Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin • Hacker News Board

Re: Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin

#411

Post by Quillbert182 » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 10:49 PM UTC

DominikD wrote: post #397

Quillbert182 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just that, they have banned any mention of her name. You literally cannot even type her name in private messages without the message at least getting deleted, if you aren't banned.

I seriously doubt that. This is a claim I've seen in many places (unsubstantiated) but I find it hard to believe that her name is triggering bans. Dead name? Sure, I can believe that and, again, I have no problem with this.

They released a post saying they had a script set up to autoremove any mention of her current name, which often came with a ban.

Re: Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin

#412

Post by angry_octet » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 3:51 AM UTC

krainboltgreene wrote: post #316

implements wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, it really isn’t. I’m “Gender Critical”, because like many people born in the 1960s I see women as being a group of individuals primarily discriminated against by virtue of their sex - particularly in regards to contraception and the economic and social consequences of reproduction. Sex is biological and objectively real. Gender is a social construct relating to imposed standards of masculinity or femininity…

I'm not shocked HN is filled with gender critical people, I just didn't expect them to be so convinced of their own narrative.

Isn't that the defining characteristic of HN?

Re: Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin

#413

Post by kortilla » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 10:58 PM UTC

ivan_gammel wrote: post #309

kortilla wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Restriction of hate speech is not „moral authoritarianism“, it’s a good protection mechanism. Those are the exact same things. One is just the perspective of the oppressor and one is the perspective of the oppressed. > it’s a not well-thought idea Why? You give no evidence to support your argument as to how restricted speech makes makes things “more fair and democratic”.

>Those are the exact same things No, they are not. "Moral authoritarianism" is a judgmental label, putting equality sign between a democratic mechanism of protecting human rights and authoritarian rule, which is by definition undemocratic. A logical fallacy hidden behind a There's no place in a constructive discussion for such language, because it is not just untrue, but also offensive. >Why? There's plenty of histor…

> There's plenty of historical evidence on how hate speech supports transition of society to a tyranny.

And there’s plenty of tyrannical countries that have no free speech. What’s your point?

Also, democracies can absolutely be authoritarian. Look up the phrase “tyranny of the majority” if you want to see why following a democratic process is not sufficient to avoid authoritarian behavior.

Any big government that regulates all of the minutiae of its citizens’ lives at the expense of minority lifestyles is authoritarian, even if the he majority decided it.

Re: Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin

#414

Post by ivan_gammel » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 10:32 PM UTC

DreamScatter wrote: post #400

ivan_gammel wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Those are the exact same things No, they are not. "Moral authoritarianism" is a judgmental label, putting equality sign between a democratic mechanism of protecting human rights and authoritarian rule, which is by definition undemocratic. A logical fallacy hidden behind a There's no place in a constructive discussion for such language, because it is not just untrue, but also offensive. >Why? There's plenty of histor…

There is even more evidence that countries with less free speech are more authoritarian. For example, consider Nazi Germany, here is an excerpt: > When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Through decrees and laws, the Nazis abolished these civil rights and destroyed German democracy. Starting in 1934, it was illegal to criticize the Nazi gove…

It is hard to understand how you could make such conclusion. I do not support abolishing civil rights and I never said anything close to it. What I was saying is that freedom of speech is not absolute and dogmatic American constitution is wrong about it. Human rights exist only in society and the society not just defines them, but also constrains them. There’s no property rights on uninhabited island or freedom of speech in an empty room where there’s no one to talk to. But where property rights exist because there are people who agreed to recognize them, there are also trespassing laws: the freedom of movement is constrained by the rights and freedoms of others. And property rights themselves are constrained: you cannot use your land to stockpile nuclear waste and sometimes you have to mow your lawn. There’s no reason to assume that freedom of speech should not be constrained in a similar way. The dogma is based on an assumption that any constraint to this freedom may lead to tyranny. The historical evidence, including your example, shows that this protection of freedom is not efficient and quite often can be harmful, enabling extremists to build up the foundation to seize the power.

Re: Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin

#415

Post by kortilla » Sat, Apr 03, 2021, 7:16 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #174

kortilla wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not clear what point you’re trying to make. > I just don't see the points of these arguments. Directly contradicts with > Thought people on this site "loved discussion". And this > They love hearing their own opinions Contradicts with > downvoting anything that is not conservative. Considering the heavy presence of Bay Area commenters and the fact that the Bay Area skews more liberal than most places in the US.

> Considering the heavy presence of Bay Area commenters and the fact that the Bay Area skews more liberal than most places in the US. But you are failing to consider the heavy presence of Bay Area wantrepreneurs, who skew more heavily right-libertarian than the Bay Area, or even the US as a whole.

Nope, not nearly enough of them to matter. HN is one of the main gotos for big Corp SWEs as well.