17 ms·

One current dominant media narrative is that any sort of intolerant thought is intolerable, and that the emotional state of a listener is the responsibility of

One current dominant media narrative is that any sort of intolerant thought is intolerable, and that the emotional state of a listener is the responsibility of the speaker. There are clear problems with this point of view vis a vi reality, which is why it is a narrative, not actual reporting. This divorcing from reality allows journalists to comfortably include the narrative everywhere that it can possibly fit with no regard for the actual applicability to anything. I suspect that overall it's about as likely to be successful as religious attempts to sell the narrative that teen sex is wrong. Shame and guilt don't really ever teach the lesson that is intended, but those are the only tools the media truly has.

eli 11y ago
I don't buy the "Media vs Reddit" narrative. I don't think this has anything to do with journalism or even intolerance. I just don't like hanging out with racists and sexists (in real life or online). If Reddit wants to keep me as a contributor to their site, they need to do something about that or I will not return. I doubt I'm alone in feeling that way.
- johnward 11y ago
  Most of the sub reddits I hangout in don't have those tones or maybe I'm used to ignoring those types of comments online. I think any community starts to have those problems as they grow. HN isn't immune but it's still a small enough niche that we tend to still get higher quality comments than your average site. If you're in r/funny you're going to get comments from the lowest of the low just like youtube. I don't see it as a reddit issue it's more of a human nature problem. When you get enough of people in one area you're going to find the assholes.
  - mreiland 11y ago
    I don't see those issues either, OTOH I have a tendency to stick with specific subreddits of interest to me. I've never viewed reddit as a community, but as a community of communities, and I've always chosen to be a part of specific communities, ignore others, and stay the hell away from yet others. I don't go anywhere near /r/politics or /r/programming, for example. I just can't deal with the people in either. But I love me some /r/cpp and /r/startrek.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      Pretty much this - at least it was while I still used reddit. The default large communities were crap, not because of any "-ism" as the article states, but because people were just plain disagreeable, non-contributing assholes, up to and including the moderation staff. It's the YouTube comments problem, writ large.
- egeozcan 11y ago
  But there are sexists and racists both in real life and online. Reddit is like a giant building with many halls for discussions. You don't have to enter or participate in the ones that racism is welcome but you don't need to avoid the building. I don't see it as hanging out together, but using the same tools. Yes the analogy is a bit of a stretch but I hope you get my point. In short, IMHO, reddit is a tool and tools don't have political statements to make.
  - wetmore 11y ago
    As a heavy reddit user for the past 5 or 6 years I'd say the issue of intolerance on reddit is not entirely the fact that there are subreddits for racist or sexist ideals. What bothers me most is the way racism and sexism has seeped into the general site culture. The large subreddits which appear on an unregistered user's frontpage are full of comments and submissions whose magnitude of upvotes paint a picture of a casually intolerant status quo. Using your analogy, I'm not upset because I can walk into a hall called "coontown" and see racism; I'm upset because I walk into a hall called "videos" or "worldnews" and see people throwing around stereotypes of women and minorities with great prejudice behind their words. Since I've been using reddit for some time now there has been a very noticeable shift in the status quo when it comes to the level of discourse and the amount of hate speech that shows up, and I'm really not happy with it.
    - pil4rin 11y ago
      Take a look at http://redditenhancementsuite.com/features.html http://redditenhancementsuite.com/features.html I understand your issue is with the underlying platform and it's users, however, RES will allow you to setup filters by word- across all subs. I believe alienblue (the reddit client for iOS) allows for this functionality as well.
    - mreiland 11y ago
      then unsubscribe from /r/videos and /r/worldnews. problem solved and done so in a way that you have complete control over and doesn't impose yourself on others.
- GauntletWizard 11y ago
  You hang out with racists and sexists in real life and online. You just are not comfortable acknowledging that others can have opinions you consider racist and sexist and still be human. Were you to actually probe your friends about their beliefs, you'd likely come across some that have beliefs that are incredibly sexist in your view, and that's okay. For example, some of my friends believe that spaces need to be made 'safe' for women, and that means you cannot make any joke that references rape. Some of my friends are dark humored rape survivors, and find spaces where they cannot make those comments unsafe. I am friends with both of them, and they are friends with each other, despite disagreeing vehemently on what and where those spaces are. When they are around each other, neither of them can consider the space they reside 'safe', and yet, they survive.
- potato 11y ago
  > I just don't like hanging out with racists and sexists Then don't?
- rhizome 11y ago
  You may not be alone in feeling that way, but that doesn't mean that being on the internet means that you're "hanging out" with everybody on the internet.
- wil421 11y ago
  Do you ever visit YouTube? Some of the worst comments I have ever read have been on YouTube? Its up to the reader to decide what they want to read. Usually I skim over the bad comments and talk about what I want. Ignore the rest even if they PM you.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  > I just don't like hanging out with racists and sexists. If Reddit wants to keep me as a contributor to their site, they need to do something about that or I will not return. I doubt I'm alone in feeling that way. Many, many people think Tech has a sexism problem. The logic you are applying to Reddit would in theory require you to leave HN as well. It would also apply to any venue that is commonly felt to have a sexism and/or racism problem. Leaving because a subset of a given population is a "problem" is silly.
  - kaitai 11y ago
    Look at the numbers of women or racial minorities in tech: in fact, exactly what you suggest happens. It's unfortunate that you think it's "silly" but everyone's got to live their life and subjecting oneself to constant discomfort just doesn't appeal to everyone.
    - fweespeech 11y ago
      I work with an IT department that contains a majority of minorities and women. So...its a question of picking what part of a larger whole that you hang out in. Just like you don't hang out in the racist/etc parts of Reddit. Sorry if that message was lost.
    - lagadu 11y ago
      Really? I work at a software house. Looking around me in my room, right now I can count: 8 males and 7 females. Overall I suspect we do have more guys in the company but by a very small margin. Have you considered that the issue you're looking at is not a tech industry issue but rather a country-specific issue? Most studies I've read about it seem to have been made in the US.
- mc32 11y ago
  If we live in a world, this real world, we necessarily live with people we find tasteless and disgusting. If reddit is a world onto itself or if it's a reflection of the real world, then there will be unsavory characters of all types, sexually, philosophically, politically, etc. I really don't believe in sanitizing reality. I don't believe in intolerance for the intolerant. It's a nice, easy, euthanistic way to make our own little pure vision of the world. It'd be like the regular news saying, you know what, crime is disgusting, it's repugnant, we're not going to tolerate it on the news. No more violence reporting. Showing news of violence is not "giving a voice to violence", or terrorists. What would be the next step, stop misogynist musicians or filmmakers depicting violence, etc., other than in documentaries? Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer a world where people self moderated and would act decently, but I also fear a world which proscribes received behavior.
  - epistasis 11y ago
    > I really don't believe in sanitizing reality. I don't believe in intolerance for the intolerant. It's a nice, easy, euthanistic way to make our own little pure vision of the world. And most people don't believe in hanging out with people they don't like. You seem to be implying that it's more important for Reddit to represent unsavory people than it is for Reddit to hold onto a larger audience. I think that's ridiculous, because Reddit's purpose is not to be a safe haven for unsavory people, even if they "represent" reality. That might be an admirable goal for sociologists, but it doesn't have to be the goal of any website.
    - mc32 11y ago
      >And most people don't believe in hanging out with people they don't like. Isn't that one of the problems we find with lots of people we don't like. They are bigots! They don't like anyone who isn't like them. Yes, reddit surely may do as it pleases. That's their call to make. I'm simply voicing my preference with reason behind it. Facebook could lock out all selfidentifying males living in new York or all selfidentifying females in Uganda, that's their call. I'd be against it, but that's their call to make, sure. Also, 2channel is at least one site which finds it important to allow unsavory communication large degrees of expression.
- baddox 11y ago
  Do what, exactly? Prevent you from getting linked to racist or sexist threads? Because almost certainly the only way you see racist or sexist content on reddit. You will very rarely see it on the logged out front page (the big reddit blowup is obviously a major exception), and probably rarely in any threads on default subs unless you deliberately browse the heavily downvoted comments.
- Nimitz14 11y ago
  And I don't want to hang around cry babies. I hope reddit stays the same so people like you go away.
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  > I don't buy the "Media vs Reddit" narrative. I don't think this has anything to do with journalism or even intolerance. Right, it's about selling ads. Reddit wants to keep its users (who want free speech) which sells ads. But Reddit also wants a PC site, which sells ads. Newspapers want to whip a popular whipping boy because it sells ads. They're all morally bankrupt: none of them care about the other or intolerance. > I just don't like hanging out with racists and sexists (in real life or online). If Reddit wants to keep me as a contributor to their site, they need to do something about that or I will not return. I doubt I'm alone in feeling that way. You're welcome to unsubscribe from racist and sexist subreddits. You're also welcome to subscribe to TwoXChromosomes and other similar subreddits. I'm literally subscribed to 4 very specific interest subreddits that don't tolerate hate speech and I haven't encountered a comment that could be even construed as racist or sexist that I can remember since shortly after I created an account. So let's stop pretending that this isn't about you not wanting to hang out with racists and sexists: that's easily within your power by using the services Reddit offers. Let's admit that this is about silencing racists and sexists. I don't have any skin in this game (the subreddits I subscribe to could easily be replaced by going back to the bulletin boards I used in the early 2000s) so I really don't care if Reddit crashes and burns, or if they have free speech: it's just not a platform that I care about. But I do think it's a bit disingenuous for people to pretend this isn't a free speech issue.
- samstave 11y ago
  In what /r/ are you "hanging out" that you feel like you're actually with racists and sexists?
- drdeca 11y ago
  This might be counterproductive, but hopefully it isn't (and is, at worst, neutral): by "racists" and "sexists", do you mean these terms based on the beliefs of those described, or are you including things like, subconscious(?) biases, (which one might be trying to correct in oneself)? It seems like it might be useful to have two different terms for the two concepts? But maybe this is not a context where this would be a useful addition.
zorpner 11y ago
the emotional state of a listener is the responsibility of the speaker The desire for consequence-free speech is hypocritical in the extreme, as it requires that others refrain from speech in order that you may suffer no consequences for saying whatever you like. People, on Reddit and elsewhere, are generally free to speak their minds. If their words produce an emotional state in their listeners, should the listeners be required to remain silent in order to avoid potentially causing the speaker to feel a sense of responsibility for their actions?
- ikeboy 11y ago
  I'm not sure if you realize, but reddit has actually banned this speech. Not doing that would not force the listeners to "be required to remain silent", they could 1. Not go to the subs that have such speech, and only frequent subs that have enforced rules against such speech (of which there are many, and people are free to create their own) 2. If they feel a burning need to go to a sub that has speech they don't like, they're free to respond to that speech (unless that subs bans opposing speech, which is rare), vote on it, etc.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    "Not go to the subs that have such speech" That's not a feasible solution because sooner or later, almost EVERY sub gets infected with that filth.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      As I mentioned, there are plenty of subs that ban specific types of speech. If you see a banned type of speech on such a sub, you can report it directly to the mods.
    - 15155 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
- oldmanjay 11y ago
pron 11y ago
> One current dominant media narrative is that any sort of intolerant thought is intolerable, and that the emotional state of a listener is the responsibility of the speaker. Speaking out against gay-marriage is intolerant. Threatening blacks or publicly shaming fat people is violent speech. Violent speech is not a problem because of the "emotional state of the listener". It is a problem because it creates an atmosphere of fear, and fear is a means of oppression. Sure, fear is an emotional state. But if I point a gun to your head, I think most would agree that society should place the blame on your emotional state in my gun-holding hand. > which is why it is a narrative, not actual reporting Except that this is actual reporting. I had never read anything (good or bad) about Reddit (wasn't interested) until I started visiting the site (which has lots of great stuff, too), and was amazed at what was going on there. Because most threats weren't aimed at me, I found it fascinating, but I could clearly see how it could really make others afraid. > Shame and guilt don't really ever teach the lesson that is intended, but those are the only tools the media truly has. Shaming those who create an atmosphere of fear is not a goal. The goal is to take that fear away. Besides, it seems like you're bemoaning the fact that some sort of speech is more effective than others. Maybe that's a lesson for those who call for free verbal-abuse-and-bullying to make better use of their speech? They should most certainly regard this as a lesson.
- rhizome 11y ago
  Words are not guns, period.
  - pron 11y ago
    True, and pointing a gun isn't firing it, and some people feel even guns don't require regulation. But that doesn't mean verbal violence doesn't cause real harm and shouldn't be regulated, and in fact, it is regulated in virtually all free societies (and even non-free ones). The debate is on the degree to which it should be regulated, and this varies from one society to another. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech In any case, the ideal of free speech originated in the desire to share novel ideas and speak truth to power. It's sad to see the same term used to justify tolerating bullying by angry mobs.
bduerst 11y ago
I think that's an oversimplification. With the advent of the internet, even the smallest minority has been given a voice. This has done great things for spreading information and ideas (e.g. Arab Spring), but it has also given a platform for spreading bias and hate as well. I'm not talking about name calling or childish acts, but threats of violence and damaging behavior. This increased noise is easy to ignore until you become the focus of it, which is why private website owners are taking steps to protect individuals from harm over allowing a blank check for freedom of speech.
- linkydinkandyou 11y ago
  That Arab Spring is sure doing well, isn't it!?
  - samstave 11y ago
    If anything - it revelaed very clearly the force of power and corruption that governments have -- just like OWS in the US. Man, OWS was a truly eye-opening event that really showed the power of the Oligarchy (The Fed) in the US. So, while not much change actually happened from wither the Arab Spring or the OWS movements -- at least we know now where the common man stands. That information will really gel over time in the minds of all men and I think changes the world-view of most people in such a way that people now know what institutions are against humanity.
intopieces 11y ago
>and that the emotional state of a listener is the responsibility of the speaker Reddit is not a nonprofit Free Speech machine. It's a business. So, yes, the emotional state of the listener -- in so far as that emotional state (positive or negative) is a determiner of traffic and therefore returns for investors -- is the responsiblity of the speaker (the website itself). I thought by now we had shed our idealism about platforms and corporations. We've mocked Google's now-defunct "Don't Be Evil" for years. The idea that Facebook is just a way for distant friends to stay connected has been subsumed by the reality that it's actually a privacy nightmare. But the myth that Reddit exists as a bastion of free speech at all costs has somehow held firm. It's puzzling.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Myth? The site founders are on record in multiple places calling the site explicitly a place for free speech.
  - intopieces 11y ago
    And yet here they are, "censoring" their site to rid itself of content that makes advertisers recoil. Corporate myths exist because the organization benefits from their propogation. Reddit likes to tout itself as a bastion of free speech, but all of us can read the writing on the wall: unfettered free speech is unpalatable to the groups that fund such platforms.
    - lhc- 11y ago
      To be fair, most of the things they deleted were also unpalatable to the vast majority of users, not just advertisers, and many were actively detracting from Reddit as a whole. Why shouldn't Reddit be allowed to do what is best for the group? They have no obligation to provide anything to trolls.
      - intopieces 11y ago
        Excellent point. Advertisers don't act unilaterally to content based on morality they came up with themselves. Ultimately they are concerned with the perception of their brand by the same people who visit the website and experience the "offensive" content. The people who are asking for the offensive content to remain on the site are not asking for "free speech" because Reddit isn't free. They're asked for "sponsored speech" -- they want the people who pay for the servers (directly) to sponsor their hate speech, or the hate speech of others. If this is how Reddit would like to run things, it should become a non-profit and operate on donations. I'm a member of three websites that feature message boards and operate like this. No ads, no data tracking, all funded by donations. The rules vary in strictness among them.

eli 11y ago

I don't buy the "Media vs Reddit" narrative. I don't think this has anything to do with journalism or even intolerance. I just don't like hanging out with racists and sexists (in real life or online). If Reddit wants to keep me as a contributor to their site, they need to do something about that or I will not return. I doubt I'm alone in feeling that way.

johnward 11y ago
Most of the sub reddits I hangout in don't have those tones or maybe I'm used to ignoring those types of comments online. I think any community starts to have those problems as they grow. HN isn't immune but it's still a small enough niche that we tend to still get higher quality comments than your average site. If you're in r/funny you're going to get comments from the lowest of the low just like youtube. I don't see it as a reddit issue it's more of a human nature problem. When you get enough of people in one area you're going to find the assholes.
- mreiland 11y ago
  I don't see those issues either, OTOH I have a tendency to stick with specific subreddits of interest to me. I've never viewed reddit as a community, but as a community of communities, and I've always chosen to be a part of specific communities, ignore others, and stay the hell away from yet others. I don't go anywhere near /r/politics or /r/programming, for example. I just can't deal with the people in either. But I love me some /r/cpp and /r/startrek.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Pretty much this - at least it was while I still used reddit. The default large communities were crap, not because of any "-ism" as the article states, but because people were just plain disagreeable, non-contributing assholes, up to and including the moderation staff. It's the YouTube comments problem, writ large.
egeozcan 11y ago
But there are sexists and racists both in real life and online. Reddit is like a giant building with many halls for discussions. You don't have to enter or participate in the ones that racism is welcome but you don't need to avoid the building. I don't see it as hanging out together, but using the same tools. Yes the analogy is a bit of a stretch but I hope you get my point. In short, IMHO, reddit is a tool and tools don't have political statements to make.
- wetmore 11y ago
  As a heavy reddit user for the past 5 or 6 years I'd say the issue of intolerance on reddit is not entirely the fact that there are subreddits for racist or sexist ideals. What bothers me most is the way racism and sexism has seeped into the general site culture. The large subreddits which appear on an unregistered user's frontpage are full of comments and submissions whose magnitude of upvotes paint a picture of a casually intolerant status quo. Using your analogy, I'm not upset because I can walk into a hall called "coontown" and see racism; I'm upset because I walk into a hall called "videos" or "worldnews" and see people throwing around stereotypes of women and minorities with great prejudice behind their words. Since I've been using reddit for some time now there has been a very noticeable shift in the status quo when it comes to the level of discourse and the amount of hate speech that shows up, and I'm really not happy with it.
  - pil4rin 11y ago
    Take a look at http://redditenhancementsuite.com/features.html http://redditenhancementsuite.com/features.html I understand your issue is with the underlying platform and it's users, however, RES will allow you to setup filters by word- across all subs. I believe alienblue (the reddit client for iOS) allows for this functionality as well.
  - mreiland 11y ago
    then unsubscribe from /r/videos and /r/worldnews. problem solved and done so in a way that you have complete control over and doesn't impose yourself on others.
GauntletWizard 11y ago
You hang out with racists and sexists in real life and online. You just are not comfortable acknowledging that others can have opinions you consider racist and sexist and still be human. Were you to actually probe your friends about their beliefs, you'd likely come across some that have beliefs that are incredibly sexist in your view, and that's okay. For example, some of my friends believe that spaces need to be made 'safe' for women, and that means you cannot make any joke that references rape. Some of my friends are dark humored rape survivors, and find spaces where they cannot make those comments unsafe. I am friends with both of them, and they are friends with each other, despite disagreeing vehemently on what and where those spaces are. When they are around each other, neither of them can consider the space they reside 'safe', and yet, they survive.
potato 11y ago
> I just don't like hanging out with racists and sexists Then don't?
rhizome 11y ago
You may not be alone in feeling that way, but that doesn't mean that being on the internet means that you're "hanging out" with everybody on the internet.
wil421 11y ago
Do you ever visit YouTube? Some of the worst comments I have ever read have been on YouTube? Its up to the reader to decide what they want to read. Usually I skim over the bad comments and talk about what I want. Ignore the rest even if they PM you.
fweespeech 11y ago
> I just don't like hanging out with racists and sexists. If Reddit wants to keep me as a contributor to their site, they need to do something about that or I will not return. I doubt I'm alone in feeling that way. Many, many people think Tech has a sexism problem. The logic you are applying to Reddit would in theory require you to leave HN as well. It would also apply to any venue that is commonly felt to have a sexism and/or racism problem. Leaving because a subset of a given population is a "problem" is silly.
- kaitai 11y ago
  Look at the numbers of women or racial minorities in tech: in fact, exactly what you suggest happens. It's unfortunate that you think it's "silly" but everyone's got to live their life and subjecting oneself to constant discomfort just doesn't appeal to everyone.
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    I work with an IT department that contains a majority of minorities and women. So...its a question of picking what part of a larger whole that you hang out in. Just like you don't hang out in the racist/etc parts of Reddit. Sorry if that message was lost.
  - lagadu 11y ago
    Really? I work at a software house. Looking around me in my room, right now I can count: 8 males and 7 females. Overall I suspect we do have more guys in the company but by a very small margin. Have you considered that the issue you're looking at is not a tech industry issue but rather a country-specific issue? Most studies I've read about it seem to have been made in the US.
mc32 11y ago
If we live in a world, this real world, we necessarily live with people we find tasteless and disgusting. If reddit is a world onto itself or if it's a reflection of the real world, then there will be unsavory characters of all types, sexually, philosophically, politically, etc. I really don't believe in sanitizing reality. I don't believe in intolerance for the intolerant. It's a nice, easy, euthanistic way to make our own little pure vision of the world. It'd be like the regular news saying, you know what, crime is disgusting, it's repugnant, we're not going to tolerate it on the news. No more violence reporting. Showing news of violence is not "giving a voice to violence", or terrorists. What would be the next step, stop misogynist musicians or filmmakers depicting violence, etc., other than in documentaries? Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer a world where people self moderated and would act decently, but I also fear a world which proscribes received behavior.
- epistasis 11y ago
  > I really don't believe in sanitizing reality. I don't believe in intolerance for the intolerant. It's a nice, easy, euthanistic way to make our own little pure vision of the world. And most people don't believe in hanging out with people they don't like. You seem to be implying that it's more important for Reddit to represent unsavory people than it is for Reddit to hold onto a larger audience. I think that's ridiculous, because Reddit's purpose is not to be a safe haven for unsavory people, even if they "represent" reality. That might be an admirable goal for sociologists, but it doesn't have to be the goal of any website.
  - mc32 11y ago
    >And most people don't believe in hanging out with people they don't like. Isn't that one of the problems we find with lots of people we don't like. They are bigots! They don't like anyone who isn't like them. Yes, reddit surely may do as it pleases. That's their call to make. I'm simply voicing my preference with reason behind it. Facebook could lock out all selfidentifying males living in new York or all selfidentifying females in Uganda, that's their call. I'd be against it, but that's their call to make, sure. Also, 2channel is at least one site which finds it important to allow unsavory communication large degrees of expression.
baddox 11y ago
Do what, exactly? Prevent you from getting linked to racist or sexist threads? Because almost certainly the only way you see racist or sexist content on reddit. You will very rarely see it on the logged out front page (the big reddit blowup is obviously a major exception), and probably rarely in any threads on default subs unless you deliberately browse the heavily downvoted comments.
Nimitz14 11y ago
And I don't want to hang around cry babies. I hope reddit stays the same so people like you go away.
copsarebastards 11y ago
> I don't buy the "Media vs Reddit" narrative. I don't think this has anything to do with journalism or even intolerance. Right, it's about selling ads. Reddit wants to keep its users (who want free speech) which sells ads. But Reddit also wants a PC site, which sells ads. Newspapers want to whip a popular whipping boy because it sells ads. They're all morally bankrupt: none of them care about the other or intolerance. > I just don't like hanging out with racists and sexists (in real life or online). If Reddit wants to keep me as a contributor to their site, they need to do something about that or I will not return. I doubt I'm alone in feeling that way. You're welcome to unsubscribe from racist and sexist subreddits. You're also welcome to subscribe to TwoXChromosomes and other similar subreddits. I'm literally subscribed to 4 very specific interest subreddits that don't tolerate hate speech and I haven't encountered a comment that could be even construed as racist or sexist that I can remember since shortly after I created an account. So let's stop pretending that this isn't about you not wanting to hang out with racists and sexists: that's easily within your power by using the services Reddit offers. Let's admit that this is about silencing racists and sexists. I don't have any skin in this game (the subreddits I subscribe to could easily be replaced by going back to the bulletin boards I used in the early 2000s) so I really don't care if Reddit crashes and burns, or if they have free speech: it's just not a platform that I care about. But I do think it's a bit disingenuous for people to pretend this isn't a free speech issue.
samstave 11y ago
In what /r/ are you "hanging out" that you feel like you're actually with racists and sexists?
drdeca 11y ago
This might be counterproductive, but hopefully it isn't (and is, at worst, neutral): by "racists" and "sexists", do you mean these terms based on the beliefs of those described, or are you including things like, subconscious(?) biases, (which one might be trying to correct in oneself)? It seems like it might be useful to have two different terms for the two concepts? But maybe this is not a context where this would be a useful addition.

zorpner 11y ago

the emotional state of a listener is the responsibility of the speaker The desire for consequence-free speech is hypocritical in the extreme, as it requires that others refrain from speech in order that you may suffer no consequences for saying whatever you like. People, on Reddit and elsewhere, are generally free to speak their minds. If their words produce an emotional state in their listeners, should the listeners be required to remain silent in order to avoid potentially causing the speaker to feel a sense of responsibility for their actions?

ikeboy 11y ago
I'm not sure if you realize, but reddit has actually banned this speech. Not doing that would not force the listeners to "be required to remain silent", they could 1. Not go to the subs that have such speech, and only frequent subs that have enforced rules against such speech (of which there are many, and people are free to create their own) 2. If they feel a burning need to go to a sub that has speech they don't like, they're free to respond to that speech (unless that subs bans opposing speech, which is rare), vote on it, etc.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "Not go to the subs that have such speech" That's not a feasible solution because sooner or later, almost EVERY sub gets infected with that filth.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    As I mentioned, there are plenty of subs that ban specific types of speech. If you see a banned type of speech on such a sub, you can report it directly to the mods.
  - 15155 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
oldmanjay 11y ago

pron 11y ago

> One current dominant media narrative is that any sort of intolerant thought is intolerable, and that the emotional state of a listener is the responsibility of the speaker. Speaking out against gay-marriage is intolerant. Threatening blacks or publicly shaming fat people is violent speech. Violent speech is not a problem because of the "emotional state of the listener". It is a problem because it creates an atmosphere of fear, and fear is a means of oppression. Sure, fear is an emotional state. But if I point a gun to your head, I think most would agree that society should place the blame on your emotional state in my gun-holding hand. > which is why it is a narrative, not actual reporting Except that this is actual reporting. I had never read anything (good or bad) about Reddit (wasn't interested) until I started visiting the site (which has lots of great stuff, too), and was amazed at what was going on there. Because most threats weren't aimed at me, I found it fascinating, but I could clearly see how it could really make others afraid. > Shame and guilt don't really ever teach the lesson that is intended, but those are the only tools the media truly has. Shaming those who create an atmosphere of fear is not a goal. The goal is to take that fear away. Besides, it seems like you're bemoaning the fact that some sort of speech is more effective than others. Maybe that's a lesson for those who call for free verbal-abuse-and-bullying to make better use of their speech? They should most certainly regard this as a lesson.

rhizome 11y ago
Words are not guns, period.
- pron 11y ago
  True, and pointing a gun isn't firing it, and some people feel even guns don't require regulation. But that doesn't mean verbal violence doesn't cause real harm and shouldn't be regulated, and in fact, it is regulated in virtually all free societies (and even non-free ones). The debate is on the degree to which it should be regulated, and this varies from one society to another. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech In any case, the ideal of free speech originated in the desire to share novel ideas and speak truth to power. It's sad to see the same term used to justify tolerating bullying by angry mobs.

bduerst 11y ago

I think that's an oversimplification. With the advent of the internet, even the smallest minority has been given a voice. This has done great things for spreading information and ideas (e.g. Arab Spring), but it has also given a platform for spreading bias and hate as well. I'm not talking about name calling or childish acts, but threats of violence and damaging behavior. This increased noise is easy to ignore until you become the focus of it, which is why private website owners are taking steps to protect individuals from harm over allowing a blank check for freedom of speech.

linkydinkandyou 11y ago
That Arab Spring is sure doing well, isn't it!?
- samstave 11y ago
  If anything - it revelaed very clearly the force of power and corruption that governments have -- just like OWS in the US. Man, OWS was a truly eye-opening event that really showed the power of the Oligarchy (The Fed) in the US. So, while not much change actually happened from wither the Arab Spring or the OWS movements -- at least we know now where the common man stands. That information will really gel over time in the minds of all men and I think changes the world-view of most people in such a way that people now know what institutions are against humanity.

intopieces 11y ago

>and that the emotional state of a listener is the responsibility of the speaker Reddit is not a nonprofit Free Speech machine. It's a business. So, yes, the emotional state of the listener -- in so far as that emotional state (positive or negative) is a determiner of traffic and therefore returns for investors -- is the responsiblity of the speaker (the website itself). I thought by now we had shed our idealism about platforms and corporations. We've mocked Google's now-defunct "Don't Be Evil" for years. The idea that Facebook is just a way for distant friends to stay connected has been subsumed by the reality that it's actually a privacy nightmare. But the myth that Reddit exists as a bastion of free speech at all costs has somehow held firm. It's puzzling.

Karunamon 11y ago
Myth? The site founders are on record in multiple places calling the site explicitly a place for free speech.
- intopieces 11y ago
  And yet here they are, "censoring" their site to rid itself of content that makes advertisers recoil. Corporate myths exist because the organization benefits from their propogation. Reddit likes to tout itself as a bastion of free speech, but all of us can read the writing on the wall: unfettered free speech is unpalatable to the groups that fund such platforms.
  - lhc- 11y ago
    To be fair, most of the things they deleted were also unpalatable to the vast majority of users, not just advertisers, and many were actively detracting from Reddit as a whole. Why shouldn't Reddit be allowed to do what is best for the group? They have no obligation to provide anything to trolls.
    - intopieces 11y ago
      Excellent point. Advertisers don't act unilaterally to content based on morality they came up with themselves. Ultimately they are concerned with the perception of their brand by the same people who visit the website and experience the "offensive" content. The people who are asking for the offensive content to remain on the site are not asking for "free speech" because Reddit isn't free. They're asked for "sponsored speech" -- they want the people who pay for the servers (directly) to sponsor their hate speech, or the hate speech of others. If this is how Reddit would like to run things, it should become a non-profit and operate on donations. I'm a member of three websites that feature message boards and operate like this. No ads, no data tracking, all funded by donations. The rules vary in strictness among them.