7 ms·

It is worth noting that voat didnt start out as particularly alt right, it's just that's now probably the majority of what is left. The site is totally committ

It is worth noting that voat didnt start out as particularly alt right, it's just that's now probably the majority of what is left. The site is totally committed to free speech, and even the Dark Web will allow paedophiles, hit men, and every type of criminal, but collaborated to push off an alt right page. In other words, it doesn't appear to be any agenda of Voat, it's just a fact that any site which allows free speech is where those people will end up.

std_throwaway 9y ago
Voat used to be a "best of Reddit" reposting page with some spicy free speech here and there. Now it seems to be an echo cabinet for the so-called alt-right with the same sermon reposted all day every day.
- kakarot 9y ago
  I don't mean to nitpick, but if you don't think the "alt-right" should be labeled as such then maybe you shouldn't use it in your vocabulary, as it only strengthens the presence of the word in our society regardless of if you say "so-called" before it.
stevenwoo 9y ago
Isn't that kind of what this is about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- mejin 9y ago
  How does that make sense? If a culture is tolerant and somewhat smart they can add tolerance to their constitution. By doing so they will both allow tolerance and not have to worry about anyone (tolerant people or not) taking away their "ability" to tolerate.
  - stevenwoo 9y ago
    The wiki summary is if one lets intolerant people rise to power, they use their power to implement intolerant policies, eliminating the ability of the tolerant to change things back. One always has to worry even in a democracy, for instance here one party manipulated the voting system so even though they only got 49 percent of the votes in the election, they got 60% of the representation in the state legislature. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/us/politics/prominent-republicans-urge-supreme-court-to-end-gerrymandering.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/us/politics/prominent-rep... You can take the absolutist free speech argument that some in the US make from the first amendment (you write later down that English is not your native language) but Germany seems to be going OK banning Nazi speech/symbols.
  - likeslogic 9y ago
    Let's say in a 100% tolerant society a group that is intolerant of every other group comes into existence. They just operate by the credo - you're either with us, or the enemy, and all enemies must be destroyed. No further logic can be applied (they may even declare all logic as one of the enemies). Now if as a society you tolerate them without the use of force, they will try to destroy everyone else who is not part of the their group. Effectively, all tolerance will be eliminated. The only way you could prevent this from happening is if you are prepared to contain such a group one way or the other. Or allow other people to not tolerate them by using force too. Either way you void your tolerance tenet. Have to admit - it is indeed a paradox.
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      This would only work assuming such a group could gain enough power to overthrow local PD and eventually the US military, etc., which is kind of unrealistic for an group that is not supported by a majority of the population. The wikipedia page on this notes people dispute this idea, sourcing John Rawls as a notable example.
      - likeslogic 9y ago
        Not really. A little further is this - "However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."[2][3]"
- specialist 9y ago
  Huh. I hadn't considered that 4chan, voat, others were petri dish incubators for the alt-right. I'd really like someone (sociologists) to update Paradox of Tolerance with what we've learned about the Overton Window, the normalization of hate speech (violent rhetoric). David Neiwert (Orcinus) has deeply influenced (completely changed) my positions on tolerance, free speech. As I've stated else where, I used to be a Chomsky style ultimatist for free speech. Alas, people aren't nice. Now I know that how we talk changes how we think, that propaganda works, that most people aren't even aware of when they've changed their mind. http://dneiwert.blogspot.com http://dneiwert.blogspot.com https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&text=David+Neiwert&search-alias=books&field-author=David+Neiwert&sort=relevancerank https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&tex...
austenallred 9y ago
While that may be true, it truly gained popularity when Reddit started banning "hate" and other "inappropriate" subreddits, so it became the refugee for those folks
- nthcolumn 9y ago
  I was on digg but stopped using the site as it was overrun by pedos and not wanting to be associated with child-rapists I was part of the reddit-exodus. Reddit was even worse than digg, still is. I complained about violentacres and his ilk to no avail. I gave up using the site 1009 days ago. I cannot understand how anyone would use a site that does not harshly punish anyone like that or want to be associated with such a site in any way.
  - Semaphor 9y ago
    > or want to be associated with such a site in any way. Because I see it the same way as if you replaced Reddit with Usenet or Internet in your comment. Reddit is a platform where I care and am active only in a very small part of it.
    - nthcolumn 9y ago
      Reddit is a business. I don't support businesses that facilitate child rape forums. You do. That's how we are different. Other businesses should not suffer for what Reddit does so I use the internet, on usenet other providers likewise, on reddit you all share the blame because you support the same business. I can't tell myself I'm only using this tiny part and those nasty people aren't anything to do with me because it's bullshit, or to provide an extreme example - I don't think you'd use 'just the comments section' of 'Playpen' and be guilt free (or free outside jail). I think you conveniently ignore the fact that there are inappropriate images of children on the site not because you believe in free speech for pedos, you simply don't care enough. And no I don't think pedo sites are a free speech issue - there are things we will not tolerate nazis, pedos, being two of them. I can't believe I even have to have this conversation. I said HN had not succumbed, I should have said '...yet'.
nthcolumn 9y ago
My free speech/opinion: >and even the Dark Web will allow paedophiles, hit men, and every type of criminal alt-right? Why don't you call them what they are - Nazis and fascists. They are lowest of all these. There is probably strong overlap. Fascists think nobody should have any rights but themselves. The vigilantism/collaboration was made necessary by the alarming fact that the people who should have been doing something - authorities all the way up and including POTUS were tacitly sanctioning them, facilitating them, normalizing their behavior. They present a clear and present danger to the country and free speech. They still have their free speech, they can still cry on youtube. Daily Stormer was just one head of that hydra. If you know of any pedo, hit men or criminals then reach out to law enforcement and failing that publicly shame them so that the same can happen. None of the above should or will be tolerated.
- nextlevelwizard 9y ago
  >alt-right? Why don't you call them what they are - Nazis and fascists. Oh boy, here we go...
- kanwisher 9y ago
  How are they effecting free speech? It seems you are trying to take it away from people, by trying to call them nazis and getting rid of them. This group is probably way more free speech, their main enemy Antifa is specifically against free speech
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    >>by trying to call them nazis and getting rid of them. Uh, they are quite literally Nazis. They do the Nazi salute, carry/wear swastikas and yell "blood and soil". You may disagree with antifa but don't make the mistake of equating them with these losers.
    - nextlevelwizard 9y ago
      The thing is, at the moment if you do not agree with Antifa/SJW crowd you are automatically labeled a Nazi even if you do not wear their symbols or chant any of their slogans. It is strange that on some groups people always say "not all", but with alt-right it is always "they are all Nazis".
skrowl 9y ago
4Chan and 8Chan are similar. Most online communities that lack the kind of heavy-handed censorship you find on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit will naturally end up being right-leaning.

std_throwaway 9y ago

Voat used to be a "best of Reddit" reposting page with some spicy free speech here and there. Now it seems to be an echo cabinet for the so-called alt-right with the same sermon reposted all day every day.

kakarot 9y ago
I don't mean to nitpick, but if you don't think the "alt-right" should be labeled as such then maybe you shouldn't use it in your vocabulary, as it only strengthens the presence of the word in our society regardless of if you say "so-called" before it.

stevenwoo 9y ago

Isn't that kind of what this is about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

mejin 9y ago
How does that make sense? If a culture is tolerant and somewhat smart they can add tolerance to their constitution. By doing so they will both allow tolerance and not have to worry about anyone (tolerant people or not) taking away their "ability" to tolerate.
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  The wiki summary is if one lets intolerant people rise to power, they use their power to implement intolerant policies, eliminating the ability of the tolerant to change things back. One always has to worry even in a democracy, for instance here one party manipulated the voting system so even though they only got 49 percent of the votes in the election, they got 60% of the representation in the state legislature. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/us/politics/prominent-republicans-urge-supreme-court-to-end-gerrymandering.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/us/politics/prominent-rep... You can take the absolutist free speech argument that some in the US make from the first amendment (you write later down that English is not your native language) but Germany seems to be going OK banning Nazi speech/symbols.
- likeslogic 9y ago
  Let's say in a 100% tolerant society a group that is intolerant of every other group comes into existence. They just operate by the credo - you're either with us, or the enemy, and all enemies must be destroyed. No further logic can be applied (they may even declare all logic as one of the enemies). Now if as a society you tolerate them without the use of force, they will try to destroy everyone else who is not part of the their group. Effectively, all tolerance will be eliminated. The only way you could prevent this from happening is if you are prepared to contain such a group one way or the other. Or allow other people to not tolerate them by using force too. Either way you void your tolerance tenet. Have to admit - it is indeed a paradox.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    This would only work assuming such a group could gain enough power to overthrow local PD and eventually the US military, etc., which is kind of unrealistic for an group that is not supported by a majority of the population. The wikipedia page on this notes people dispute this idea, sourcing John Rawls as a notable example.
    - likeslogic 9y ago
      Not really. A little further is this - "However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."[2][3]"
specialist 9y ago
Huh. I hadn't considered that 4chan, voat, others were petri dish incubators for the alt-right. I'd really like someone (sociologists) to update Paradox of Tolerance with what we've learned about the Overton Window, the normalization of hate speech (violent rhetoric). David Neiwert (Orcinus) has deeply influenced (completely changed) my positions on tolerance, free speech. As I've stated else where, I used to be a Chomsky style ultimatist for free speech. Alas, people aren't nice. Now I know that how we talk changes how we think, that propaganda works, that most people aren't even aware of when they've changed their mind. http://dneiwert.blogspot.com http://dneiwert.blogspot.com https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&text=David+Neiwert&search-alias=books&field-author=David+Neiwert&sort=relevancerank https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&tex...

austenallred 9y ago

While that may be true, it truly gained popularity when Reddit started banning "hate" and other "inappropriate" subreddits, so it became the refugee for those folks

nthcolumn 9y ago
I was on digg but stopped using the site as it was overrun by pedos and not wanting to be associated with child-rapists I was part of the reddit-exodus. Reddit was even worse than digg, still is. I complained about violentacres and his ilk to no avail. I gave up using the site 1009 days ago. I cannot understand how anyone would use a site that does not harshly punish anyone like that or want to be associated with such a site in any way.
- Semaphor 9y ago
  > or want to be associated with such a site in any way. Because I see it the same way as if you replaced Reddit with Usenet or Internet in your comment. Reddit is a platform where I care and am active only in a very small part of it.
  - nthcolumn 9y ago
    Reddit is a business. I don't support businesses that facilitate child rape forums. You do. That's how we are different. Other businesses should not suffer for what Reddit does so I use the internet, on usenet other providers likewise, on reddit you all share the blame because you support the same business. I can't tell myself I'm only using this tiny part and those nasty people aren't anything to do with me because it's bullshit, or to provide an extreme example - I don't think you'd use 'just the comments section' of 'Playpen' and be guilt free (or free outside jail). I think you conveniently ignore the fact that there are inappropriate images of children on the site not because you believe in free speech for pedos, you simply don't care enough. And no I don't think pedo sites are a free speech issue - there are things we will not tolerate nazis, pedos, being two of them. I can't believe I even have to have this conversation. I said HN had not succumbed, I should have said '...yet'.

nthcolumn 9y ago

My free speech/opinion: >and even the Dark Web will allow paedophiles, hit men, and every type of criminal alt-right? Why don't you call them what they are - Nazis and fascists. They are lowest of all these. There is probably strong overlap. Fascists think nobody should have any rights but themselves. The vigilantism/collaboration was made necessary by the alarming fact that the people who should have been doing something - authorities all the way up and including POTUS were tacitly sanctioning them, facilitating them, normalizing their behavior. They present a clear and present danger to the country and free speech. They still have their free speech, they can still cry on youtube. Daily Stormer was just one head of that hydra. If you know of any pedo, hit men or criminals then reach out to law enforcement and failing that publicly shame them so that the same can happen. None of the above should or will be tolerated.

nextlevelwizard 9y ago
>alt-right? Why don't you call them what they are - Nazis and fascists. Oh boy, here we go...
kanwisher 9y ago
How are they effecting free speech? It seems you are trying to take it away from people, by trying to call them nazis and getting rid of them. This group is probably way more free speech, their main enemy Antifa is specifically against free speech
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  >>by trying to call them nazis and getting rid of them. Uh, they are quite literally Nazis. They do the Nazi salute, carry/wear swastikas and yell "blood and soil". You may disagree with antifa but don't make the mistake of equating them with these losers.
  - nextlevelwizard 9y ago
    The thing is, at the moment if you do not agree with Antifa/SJW crowd you are automatically labeled a Nazi even if you do not wear their symbols or chant any of their slogans. It is strange that on some groups people always say "not all", but with alt-right it is always "they are all Nazis".

skrowl 9y ago

4Chan and 8Chan are similar. Most online communities that lack the kind of heavy-handed censorship you find on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit will naturally end up being right-leaning.