4 ms·

Yup, thanks for linking this. These allegations seem quite serious, and contra claims by TD users on that subreddit, they actually go far beyond what we've seen

Yup, thanks for linking this. These allegations seem quite serious, and contra claims by TD users on that subreddit, they actually go far beyond what we've seen on leftist, socialist etc. subs wrt. hostility towards police. (I've also seen some allegations that The_Donald's custom CSS was being used to hide/disguise the "report" links that are normally used to flag rules-violating comments - if so, this is clearly backfiring for them right now!) It's easy to say "T_D is toxic, blah blah" but this sort of extreme rhetoric is on a wholly different level that really wasn't there before.

empath75 7y ago
tbh i'd be okay with quarantining chapo trap house too
- favorited 7y ago
  At least it's not as insufferable as /r/s4p (and really all of /r/politics) during the '16 primaries.
basch 7y ago
Dont you think "hostility towards police" and "violence against police officers" as phrases themselves are purposely under contextualizing whats going on, in a biased sort of way? 'A worldwide community supporting the violent threats of local militia backing their civilly disobedient politicians efforts to evade the government use of police force to mandate participation and speech' is a super interesting power dynamics story. Whos the oppressor in this story, government use of police force, militia chaos, insubordinate politicians holding process hostage? Is the use of police FORCE to strong arm their votes itself violence? Shouldnt people be banned for supporting police force? To Godwin's law this topic, would reddit choose to ban advocating prisoner violence towards auschwitz guards, in their efforts to escape? Would the rebels be banned for advocating destruction of the empire and violence towards storm troopers? It doesnt seem like there is a line drawn anywhere, it does appear arbitrary, or biased against violence they disagree with. The actual policy seems more like "ban what gets us bad press." If the rules were enforced consistently, rap music would be banned. I'm not pretending there are easy answers, even the supreme court has been looking at whether rap music is artistic or a credible threat, maybe they arent mutually exclusive. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/us/politics/supreme-court-rap-music.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/us/politics/supreme-court...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- bduerst 7y ago
  Comparing the commentators calling for violence on the_donald to holocaust victims is both a stretch and a minimization of what the holocaust victims actually went through. Having a subreddit be quarantined is not the same as being under threat of genocide. You are complaining about phrases that are purposely under contextualizing what's going on, but then go on to commit the same thing in your third paragraph by contextualizing it to the holocaust.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - basch 7y ago
    I didnt make that comparison. I dont know how you took from my comment what you did. The Commentators and victims are not analogous at all, they arent even the same part of the anlogy. I brought up two similar but different types of speech, observers advocating violence towards oppressive authority. If this were an elementary school analogy, prisoners would be the militia not the reddit commentators. The guards and police are both blindly following government orders, whether those orders are right or wrong. Is advocating violence wrong regardless of if the target of said violence is behaving morally or immorally? The topic at hand is where reddit does (or doesnt) draw the line of acceptable speech regarding advocating violence.

empath75 7y ago

tbh i'd be okay with quarantining chapo trap house too

favorited 7y ago
At least it's not as insufferable as /r/s4p (and really all of /r/politics) during the '16 primaries.

basch 7y ago

Dont you think "hostility towards police" and "violence against police officers" as phrases themselves are purposely under contextualizing whats going on, in a biased sort of way? 'A worldwide community supporting the violent threats of local militia backing their civilly disobedient politicians efforts to evade the government use of police force to mandate participation and speech' is a super interesting power dynamics story. Whos the oppressor in this story, government use of police force, militia chaos, insubordinate politicians holding process hostage? Is the use of police FORCE to strong arm their votes itself violence? Shouldnt people be banned for supporting police force? To Godwin's law this topic, would reddit choose to ban advocating prisoner violence towards auschwitz guards, in their efforts to escape? Would the rebels be banned for advocating destruction of the empire and violence towards storm troopers? It doesnt seem like there is a line drawn anywhere, it does appear arbitrary, or biased against violence they disagree with. The actual policy seems more like "ban what gets us bad press." If the rules were enforced consistently, rap music would be banned. I'm not pretending there are easy answers, even the supreme court has been looking at whether rap music is artistic or a credible threat, maybe they arent mutually exclusive. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/us/politics/supreme-court-rap-music.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/us/politics/supreme-court...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bduerst 7y ago
Comparing the commentators calling for violence on the_donald to holocaust victims is both a stretch and a minimization of what the holocaust victims actually went through. Having a subreddit be quarantined is not the same as being under threat of genocide. You are complaining about phrases that are purposely under contextualizing what's going on, but then go on to commit the same thing in your third paragraph by contextualizing it to the holocaust.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- basch 7y ago
  I didnt make that comparison. I dont know how you took from my comment what you did. The Commentators and victims are not analogous at all, they arent even the same part of the anlogy. I brought up two similar but different types of speech, observers advocating violence towards oppressive authority. If this were an elementary school analogy, prisoners would be the militia not the reddit commentators. The guards and police are both blindly following government orders, whether those orders are right or wrong. Is advocating violence wrong regardless of if the target of said violence is behaving morally or immorally? The topic at hand is where reddit does (or doesnt) draw the line of acceptable speech regarding advocating violence.