4 ms·

> 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 pur

> 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. Are you comparing the internet to reality? Because the internet is not reality, the type of behavior you see on reddit and 4chan may reflect our nature, but it is enabled by anonymity and the complete lack of repercussions. If people behaved the way they do on these boards they would quickly be ostracized by society if not having the shit beaten out of them on a regular basis. Applying some sort of freedom ideology to internet communities like reddit is not very useful in practice. We have to look at the shape of the internet and recognize that freedom on the internet is not the problem—after all cyberspace is unlimited, you can have infinite communities, and geography is irrelevant. All groups can find a place on the internet, and they will always be able to. We simply don't need to worry about that, and it's silly to wring our hands over the decision to moderate this or that community. What we do need to worry about is the ability for formerly marginalized sociopaths to hurt other people from the safety of their basement dwelling. Whether it's unending bombardment of harassment or actual physical harm like swatting, we need to get a handle on this. Arguing that hate speech should not be moderated or restricted in any way is sort of like giving equal coverage to crackpot climate change deniers on basis of "fairness".

Karunamon 11y ago
I'm not so sure that is a thing that happens with any great regularity - and I say that because the previously bright line between "this person offended me" and "this person is harassing me" has become a lot more blurry. Sure, any of us can point at high profile cases, but there's that old saying about anecdotes and data. The problem with your entire last sentence is that it's full of value judgements, value judgements shaped by your experience as a human and your own knowledge and biases. One person's "hate speech" is another person's "spirited argument", one person's "disagreement" is another person's "harassment". You might have a very clear definition of "hate speech" in your mind as you write those words, but I'd be willing to bet if you defined it here in the most clear and unambiguous language you possibly could, you'd find perfectly reasonable people disagreeing with it. And therein is the problem - I'm on the side of that line that leaves people the hell alone in all but the most egregious of cases, because at the end of the day, it's all words on a screen.
- dasil003 11y ago
  Sure. It's complicated. Heck, even just a passive laugh at a funny picture which is totally innocent and non-harmful in person, can become a crushing attack on a person when it goes viral and it's millions upon millions of people doing it. But just because these issues are messy doesn't give us a license paper over their complexity with reductive founding-father-esque ideology. It's pretty clear to me that in aggregate freedom of speech on the internet is not suffering—people have unprecedented access to spread whatever thoughts they happen to have. Meanwhile an increasing number of people being hurt by internet bullying, harassment, and other anti-social behavior is growing by leaps and bounds in a way that society is not yet equipped to deal with.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    In aggregate is not what we're talking about in this instance. "In aggregate", crime is down worldwide, people are living longer than ever. That does not mean focus gets shifted away from individual criminals and diseases. People being cut off from any medium based on, not because someone was hurt in any tangible way, but because they were offended, is a crying shame, and that goes double when the medium plays at being precisely against that sort of thing. Source on "anti-social behavior growing by leaps and bounds", and a definition would be nice, too. It seems to me words like "harassment" and "bulling" are being used as stand-ins for things as innocuous as simple incivility.
- mc32 11y ago
  Perhaps the rise of microaggression complaints is exaggerated, but one has to wonder where we're headed as a society when the smallest insignificant things are labeled as (micro)-aggressive[1]. I'm loath to live in a culture where people have to walk on eggshells so as to not offer the semblance of offense. I think it's childish and also hypocritical --as if we can expect no one to think or say anything that would ever offend anyone. They never try to be mean to an ex-lover, they would never think bad of someone who ignored them unwittingly, etc. [1]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise...
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
>If people behaved the way they do on these boards they would quickly be ostracized by society if not having the shit beaten out of them on a regular basis. If people talked in public the way they do on those boards there might be consequences. But if people behaved the way they do, they'd probably be voted into office. We've just had the British Prime Minister give one of the most offensive and hate-filled conference speeches a lot of people have ever seen. His administration is full of people who are questionably sane. The Chancellor has turned up in Parliament looking like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtXxYrp7mo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtXxYrp7mo Cameron's colleagues have been directly implicated in starving dying people - some of whom can't walk or speak - to death by claiming they're "able to work" and so shouldn't receive any state aid. You want physical harm? We've got as much of it as you can bear to read about. So really, hate speech on Reddit is a non-issue compared to what goes on in supposedly serious politics. And did I mention the Internet censorship and surveillance? Because we have that too. In reality free speech isn't a panacea. There are too many crazy people in politics all over the world, and free speech on Reddit or elsewhere has done nothing to keep them out of power. It's not the basement-dwelling sociopaths with twitchy keyboards you need to worry about - it's the professionals.
- dreamfactory2 11y ago
  how could you not mention the pig?
  - timlyo 11y ago
    I don't really think it matters, everyone makes mistakes when they're young, that's the point of growing up. Besides, Cameron does plenty of stupid stuff as an adult anyway.
mistermann 11y ago
> it is enabled by anonymity and the complete lack of repercussions. If people behaved the way they do on these boards they would quickly be ostracized by society if not having the shit beaten out of them on a regular basis. It depends where you do it - if you've ever been in a locker room or out drinking with the boys or the girls, all sorts of things are said and done that are extremely "inappropriate". Now, keeping that sort of thing off the front few pages of /r/all to me seems completely reasonable - banning it from the entire site (as was the plan) is something else entirely. > All groups can find a place on the internet, and they will always be able to. We simply don't need to worry about that, and it's silly to wring our hands over the decision to moderate this or that community. A lot of people liked reddit the way it was and didn't really feel like just finding another place on the infinite internet....why can't the SJW's and their ilk who came late to the party go find their own place? It's like renting an apartment beside a bar and then trying to get it shut down because of the noise.
- mark_integerdsv 11y ago
  >why can't the SJW's and their ilk who came late to the party go find their own place? Because their cause is evangelical in nature. Were it just kept to Tumblr then they wouldn't have much with which to stoke the fires. SJW's are specifically about pointing out to others where they are wrong/insensitive/racist/sexist/ableist/etc.. if they just kept to themselves then who would they persecute with their 'justice'?
mc32 11y ago
For me having different subs with different moderation policies, etc., satisfies both sides of people's needs. People who want to be civil and interact with other civil people have their subreddits, people who want to engage in uncivility also have their subreddits. I don't see the problem. Here is what I have noticed. I like forums where people can voice opposing opinions even be unkind but not vile. But I accept that some forums do harbor people who like being vile, either as a persona or their true selves. I avoid those forums/groups/subreddits. Also, at times some of the offensive people do have great knowledge in their area of expertise, but otherwise can be very offputting and vile. Despite that, I want to be able to have those voices. Certainly I don't want to have them sprinkled all over. So, for as long as they can exist in predictable places and can be sought out or avoided, I'm for that. If push came to shove, I'd have to allow it all over and just have to dig through the noise. The reason is I don't want proscribed forums. The problems are group-think, shaming, socio-forming, brainwashing. And you can bring out examples of things we want to eradicate, say ideas about terrorism (killing and raping other people indiscriminately or discriminately, as it were) but the thing is there are slippery slopes, grey areas and social movements of the day. Ideas and preferences change over time. I want to allow all those voices, no matter how offensive to be expressed --I don't have to like those ideas. I'm sure I would have a very visceral reaction to most the monsters on hateful forums, but yet, I think there is value in not shutting that off. That said, reddit has the authority, obviously, to do whatever they like with their platform.
learning_still 11y ago
1. I don't think you actually know what a sociopath is. Slapping labels you don't understand on people you don't like is never going to solve your problems. 2. And are you seriously pulling the "cyber bullying" card here? 3. Since when is this a discussion about swatting? The case seems pretty clear to me. You are free to create any subreddit you see fit, and moderate it however you wish. Why should every existing subreddit be forced to conform to your personal sensitivities? Just go make your own subreddit.
mc32 11y ago
There are all kinds of subs on reddit, ones with anything goes as well as curated ones. If you like civil talk only head on over there, if you like uncivil conversation, head over there. There is no reason they can't coexist, just not in the same sub. Physical harm is a crime. Some speech is a tort. Very limited aspects of speech are a crime (doxing, some bullying) but aside from those forms, I think it's disingenuous to want to control people's thoughts, no matter how ridiculous. Climate change deniers are laughably wrong, by the vast majority of accounts and evidence _however_ I would not want them silenced just because they are in the wrong on their opinion or facts. I do not agree with that. I am glad that reddit, for the most part, has not greatly changed their stand on speech. I understand they have commercial concerns and need to bow to those pressures, but I am glad they allow, by and large, the full spectrum of humanity and inhumanity.

Karunamon 11y ago

I'm not so sure that is a thing that happens with any great regularity - and I say that because the previously bright line between "this person offended me" and "this person is harassing me" has become a lot more blurry. Sure, any of us can point at high profile cases, but there's that old saying about anecdotes and data. The problem with your entire last sentence is that it's full of value judgements, value judgements shaped by your experience as a human and your own knowledge and biases. One person's "hate speech" is another person's "spirited argument", one person's "disagreement" is another person's "harassment". You might have a very clear definition of "hate speech" in your mind as you write those words, but I'd be willing to bet if you defined it here in the most clear and unambiguous language you possibly could, you'd find perfectly reasonable people disagreeing with it. And therein is the problem - I'm on the side of that line that leaves people the hell alone in all but the most egregious of cases, because at the end of the day, it's all words on a screen.

dasil003 11y ago
Sure. It's complicated. Heck, even just a passive laugh at a funny picture which is totally innocent and non-harmful in person, can become a crushing attack on a person when it goes viral and it's millions upon millions of people doing it. But just because these issues are messy doesn't give us a license paper over their complexity with reductive founding-father-esque ideology. It's pretty clear to me that in aggregate freedom of speech on the internet is not suffering—people have unprecedented access to spread whatever thoughts they happen to have. Meanwhile an increasing number of people being hurt by internet bullying, harassment, and other anti-social behavior is growing by leaps and bounds in a way that society is not yet equipped to deal with.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  In aggregate is not what we're talking about in this instance. "In aggregate", crime is down worldwide, people are living longer than ever. That does not mean focus gets shifted away from individual criminals and diseases. People being cut off from any medium based on, not because someone was hurt in any tangible way, but because they were offended, is a crying shame, and that goes double when the medium plays at being precisely against that sort of thing. Source on "anti-social behavior growing by leaps and bounds", and a definition would be nice, too. It seems to me words like "harassment" and "bulling" are being used as stand-ins for things as innocuous as simple incivility.
mc32 11y ago
Perhaps the rise of microaggression complaints is exaggerated, but one has to wonder where we're headed as a society when the smallest insignificant things are labeled as (micro)-aggressive[1]. I'm loath to live in a culture where people have to walk on eggshells so as to not offer the semblance of offense. I think it's childish and also hypocritical --as if we can expect no one to think or say anything that would ever offend anyone. They never try to be mean to an ex-lover, they would never think bad of someone who ignored them unwittingly, etc. [1]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise...

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

>If people behaved the way they do on these boards they would quickly be ostracized by society if not having the shit beaten out of them on a regular basis. If people talked in public the way they do on those boards there might be consequences. But if people behaved the way they do, they'd probably be voted into office. We've just had the British Prime Minister give one of the most offensive and hate-filled conference speeches a lot of people have ever seen. His administration is full of people who are questionably sane. The Chancellor has turned up in Parliament looking like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtXxYrp7mo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtXxYrp7mo Cameron's colleagues have been directly implicated in starving dying people - some of whom can't walk or speak - to death by claiming they're "able to work" and so shouldn't receive any state aid. You want physical harm? We've got as much of it as you can bear to read about. So really, hate speech on Reddit is a non-issue compared to what goes on in supposedly serious politics. And did I mention the Internet censorship and surveillance? Because we have that too. In reality free speech isn't a panacea. There are too many crazy people in politics all over the world, and free speech on Reddit or elsewhere has done nothing to keep them out of power. It's not the basement-dwelling sociopaths with twitchy keyboards you need to worry about - it's the professionals.

dreamfactory2 11y ago
how could you not mention the pig?
- timlyo 11y ago
  I don't really think it matters, everyone makes mistakes when they're young, that's the point of growing up. Besides, Cameron does plenty of stupid stuff as an adult anyway.

mistermann 11y ago

> it is enabled by anonymity and the complete lack of repercussions. If people behaved the way they do on these boards they would quickly be ostracized by society if not having the shit beaten out of them on a regular basis. It depends where you do it - if you've ever been in a locker room or out drinking with the boys or the girls, all sorts of things are said and done that are extremely "inappropriate". Now, keeping that sort of thing off the front few pages of /r/all to me seems completely reasonable - banning it from the entire site (as was the plan) is something else entirely. > All groups can find a place on the internet, and they will always be able to. We simply don't need to worry about that, and it's silly to wring our hands over the decision to moderate this or that community. A lot of people liked reddit the way it was and didn't really feel like just finding another place on the infinite internet....why can't the SJW's and their ilk who came late to the party go find their own place? It's like renting an apartment beside a bar and then trying to get it shut down because of the noise.

mark_integerdsv 11y ago
>why can't the SJW's and their ilk who came late to the party go find their own place? Because their cause is evangelical in nature. Were it just kept to Tumblr then they wouldn't have much with which to stoke the fires. SJW's are specifically about pointing out to others where they are wrong/insensitive/racist/sexist/ableist/etc.. if they just kept to themselves then who would they persecute with their 'justice'?

mc32 11y ago

For me having different subs with different moderation policies, etc., satisfies both sides of people's needs. People who want to be civil and interact with other civil people have their subreddits, people who want to engage in uncivility also have their subreddits. I don't see the problem. Here is what I have noticed. I like forums where people can voice opposing opinions even be unkind but not vile. But I accept that some forums do harbor people who like being vile, either as a persona or their true selves. I avoid those forums/groups/subreddits. Also, at times some of the offensive people do have great knowledge in their area of expertise, but otherwise can be very offputting and vile. Despite that, I want to be able to have those voices. Certainly I don't want to have them sprinkled all over. So, for as long as they can exist in predictable places and can be sought out or avoided, I'm for that. If push came to shove, I'd have to allow it all over and just have to dig through the noise. The reason is I don't want proscribed forums. The problems are group-think, shaming, socio-forming, brainwashing. And you can bring out examples of things we want to eradicate, say ideas about terrorism (killing and raping other people indiscriminately or discriminately, as it were) but the thing is there are slippery slopes, grey areas and social movements of the day. Ideas and preferences change over time. I want to allow all those voices, no matter how offensive to be expressed --I don't have to like those ideas. I'm sure I would have a very visceral reaction to most the monsters on hateful forums, but yet, I think there is value in not shutting that off. That said, reddit has the authority, obviously, to do whatever they like with their platform.

learning_still 11y ago

1. I don't think you actually know what a sociopath is. Slapping labels you don't understand on people you don't like is never going to solve your problems. 2. And are you seriously pulling the "cyber bullying" card here? 3. Since when is this a discussion about swatting? The case seems pretty clear to me. You are free to create any subreddit you see fit, and moderate it however you wish. Why should every existing subreddit be forced to conform to your personal sensitivities? Just go make your own subreddit.

mc32 11y ago

There are all kinds of subs on reddit, ones with anything goes as well as curated ones. If you like civil talk only head on over there, if you like uncivil conversation, head over there. There is no reason they can't coexist, just not in the same sub. Physical harm is a crime. Some speech is a tort. Very limited aspects of speech are a crime (doxing, some bullying) but aside from those forms, I think it's disingenuous to want to control people's thoughts, no matter how ridiculous. Climate change deniers are laughably wrong, by the vast majority of accounts and evidence _however_ I would not want them silenced just because they are in the wrong on their opinion or facts. I do not agree with that. I am glad that reddit, for the most part, has not greatly changed their stand on speech. I understand they have commercial concerns and need to bow to those pressures, but I am glad they allow, by and large, the full spectrum of humanity and inhumanity.