6 ms·

T_D was chock full of calls for violence since its early days. In particular, I remember looking one day and seeing its whole front page covered in posts glorif

T_D was chock full of calls for violence since its early days. In particular, I remember looking one day and seeing its whole front page covered in posts glorifying Pinochet for the way he treated his domestic enemies. The mods quite clearly had no good faith interest in keeping this kind of content out, only stepping in (except to ban users going against the narrative) when they were threatened from above. I am mystified by how often I see the opinion that "T_D did nothing wrong". Speaking as someone who also finds the far-left spaces on Reddit frightening and repugnant, there is no question that T_D was among the worst of the lot and had the most mainstream reach, which makes it a fine target for responsible moderation efforts. If you want to question why Reddit doesn't follow their content policies to the letter in perfectly even-handed moderation across all users and subreddits, that's fine, but the claim that T_D didn't have a serious penchant for calling for and glorifying violence kind of makes it difficult to take that question seriously coming from you.

throwaway829 6y ago
Similar to how leftists promoted the "punch a nazi in the face" meme'. They will of course be the ones defining who is a "nazi".
- igetspam 6y ago
  Nazi is pretty well defined, as are incel, redpill, boogaloo bois, etc. If you are part of one of those clubs and decide to exercise your right to free speech (which is your right), suffering the consequences should be expected. Consequences may include social sanctions and violent reactions. People react to speech. That's natural.
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe two contradictory concepts held simultaneously. Something like this: >Consequences may include social sanctions and violent reactions. >exercise your right to free speech (which is your right) Orwell wasn't describing an ideal or inevitable way of thinking, but the result of brainwashing. Now. When people say that free speech only applies to government restrictions, they're talking strictly in the context of U.S. laws and the First Amendment. Surely we should never consider the possibility that freedom of expression is a concept that predates the United States by centuries and which could possibly live in a grander moral context.
    - ebg13 6y ago
      > Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe two contradictory concepts held simultaneously. Something like this: > >Consequences may include social sanctions and violent reactions. > >exercise your right to free speech (which is your right) This is a false assessment. The fundamental government-blind right to speech does not include a right to group inclusion. There's nothing contradictory about you having the right to speak while other people also have the right to sanction you for spreading hateful (or in this case sophistrous) bullshit. After all, social sanctions are also a form of speech. This comes up in all kinds of ways. It's not contradictory to have moral rules against violence while also allowing self defense or group defense. It's not contradictory to have moral rules against stealing while also allowing recovery of stolen property or government redistribution of wealth as a requirement for participation in the benefits of society. And it's not contradictory to have moral rules in favor of speech and against hate while also allowing the community to punch a nazi in the face for being a nazi.
      - newacct583 6y ago
        To wit: the Freedom of Association enshrined in the first amendment includes the right to tell someone else to fuck right off.
        mancerayder 6y ago
        Telling someone to fuck off is fine. If we're talking about Reddit and some group that goes around spamming other subreddits, that's a different topic than the "punch a Nazi in the face" meme that repeats itself among the Orwellian types who see no problem. Threatening someone by punching them in the face or social ostracism (which can range from discomfort to job loss) is a restriction of freedom of expression. That today people can talk about that casually while in the same breath saying that they support freedom of expression is deeply disturbing. "You don't HAVE to hand over your money to me right now. But, hey, there might be consequences..." - no one would argue that this coercion and a robbery. But "If you say the wrong thing there might be consequences in your job or life" is somehow getting a free pass.
- ssully 6y ago
  I mean, the punch a nazi in the face meme was spawned by a self defined nazi being punched in the face. I am not surprised you a using a throwaway to defend this.
- deanCommie 6y ago
  Your slippery slope arguments won't go very far when there are Literal Actual Nazis out there making comments about Jews, flying swastikas, and heiling Donald.
  - postphoned 6y ago
    >Literal Actual Nazis out there making comments about Jews, flying swastikas, and heiling Donald. >Jews Then who are the infamous '1%' Occupy decries? >flying swastikas Sounds more like edgy teenager. >heiling Donald. A 'Literal Actual Nazis' as you call it wouldn't heil 'Zion Don' in the first place. See 'MIGA' (Make Israel Great Again) https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=MIGA https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=MIGA So either there aren't that many of those 'Literal Actual Nazis' out there or you fail to identify them correctly.
- zacharycohn 6y ago
  People have the right to free speech - which means the _government_ can not tell them what they cannot say. It doesn't mean they can exercise that right free of consequences from society or businesses.
- caconym_ 6y ago
  I feel like my comment is fairly explicit about it being fair to question how Reddit's banhammer has or has not come down against other communities, so I fail to see the relevance of this whataboutism. The point is that T_D has loudly and repeatedly glorified and called for violence, so if someone claims otherwise then the conversation really ought to end there. Adherence to outright falsehoods precludes one's ability to meaningfully participate in any nuanced discussion.
- magila 6y ago
  The one that scares me a lot more is how many people I've seen promoting another Reign of Terror (e.g. we should bring back the guillotine) with no hint of sarcasm. I can only wonder just how serious they are and if they realize just how unpleasant that period was for the French (not just the rich and powerful).

throwaway829 6y ago

Similar to how leftists promoted the "punch a nazi in the face" meme'. They will of course be the ones defining who is a "nazi".

igetspam 6y ago
Nazi is pretty well defined, as are incel, redpill, boogaloo bois, etc. If you are part of one of those clubs and decide to exercise your right to free speech (which is your right), suffering the consequences should be expected. Consequences may include social sanctions and violent reactions. People react to speech. That's natural.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe two contradictory concepts held simultaneously. Something like this: >Consequences may include social sanctions and violent reactions. >exercise your right to free speech (which is your right) Orwell wasn't describing an ideal or inevitable way of thinking, but the result of brainwashing. Now. When people say that free speech only applies to government restrictions, they're talking strictly in the context of U.S. laws and the First Amendment. Surely we should never consider the possibility that freedom of expression is a concept that predates the United States by centuries and which could possibly live in a grander moral context.
  - ebg13 6y ago
    > Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe two contradictory concepts held simultaneously. Something like this: > >Consequences may include social sanctions and violent reactions. > >exercise your right to free speech (which is your right) This is a false assessment. The fundamental government-blind right to speech does not include a right to group inclusion. There's nothing contradictory about you having the right to speak while other people also have the right to sanction you for spreading hateful (or in this case sophistrous) bullshit. After all, social sanctions are also a form of speech. This comes up in all kinds of ways. It's not contradictory to have moral rules against violence while also allowing self defense or group defense. It's not contradictory to have moral rules against stealing while also allowing recovery of stolen property or government redistribution of wealth as a requirement for participation in the benefits of society. And it's not contradictory to have moral rules in favor of speech and against hate while also allowing the community to punch a nazi in the face for being a nazi.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      To wit: the Freedom of Association enshrined in the first amendment includes the right to tell someone else to fuck right off.
      - mancerayder 6y ago
        Telling someone to fuck off is fine. If we're talking about Reddit and some group that goes around spamming other subreddits, that's a different topic than the "punch a Nazi in the face" meme that repeats itself among the Orwellian types who see no problem. Threatening someone by punching them in the face or social ostracism (which can range from discomfort to job loss) is a restriction of freedom of expression. That today people can talk about that casually while in the same breath saying that they support freedom of expression is deeply disturbing. "You don't HAVE to hand over your money to me right now. But, hey, there might be consequences..." - no one would argue that this coercion and a robbery. But "If you say the wrong thing there might be consequences in your job or life" is somehow getting a free pass.
ssully 6y ago
I mean, the punch a nazi in the face meme was spawned by a self defined nazi being punched in the face. I am not surprised you a using a throwaway to defend this.
deanCommie 6y ago
Your slippery slope arguments won't go very far when there are Literal Actual Nazis out there making comments about Jews, flying swastikas, and heiling Donald.
- postphoned 6y ago
  >Literal Actual Nazis out there making comments about Jews, flying swastikas, and heiling Donald. >Jews Then who are the infamous '1%' Occupy decries? >flying swastikas Sounds more like edgy teenager. >heiling Donald. A 'Literal Actual Nazis' as you call it wouldn't heil 'Zion Don' in the first place. See 'MIGA' (Make Israel Great Again) https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=MIGA https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=MIGA So either there aren't that many of those 'Literal Actual Nazis' out there or you fail to identify them correctly.
zacharycohn 6y ago
People have the right to free speech - which means the _government_ can not tell them what they cannot say. It doesn't mean they can exercise that right free of consequences from society or businesses.
caconym_ 6y ago
I feel like my comment is fairly explicit about it being fair to question how Reddit's banhammer has or has not come down against other communities, so I fail to see the relevance of this whataboutism. The point is that T_D has loudly and repeatedly glorified and called for violence, so if someone claims otherwise then the conversation really ought to end there. Adherence to outright falsehoods precludes one's ability to meaningfully participate in any nuanced discussion.
magila 6y ago
The one that scares me a lot more is how many people I've seen promoting another Reign of Terror (e.g. we should bring back the guillotine) with no hint of sarcasm. I can only wonder just how serious they are and if they realize just how unpleasant that period was for the French (not just the rich and powerful).