10 ms·

“While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people w

“While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/promoting-hate-based-identity-or https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/acc...

vageli 6y ago
> “While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” The majority where? I can't find any specifics on what the majority qualifier is applied to (ex: the community in which the speech occurs, the geographic community of the user, etc).
- zozbot234 6y ago
  It's even worse than that. People can honestly disagree about whether the term "racism" accurately describes something or whatever, but that's a far cry from actively condoning ("..this rule does not protect...") the whipping up of hate towards a majority of the population. The internet is full of nihilists and misanthropes who genuinely hate everyone and everything - I'm sure they can't wait to abuse this weakness in every way they can possibly think of. All for teh lulz, of course.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  I’m guessing the whole thing is very USA centric, and they haven’t really thought through the implications of having users from across the world.
champagneben 6y ago
In the majority... in the United States?
naasking 6y ago
> “While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. And yet, majority/minority are regional properties. How do you know a redditor's region in order to moderate their comment appropriately? Or are reddit employee regions the only ones that matter? It's clearly a farce. Majority/minority status is a red herring. It's used only to enable reddit and mods to selectively apply the rules for their own ends. The fact is, it's unethical to call any race sub-human, regardless of whether the majority shares your views.
- nordsieck 6y ago
  > So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression. Of course, many people disagree with this definition.
  - naasking 6y ago
    > According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression. Which is silly on its face. If two opposing races that hated each other held equal power, they might not be able to get the upper hand on the other, but they still hate each other solely on the basis of race. Is this the "non-racist" utopia they're after?
  - logarhythmic 6y ago
    I don't know how widespread this belief is but I personally know people who believe this and it seems to be only spreading in the current heavily polarized environment. It is truly astonishing to witness
  - rayiner 6y ago
    What does “academia” have to do with anything?
ars 6y ago
> For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority Are they serious? So basically racism is OK as long as it's toward people who are the majority?
- syshum 6y ago
  Reddit adopts the "Prejudice + Power" definition of racism, not the actual definition of racism
  - jimclegg 6y ago
    Reddit's definition seems more contextual, it weighs the dynamics of current economic, cultural, institutional, etc... racism Here is the Oxford dictionary definition: "The inability or refusal to recognize the rights, needs, dignity, or value of people of particular races or geographical origins. More widely, the devaluation of various traits of character or intelligence as ‘typical’ of particular peoples. The category of race may itself be challenged, as implying an inference from trivial superficial differences of appearance to allegedly significant underlying differences of nature; increasingly evolutionary evidence suggests that the dispersal of one original people into different geographical locations is a relatively recent and genetically insignificant matter."
- rjohnk 6y ago
  If you look at academic definitions, yes, often they will state racism is from the majority to the minority. It is rather odd.
  - TravHatesMe 6y ago
    I don't understand this. For all of my life I thought racism = discrimination against someone due to their race. In the same way that sexist = discrimination against someone due to their sex. Ageist = discrimination against someone due to their age. Is this not the clear cut definition anymore? At what point did it diverge?
    - 6y ago
castlecrasher2 6y ago
Got it, so racism against Asians is the go-to now /s
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Darmody 6y ago
I've commented about this on HN earlier. Censorship will end up swallowing us all. Now I guess it's ok to hate me as I'm part of several majorities and people seems to like it. What am I supposed to do now? Hate myself? Allow others to discriminate me? Make a blind eye to those who think it's ok to hate me?

vageli 6y ago

> “While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” The majority where? I can't find any specifics on what the majority qualifier is applied to (ex: the community in which the speech occurs, the geographic community of the user, etc).

zozbot234 6y ago
It's even worse than that. People can honestly disagree about whether the term "racism" accurately describes something or whatever, but that's a far cry from actively condoning ("..this rule does not protect...") the whipping up of hate towards a majority of the population. The internet is full of nihilists and misanthropes who genuinely hate everyone and everything - I'm sure they can't wait to abuse this weakness in every way they can possibly think of. All for teh lulz, of course.
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
I’m guessing the whole thing is very USA centric, and they haven’t really thought through the implications of having users from across the world.

champagneben 6y ago

In the majority... in the United States?

naasking 6y ago

> “While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. And yet, majority/minority are regional properties. How do you know a redditor's region in order to moderate their comment appropriately? Or are reddit employee regions the only ones that matter? It's clearly a farce. Majority/minority status is a red herring. It's used only to enable reddit and mods to selectively apply the rules for their own ends. The fact is, it's unethical to call any race sub-human, regardless of whether the majority shares your views.

nordsieck 6y ago
> So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression. Of course, many people disagree with this definition.
- naasking 6y ago
  > According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression. Which is silly on its face. If two opposing races that hated each other held equal power, they might not be able to get the upper hand on the other, but they still hate each other solely on the basis of race. Is this the "non-racist" utopia they're after?
- logarhythmic 6y ago
  I don't know how widespread this belief is but I personally know people who believe this and it seems to be only spreading in the current heavily polarized environment. It is truly astonishing to witness
- rayiner 6y ago
  What does “academia” have to do with anything?

ars 6y ago

> For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority Are they serious? So basically racism is OK as long as it's toward people who are the majority?

syshum 6y ago
Reddit adopts the "Prejudice + Power" definition of racism, not the actual definition of racism
- jimclegg 6y ago
  Reddit's definition seems more contextual, it weighs the dynamics of current economic, cultural, institutional, etc... racism Here is the Oxford dictionary definition: "The inability or refusal to recognize the rights, needs, dignity, or value of people of particular races or geographical origins. More widely, the devaluation of various traits of character or intelligence as ‘typical’ of particular peoples. The category of race may itself be challenged, as implying an inference from trivial superficial differences of appearance to allegedly significant underlying differences of nature; increasingly evolutionary evidence suggests that the dispersal of one original people into different geographical locations is a relatively recent and genetically insignificant matter."
rjohnk 6y ago
If you look at academic definitions, yes, often they will state racism is from the majority to the minority. It is rather odd.
- TravHatesMe 6y ago
  I don't understand this. For all of my life I thought racism = discrimination against someone due to their race. In the same way that sexist = discrimination against someone due to their sex. Ageist = discrimination against someone due to their age. Is this not the clear cut definition anymore? At what point did it diverge?
  - 6y ago

castlecrasher2 6y ago

Got it, so racism against Asians is the go-to now /s

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Darmody 6y ago

I've commented about this on HN earlier. Censorship will end up swallowing us all. Now I guess it's ok to hate me as I'm part of several majorities and people seems to like it. What am I supposed to do now? Hate myself? Allow others to discriminate me? Make a blind eye to those who think it's ok to hate me?