter. As soon as a news report says ‘Ford advertises with a site that supports Nazis’ those ads are gone.
So Ford won’t buy ads there in the first place.
And it doesn’t matter that the amount of content is quite small. Or that ‘supports Nazis’ means ‘doesn’t kick them off’.
Ford doesn’t want that story or any anything like it. And if it does happen you can bet every other big brand is Goni for to quickly figure out if they’re doing the same and pull their ads.
This is business. And VERY few companies of any size want to be associated with violence against women, Nazis, beastiality, or a lot of the other really seedy stuff that exists in the depths of Reddit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard because people will always be mad when their stuff gets taken down and it's hard to tell where the line is. A good example on reddit is that r/the_Donald is often very racist, islamophobic, and misogynistic (and it's not a small portion, often the top comment on a post will be something that is islamophobic) but they don't see themselves as that way. I don't think they should ban that sub but even being imp…
Can you define "Islamophobia"? It's a serious question, I don't disagree that there's some prejudice against Islam on the western right. However, a lot of the top posts are ultimately factual claims. Sweden has a rise in grenade attacks and sexual assaults, British police looked the other way when Muslim Men formed a pedophilia group, most terrorism is motivated by Islam, and there are Islamists whose purported goal…
Snopes says the increase in reported sexual assaults in Sweden could possibly be to do with the definition of "sexual assault" changing in 2013[0]
Regarding the Paedophile ring, I haven't read any material on it - but there have been several high profile non-Muslim paedophilia cases in Britain, and it would be unsurprising to me if police didn't turn a blind eye at some point. There are some claims that police didn't properly investigate reports in the Jimmy Saville case [1]
Regarding the claim that "most terrorism is motivated by Islam" - are you referring to terrorism globally, or in western countries? And what time period are we talking about here? One interesting data point is that Britain is experiencing historically low rates of terrorism (and most of it was related to The Troubles in Northern Ireland, not Islam) [2]
So the facts above are correct, but the root cause is misattributed to Islam?
[0] https://www.snopes.com/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/ [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21756150
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/many-people-killed-terrori...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Nazi came to power largely because the communists would constantly fight them in the streets and "no-platform" them. You'd think someone would have read a history book. Downvoting does not change facts. The constant street battles between the Communists and Nazis helped the Nazi far more than the Communists.
Well said. I think the left in America today are closer to the true Nazi's than they realize. The campuses of today are churning out SJW's who are often racist (against white/europeans), fine with violence against their opponents and have quite simply been radicalized in some ways to hate the first and second amendment.