4 ms·
Your first paragraph describes subs like r/esist, r/againsthatesubreddits, r/fragilewhiteredditor, etc. They just don't do what many people would consider hate
by chipperyman573 6y ago
Your first paragraph describes subs like r/esist, r/againsthatesubreddits, r/fragilewhiteredditor, etc. They just don't do what many people would consider hate speech so they don't get banned. I think this highlights that while your goal many occur in parallel with banning hate speech in some cases, on its own it will not accomplish much because the same thing will just happen on whatever side nobody thinks is "spewing hate"
And fwiw, blocking these subs (and subs like r/trumpforpresident! You can block both sides this way) made me completely forget about them until this comment, which I think also shows that self moderation is a perfectly acceptable answer. Why can't everyone make their own bubble? Why do we have to let other people decide how our bubble looks?
- ausbah 6y agowhat a topsy turvy world to live in where calling out bigotry is equated with hate subs. maybe on the fronts of brigading or the like, but content wise I don't see how they're morally equivalent
- chipperyman573 6y agoGenerally the comments have pretty bad stuff in them, or at least they did before I blocked them.
- Veen 6y agoI'd agree the world is topsy-turvy when the New York Times thinks "are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins" is cool but a white guy wearing a sombrero is beyond the pale.
- AlexMax 6y agoWhat made you think I was talking about Trump? I just said "authoritarian".
- chipperyman573 6y agoNothing, these are just examples that all happen to involve Trump because it's reddit so everything controversial involves Trump
- AlexMax 6y agoI just found it strange that _all_ of the examples were anti-trump, especially when various conservative pro-trump subreddits were guilty of the exact same thing. And frankly, I'm A-OK with communities having heavy-handed moderation no matter what side of the aisle you're on. That's great! At least when you join those communities, you know what you're signing up for. But the trouble comes when you have lightly-moderated spaces that are targeted by authoritarian extremists with the explicit goal of trying to shift people's opinions. That's subterfuge, and lightly-moderated spaces are defenseless against it, since at point you either introduce moderation or throw up your hands and let the extremists win.
- chipperyman573 6y agoThree of the four examples I gave were anti trump because they happened to be at the top of my blocked list, probably because they were the first posts I was annoyed by. I also mentioned r/trumpforpresident. And in my opinion, your third paragrah applies even stronger to heavily moderated subreddits (/r/the_donald anyone?) because dissenting opinions are just removed. Unless this is super public and regularly discussed, oftentimes I find that it's easy to forget about and fall into the trap of thinking that everyone feels a certain way. Sure at first it is right in the front of your mind but eventually it fades away (at least, in my experience).
- AlexMax 6y agoOf all the problems that the_donald had, their exclusion of dissenting voices was not one of them. They made it abundantly clear what kind of sub it was, and I think even codified it in the rules. And I don't quite follow your second concern. Most of the time when I'm socializing I'm not in the mood for pseudo-anonymous debate club, I just want to talk to like-minded people about our shared hobbies. If I want dissenting opinions, I know where to find them.
- komali2 6y agoI've not seen any evidence of authoritarian trends in fragilewhiteredditor. I have seen many "but both sides" types try to fruitlessly argue that pointing out white racists are fragile is somehow in and of itself racist, but that is of course absurd.