41–50 of 115 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
r/antifa and r/chapotraphouse were also large communities that were banned. Reddit policy definitely appears to be based on behavior, not ideology.
yeah real great "behavior" they got over there https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment that got flagged for trying to reverse this missed its point, but I thought it had one. My reply-too-late: While that is a little hyperbolic, there's definitely a "kid gloves" approach you have to take in a lot of online discussions. E.g. there was an article on burnout that popped up on HN[0] recently where the author made sure to apologize for being a "privileged white chick" early on. You can't just ta…
> you have to virtue signal about issues Acknowledging your privilege is not categorically virtue signalling. One can think there's not value is acknowledging privilege (or that it might not exist), but let's not pretend it's impossible (or unlikely) that another does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah real great "behavior" they got over there https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/
I could see some people finding it in bad taste, but since all names are obscured, what specifically is bannable about that community?
the same people that like to respond with "700,000+ dead"!
this is the same reason /r/fatpeoplehate got banned is it not?
yes the intent may be to "help through shaming" but it's not usually allowed, guess it's okay because of the political lean.
ironically, shaming the fat people would help the covid thing most of all as it's the #1 morbidity reason for covid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you have to virtue signal about issues Acknowledging your privilege is not categorically virtue signalling. One can think there's not value is acknowledging privilege (or that it might not exist), but let's not pretend it's impossible (or unlikely) that another does.
Are you saying that it’s not categorically virtue signaling because someone can find value in that? Doesn’t sound logical to me. If the detail doesn’t contribute to the discussion but is meant to appease a specific group - that’s definitely closer to virtue signaling than to a genuine expression.
I think it's very telling that folk think that writing "I'm saying this from a position of privilege" invariably is done with a proverbial gun to their head, hoping to evade a public flogging if they fail to do so.
People, myself included, genuinely see disclosing your position of privilege in the same way someone from Company X might say "Disclosure: I work at Company X" when commenting on a post about Company X. Now, it might seem that acknowledging ones privilege is shoe-horned into every conversation, but I challenge you to think about how privilege touches so much of our lives.
Anyways, all I'm saying is you don't have to "find value" in folks acknowledging privilege. You just need to be able to imagine a world in which they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The good thing about "no one on $site is an extremist" is that there's a pretty clear way to disprove it: find one specimen. https://patriots.win/p/13zg9agFHB/instead-of-eliminating-hun... promotes some myth about "the government wanting to eliminate 1e6 to 1e9 american workers" and proposes to "eliminate politicians" instead. Comments by the OP in that thread clarify the direction this is supposed to take, respondin…
your definition of an extremist is certainly lax isn't it? I'd designate someone an extremist if they were plotting to do something, not some edgy comment that you'd find anywhere. There's hundreds of comments on reddit wishing death, that doesn't make those people "extremists".
As for "comment that you'd find anywhere", I know a few places where I wouldn't find such comments. Not because oh-the-oppression, but because people don't engage with them in the same way as on that page. It's possible shape a culture and that site seems to have chosen one that is easily being mistaken for extremism, at the very least.
Is it possible to create a free speech reddit alternative that doesn't immediately turn into a right wing extremist site? My mind immediately turns to the Paradox of Tolerance, and I think the answer is no.
...So in addition to being more permissive, it seems that you have to have a better product, generally.
From SSC:
> ..if you try to create a libertarian paradise, you will attract three deeply virtuous people with a strong committment to the principle of universal freedom, plus millions of scoundrels. Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-central...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you have to virtue signal about issues Acknowledging your privilege is not categorically virtue signalling. One can think there's not value is acknowledging privilege (or that it might not exist), but let's not pretend it's impossible (or unlikely) that another does.
It most definitely is, you are signaling your self-awareness and making yourself seem more approachable by a certain category of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could see some people finding it in bad taste, but since all names are obscured, what specifically is bannable about that community?
ah yes, making fun of people dying is okay as long as you obscure the names! the same people that like to respond with "700,000+ dead"! this is the same reason /r/fatpeoplehate got banned is it not? yes the intent may be to "help through shaming" but it's not usually allowed, guess it's okay because of the political lean. ironically, shaming the fat people would help the covid thing most of all as it's the #1 morbidi…
It appears r/hermancainaward is 100% based on posts that the deceased willingly shared with the public. I think that's a meaningful difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> justice served Moderators for popular subreddit r/JusticeServed on Reddit — one of the most visited websites on the internet with an estimated 12 billion page views per month — said Monday that due to new site policies they are no longer allowed to permit posts, comments, or any other content that shows a person of color as the aggressor
Do you have a link to where they said that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The good thing about "no one on $site is an extremist" is that there's a pretty clear way to disprove it: find one specimen. https://patriots.win/p/13zg9agFHB/instead-of-eliminating-hun... promotes some myth about "the government wanting to eliminate 1e6 to 1e9 american workers" and proposes to "eliminate politicians" instead. Comments by the OP in that thread clarify the direction this is supposed to take, respondin…
your definition of an extremist is certainly lax isn't it? I'd designate someone an extremist if they were plotting to do something, not some edgy comment that you'd find anywhere. There's hundreds of comments on reddit wishing death, that doesn't make those people "extremists".