5 ms·

The rules saying to treat other people like human beings?

djsumdog 6y ago
It's not just that. They're killing any contraction to a very very narrow narrative. Voat had a lot of bad design decisions that made it as bad as it is today (https://battlepenguin.com/tech/voat-what-went-wrong/ https://battlepenguin.com/tech/voat-what-went-wrong/). Reddit is turning into Voat. A lot of centrists and moderates that leaned a little right are leaving, and they're not going to come back this time to view one or two subs. Where Voat is a hard right cesspool of monothink, Reddit is soon going to be a hard left cesspool of monothink.
- freehunter 6y ago
  If centrists and right-leaning moderates are leaving because outright racism is banned, I would hesitate to say the people leaving are centrists and right-leaning moderates.
  - hindsightbias 6y ago
    So leaning right = racist. A certain candidate won a majority of white women and men voters and while it might be fun to write them all off as “outright” racists there is that little problem of the Electoral College. So might not be prudent to moderate with blow torches, at least until the new order is electorally established.
    - ganstyles 6y ago
      It sounds like that's not what the person to whom you're replying is saying. But your general point, shifted slightly, is correct: right wing is racist. I feel like I examine all sides and "lean right" or am moderate, and used to vote for people like Bush and McCain and Romney, but the right wing has become to polluted with racism and outright greed that I voted for Hillary last election and am spending considerable resources fighting the Republican party outright this election.
      - hindsightbias 6y ago
        Personally, I don’t think the right has changed one bit since Reagan went to Philadelphia Mississippi. They’re just simply more comfortable saying what they couldn’t say in public before and they finally have a candidate who is their real deal. But I would not be closing what channels are left for those who might be confused or naive. There are more important things than purity, and 2000 and 2016 prove that.
  - Reimersholme 6y ago
    Outright racism isn't banned. It's just banned if it's targeted towards minorities.
  - mst 6y ago
    There is a regular issue where once a particular forum tips beyond a certain point in either direction, you steadily start to lose people from the 'other side' who are well worth keeping but increasingly feel unwelcome. The SSC comments section suffered this in terms of tipping to the right, and Scott ended up stepping up enforcement of borderline-against-the-rules right wing posts and stepping down enforcement of borderline-against-the-rules left wing posts to try and avoid the discussion becoming completely one sided. It seems we aren't going to found out how well that would've worked in the long run, sadly.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  Yes. It's going to be hard-right misogynists and racists vs ... "hardcore not-hating-women and generally not caring too much about skin color, with extreme passion"? Less sarcastic: You're equating "conservatism" with "racism and misogyny". And while I tend to agree with that, the reverse does not work: not hating women, for example, does not make one a communist.
  - pochamago 6y ago
    You don't think specifically carving out an exception for hate speech against "the majority" is likely to embolden the far left?
  - deadgunslinger 6y ago
    "Not caring too much about skin colour" The people who only talk about skin colour and have brought it to the forefront of our collective thought, even for people who genuinely didn't think about skin colour. That made me laugh - hard.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    The following is an un-nuanced, sarcastic, flippant dismissal of left-wing arguments about racism. You can even guess from the URL what it's going to look like. https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/8etk0w/this_picture_is_racist_and_i_am_racist_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/8etk0w/this... It isn't a particularly reasonable criticism of honest intellectuals on the left. It's a completely accurate depiction of low-brow populist left-wing extremists, because they disregard the nuance of their own side's positions and just do the thing in the picture, and then use the conclusion to rationalize vicious hostility and censorship. The mirror image of irrationally hating members of the Blue Tribe isn't rationally hating no one, it's irrationally hating members of the Red Tribe.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Calling the hatred, gleeful love of violence, racism, and misogyny that characterises Voat "hard right" is a disservice to the right. And implying there is an equally awful and opposite thing on the left, and that Reddit will become it, is unrealistic. So their content rules are too strict - that's not an abominable evil.
  - nindalf 6y ago
    We are so used to viewing the world in binary that we need to find binary systems even when they don't exist. GP is one example of this - Voat is a cesspool of hate, the users mostly lean right. Therefore there has to be a counterpart on the left. Second example - Even though non-partisan metrics show that the Republican party have become more extreme with time, the need to be "neutral" makes it impossible to recognise that. Our need for binary means that we have to consider both sides as mirror images of each other even if they might not be. This video explains more - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mICxKmCjF-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mICxKmCjF-4
    - JohnBooty 6y ago
      Even though non-partisan metrics show that the Republican party have become more extreme with time, the need to be "neutral" makes it impossible to recognise that. Yes. Most of us generally have some sort of impulse to build consensus and seek some sort of middle ground. It's just a foundational aspect of social animals in general, I believe. That breaks down when you throw bad actors -- either because they are intentionally behaving in antisocial ways, or because they are profoundly detached from reality -- into the mix. For an example of the former, our impulse for consensus-building and compromise doesn't work if your buddy says "let's go murder ten people for no reason." It would not be a sane compromise to murder five people, or perhaps find ten people and beat them precisely halfway to death. For an example of the latter, there can be no compromise with certain pseudoscience beliefs. We can't compromise with flat-earthers and agree that the earth maybe is sort of an oblong, oval shape halfway between a sphere and a disk.
      - 6y ago

It's not just that. They're killing any contraction to a very very narrow narrative. Voat had a lot of bad design decisions that made it as bad as it is today (https://battlepenguin.com/tech/voat-what-went-wrong/ https://battlepenguin.com/tech/voat-what-went-wrong/). Reddit is turning into Voat. A lot of centrists and moderates that leaned a little right are leaving, and they're not going to come back this time to view one or two subs. Where Voat is a hard right cesspool of monothink, Reddit is soon going to be a hard left cesspool of monothink.

freehunter 6y ago
If centrists and right-leaning moderates are leaving because outright racism is banned, I would hesitate to say the people leaving are centrists and right-leaning moderates.
- hindsightbias 6y ago
  So leaning right = racist. A certain candidate won a majority of white women and men voters and while it might be fun to write them all off as “outright” racists there is that little problem of the Electoral College. So might not be prudent to moderate with blow torches, at least until the new order is electorally established.
  - ganstyles 6y ago
    It sounds like that's not what the person to whom you're replying is saying. But your general point, shifted slightly, is correct: right wing is racist. I feel like I examine all sides and "lean right" or am moderate, and used to vote for people like Bush and McCain and Romney, but the right wing has become to polluted with racism and outright greed that I voted for Hillary last election and am spending considerable resources fighting the Republican party outright this election.
    - hindsightbias 6y ago
      Personally, I don’t think the right has changed one bit since Reagan went to Philadelphia Mississippi. They’re just simply more comfortable saying what they couldn’t say in public before and they finally have a candidate who is their real deal. But I would not be closing what channels are left for those who might be confused or naive. There are more important things than purity, and 2000 and 2016 prove that.
- Reimersholme 6y ago
  Outright racism isn't banned. It's just banned if it's targeted towards minorities.
- mst 6y ago
  There is a regular issue where once a particular forum tips beyond a certain point in either direction, you steadily start to lose people from the 'other side' who are well worth keeping but increasingly feel unwelcome. The SSC comments section suffered this in terms of tipping to the right, and Scott ended up stepping up enforcement of borderline-against-the-rules right wing posts and stepping down enforcement of borderline-against-the-rules left wing posts to try and avoid the discussion becoming completely one sided. It seems we aren't going to found out how well that would've worked in the long run, sadly.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
Yes. It's going to be hard-right misogynists and racists vs ... "hardcore not-hating-women and generally not caring too much about skin color, with extreme passion"? Less sarcastic: You're equating "conservatism" with "racism and misogyny". And while I tend to agree with that, the reverse does not work: not hating women, for example, does not make one a communist.
- pochamago 6y ago
  You don't think specifically carving out an exception for hate speech against "the majority" is likely to embolden the far left?
- deadgunslinger 6y ago
  "Not caring too much about skin colour" The people who only talk about skin colour and have brought it to the forefront of our collective thought, even for people who genuinely didn't think about skin colour. That made me laugh - hard.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  The following is an un-nuanced, sarcastic, flippant dismissal of left-wing arguments about racism. You can even guess from the URL what it's going to look like. https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/8etk0w/this_picture_is_racist_and_i_am_racist_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/8etk0w/this... It isn't a particularly reasonable criticism of honest intellectuals on the left. It's a completely accurate depiction of low-brow populist left-wing extremists, because they disregard the nuance of their own side's positions and just do the thing in the picture, and then use the conclusion to rationalize vicious hostility and censorship. The mirror image of irrationally hating members of the Blue Tribe isn't rationally hating no one, it's irrationally hating members of the Red Tribe.
happytoexplain 6y ago
Calling the hatred, gleeful love of violence, racism, and misogyny that characterises Voat "hard right" is a disservice to the right. And implying there is an equally awful and opposite thing on the left, and that Reddit will become it, is unrealistic. So their content rules are too strict - that's not an abominable evil.
- nindalf 6y ago
  We are so used to viewing the world in binary that we need to find binary systems even when they don't exist. GP is one example of this - Voat is a cesspool of hate, the users mostly lean right. Therefore there has to be a counterpart on the left. Second example - Even though non-partisan metrics show that the Republican party have become more extreme with time, the need to be "neutral" makes it impossible to recognise that. Our need for binary means that we have to consider both sides as mirror images of each other even if they might not be. This video explains more - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mICxKmCjF-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mICxKmCjF-4
  - JohnBooty 6y ago
    Even though non-partisan metrics show that the Republican party have become more extreme with time, the need to be "neutral" makes it impossible to recognise that. Yes. Most of us generally have some sort of impulse to build consensus and seek some sort of middle ground. It's just a foundational aspect of social animals in general, I believe. That breaks down when you throw bad actors -- either because they are intentionally behaving in antisocial ways, or because they are profoundly detached from reality -- into the mix. For an example of the former, our impulse for consensus-building and compromise doesn't work if your buddy says "let's go murder ten people for no reason." It would not be a sane compromise to murder five people, or perhaps find ten people and beat them precisely halfway to death. For an example of the latter, there can be no compromise with certain pseudoscience beliefs. We can't compromise with flat-earthers and agree that the earth maybe is sort of an oblong, oval shape halfway between a sphere and a disk.
    - 6y ago