5 ms·

Look at /r/politics right now, or any day of the week. Good luck finding one article that isn't about how Trump is literally Hitler. Whether you agree with it o

by Pigo 9y ago

Look at /r/politics right now, or any day of the week. Good luck finding one article that isn't about how Trump is literally Hitler. Whether you agree with it or not, I don't see how anyone can say it doesn't have an agenda.

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
Or maybe he's an example of incompetence; creating national and international gaffs literally every day. Refusing to normalize his behavior isn't a devious agenda when it's that behavior that has paralyzed the government such that there isn't anything else to report on.
- Pigo 9y ago
  Well, that does make sense that it's a daily story to you if you think that way. I just wish the people who do think this could understand how tiresome it is to see every story infused with a Trump angle. Like this Al Franken story for example, there are no posts about the topic that don't focus on the Trump accusations foremost. Why can't it be examined by itself?
  - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
    What would you have it focus on: Franken's need to apologize (he did that), status of the victim's case (she accepted the apology and dropped it), need for an ethics probe (Franken proposed one)? The only thing left of interest in this story (beyond the general theme of institutionalized sexism; which let's be fair isn't going to generate conductive discussion online) is the marked difference to how this was handled in comparison to how Trump, Moore, et al have chosen to conduct themselves.
    - Pigo 9y ago
      I just used it as an example. I'm not even that interested in it honestly. But when I brought this up it was the first day of the scandal, and you're saying it'd already been talked about enough that we needed to "move on" to remembering that the President has had accusers too? Maybe things just move too fast for me.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Because nothing happens in a vacuum. How would it be fair if Franken were to be held accountable (which he should be, absolutely), but Trump not?
untog 9y ago
If a group of users come together and upvote content they individually agree with, is it "an agenda", or is it "consensus"? Unless I missed something, there's nothing inherent in /r/politics that requires it to be a dispassionate collection of links that represent all sides of the political spectrum. Don't get me wrong, it's a pit of human misery that I've long since removed from my subreddit list, but it's what users want it to be.
- revmoo 9y ago
  > If a group of users come together and upvote content they individually agree with, is it "an agenda", or is it "consensus"? Shareblue literally pays staffers to post content there en-masse...
- validationerror 9y ago
  It's agenda, specifically agenda set by the moderators in /r/politics, who have created the current far-left & anti-Trump circlejerk by banning conservative and right-wing posters. I've been using Reddit for over a decade now and while in the first couple of years it was totally possible to discuss even politically incorrect topics in most subreddits, over the past years you get banned for all kinds of nonsense simply because many of the moderators are a sensitive bunch and very biased. I'd say it started to get really bad in that regard about 5 years ago and has increased exponentially during the last US election. Try having a discussion about genetics, race and intelligence, crime statistics, feminism and "women's issues", sexism or something of that order on Reddit these days - it's downright impossible, no matter how civil the discussion being held is or how much you back your arguments up with scientific studies and facts. In every mainstream or larger sub that's not specifically meant to be "politically incorrect" you'll get banned for "bigotry" or "racism" or "sexism" or other such nonsense if you don't agree with the popular leftist narratives. In some of the right-wing oriented subs you get banned for being a "cuck" or such nonsense. Entering the mainstream has largely ruined Reddit as a discussion platform as far as I'm concerned. I only engage in the programming / tech related subs these days.

by Pigo 9y ago

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago

Or maybe he's an example of incompetence; creating national and international gaffs literally every day. Refusing to normalize his behavior isn't a devious agenda when it's that behavior that has paralyzed the government such that there isn't anything else to report on.

Pigo 9y ago
Well, that does make sense that it's a daily story to you if you think that way. I just wish the people who do think this could understand how tiresome it is to see every story infused with a Trump angle. Like this Al Franken story for example, there are no posts about the topic that don't focus on the Trump accusations foremost. Why can't it be examined by itself?
- lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
  What would you have it focus on: Franken's need to apologize (he did that), status of the victim's case (she accepted the apology and dropped it), need for an ethics probe (Franken proposed one)? The only thing left of interest in this story (beyond the general theme of institutionalized sexism; which let's be fair isn't going to generate conductive discussion online) is the marked difference to how this was handled in comparison to how Trump, Moore, et al have chosen to conduct themselves.
  - Pigo 9y ago
    I just used it as an example. I'm not even that interested in it honestly. But when I brought this up it was the first day of the scandal, and you're saying it'd already been talked about enough that we needed to "move on" to remembering that the President has had accusers too? Maybe things just move too fast for me.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Because nothing happens in a vacuum. How would it be fair if Franken were to be held accountable (which he should be, absolutely), but Trump not?

untog 9y ago

If a group of users come together and upvote content they individually agree with, is it "an agenda", or is it "consensus"? Unless I missed something, there's nothing inherent in /r/politics that requires it to be a dispassionate collection of links that represent all sides of the political spectrum. Don't get me wrong, it's a pit of human misery that I've long since removed from my subreddit list, but it's what users want it to be.

revmoo 9y ago
> If a group of users come together and upvote content they individually agree with, is it "an agenda", or is it "consensus"? Shareblue literally pays staffers to post content there en-masse...
validationerror 9y ago
It's agenda, specifically agenda set by the moderators in /r/politics, who have created the current far-left & anti-Trump circlejerk by banning conservative and right-wing posters. I've been using Reddit for over a decade now and while in the first couple of years it was totally possible to discuss even politically incorrect topics in most subreddits, over the past years you get banned for all kinds of nonsense simply because many of the moderators are a sensitive bunch and very biased. I'd say it started to get really bad in that regard about 5 years ago and has increased exponentially during the last US election. Try having a discussion about genetics, race and intelligence, crime statistics, feminism and "women's issues", sexism or something of that order on Reddit these days - it's downright impossible, no matter how civil the discussion being held is or how much you back your arguments up with scientific studies and facts. In every mainstream or larger sub that's not specifically meant to be "politically incorrect" you'll get banned for "bigotry" or "racism" or "sexism" or other such nonsense if you don't agree with the popular leftist narratives. In some of the right-wing oriented subs you get banned for being a "cuck" or such nonsense. Entering the mainstream has largely ruined Reddit as a discussion platform as far as I'm concerned. I only engage in the programming / tech related subs these days.