8 ms·

Anyone remember them saying in their ToS that hate speech is okay as long as it isn't against a group considered to be the minority?

jaywalk 6y ago
Oh yeah. They removed that tidbit from the ToS but still enforce it the same way.
haunter 6y ago
Removed but still enforced aka we have written and unwritten rules >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.
james-mcelwain 6y ago
Punching up vs punching down is a super important distinction to make in these kinds of policies.
- sukilot 6y ago
  When punching down it's important to dress it up so it looks like punching up. Attack the innocent who look like the guilty because the guilty are too hard to reach.
- meowface 6y ago
  I don't think it should be. I think punches above a certain threshold of force shouldn't be permitted, regardless of whether they're aimed left, right, up, down, or diagonally. Also, who exactly is definitively judging these directions in each of these cases? What's the judgment criteria when two people reside among a distribution of different relative directions across multiple different parameters? I think eliminating double standards in the enforcement of these policies is crucial for them to be effective and accepted by a community. You're just trading one set of implicit and explicit biases in for another, and many of the same issues start to bubble up. Yes, certainly not all of the same issues in the case of one group wielding more capability to carry out a threat than another group, but many of the important ones, especially when it comes to matters of epistemology and reasoning.
- specialp 6y ago
  I thought we are trying to stop hate for characteristics someone has no control over (sex, sexuality, race, gender, disability, nationality). I think any "punches" thrown at a group that was just born that way is not fair and the direction should not be a factor. Shouldn't someone be judged on their character and thoughts, not their biology or circumstances? If you aren't doing that then you aren't being genuine for stopping stereotyping and hate. This includes "majority" populations and those more privileged. We shouldn't give hateful or blanket statements for them as they never decided to be that way. Putting entire groups of people based on some trait they were born with on blast is wrong. Also the direction is a slippery slope too. "Well yes I can direct blanket negative/stereotypical/hate statements against Indians because I myself am a disabled, trans minority" ad-infinitum.
  - john-shaffer 6y ago
    > I thought we are trying to stop hate for characteristics someone has no control over (sex, sexuality, race, gender, disability, nationality). Some of use are, but we seem to be losing. > Shouldn't someone be judged on their character and thoughts, not their biology or circumstances? This is considered racist now. This was explained to me by a friend that if a person wants to be seen as a "$race man", than not seeing him that way would be offensive.
  - james-mcelwain 6y ago
    The solution to "stop the punching" isn't to demand oppressed people not be upset. The solution is to stop punching down. We stop racism by reversing the material effects of racism, not by spreading an imaginary "color blind" ideology. The last thing we should be doing right now is pretending that race doesn't matter.
antiterra 6y ago
To be fair to their intentions, the the cultural meaning is different based on social context. This is why successfully policing content on a global or even national social media site is nigh impossible. When a woman is recounting frustration at being talked over during a meeting and says "kill all men," there's a non-literal connotation based in a belief in patriarchal suppression. When a man says "kill all women" it reads darker, based on a belief that men subject women to violence specifically based on their gender/sexuality. Even if it's clearly not meant to be taken literally, there's still a dark underpinning culturally (e.g. see Marilyn Manson's 'I Want to Kill You Like They Do in The Movies’) As a result, "kill all women" is much less likely to be said in mixed company; the more common communication discriminating against women will be longer form, and not easily string-matched. Therefore, with 'even' enforcement, an offhand complaint about men's place in society will often instantly trigger an automatic deletion/ban, while a misogynistic screed will require human review to be removed.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Well said - while this point is somewhat subtle, I think the real reason most people "miss" it is because of a human tendency to overlook pragmatism in the context of language/communication while engaging in even non-heated ideological battles. I.e. they tend to turn a blind eye to colloquial meaning and real consequences in favor of a bias toward literalism as a bad rhetorical tactic.
- thunkpad 6y ago
  I really agree with this. An American Indian friend of mine once said, "It's not like we want another Trail of Tears." Folks who have been beat down know people don't deserve that just for being a certain way. Now if you're advocating a worldview that carries implicit, targeted violence (looking at you, Neo-Nazis) I think it's a different story. At that point, it becomes a question of what is possible and practical to reduce the overall amount of violence.. even if it means punching someone who wants you dead or subjugated.
- meowface 6y ago
  I agree "kill all women" reads and is darker for a variety of reasons, but I don't think either statement should be acceptable. I think a high percentage of people who would say "kill all women" would also reply that they're being non-literal and sardonic, but I don't think that would make it acceptable. Both phrases should trigger human review and a ban, in my opinion. Even without the literal meaning, vitriol towards gigantic groups of people based on at-birth traits isn't healthy or rational for anyone. (To make the comparison more palatable, imagine a complaint about an ex-romantic partner followed by a frustrated exclamation of "fuck men" or "fuck women", depending on the parties involved. I don't see why either of these statements should be privileged over the other.) I think double standards should be eliminated across the board, rather than tipping the scales so that a side that historically wielded them is now subjected to them.
thunkpad 6y ago
Wouldn't the difference there be between venting resulting in hurt feelings rather than targeted violence? Reports of genuine, targeted violence against reactionaries are almost non-existent while just a few days ago three trans women were nearly killed while waiting for a cab. If banning r/dropthet (a transphobic subreddit) reduces the amount of eyeballs absorbing phobic talking points that has to be a good thing, no? I always find these sorts of discussions sorely lacking an understanding of The Tolerance Paradox. Hopefully more folks will begin to see the implicit violence present in minority targeted hate speech. It really does lead to loss of life all too often.
- nailer 6y ago
  > Reports of genuine, targeted violence against reactionaries are almost non-existent Someone is wearing a MAGA hat. Someone else is wearing a Biden hat. Which do you think is more likely to be assaulted?
  - thunkpad 6y ago
    I wanted to disagree with you, but honestly my gut also says the MAGA hat person is at risk. Here's the thing though -- where's the data? Has that actually happened in any significance? Especially compared to right wing violence.
    - nailer 6y ago
      Thanks for being honest. There's a huge amount of video footage of people being beaten by rioters.
      - thunkpad 6y ago
        Please link me! I've been following the pipe bomb situation pretty closely so I've missed a lot of that stuff probably.
        nailer 6y ago
eggsnbacon1 6y ago
Its clearly what they do. The best example, a default sub TwoXChromosomes is full of blatant hate speech against half the species and its touted as a progressive bastion when its a different variation of The Donald.
- Someone1234 6y ago
  Can you provide recent examples? On their front page right now: - A post about finishing shampoo and conditioner at the same time - Celebration of a black female CEO - Discussion of abortion - Discussion of Women's only gyms (pros/cons/benefits/etc) - Discussion about marketing vis-a-vis unhealthy body image - Inappropriate boss in a meeting None of those posts are even about men, let alone "hate speech against half the species?" So the emphasis is definitely on you to show that this is a popular usage of the sub. Subs don't get removed for a scattering of hateful comments, the moderators are expected to deal with those. Subs get banned because their popular purpose is against Reddit's rules or their moderators are unable/unwilling to enforce the rules.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    People ignore the non offensive posts. But every few weeks a "men suck" or "ridiculous attacks on anti-abortion viewpoint" pops up non /r/all.
    - meowface 6y ago
      Without specific examples and links cited, this discussion will just run in circles. It probably will anyway, but it has no way of not without citations.
  - eggsnbacon1 6y ago
    its pointless to bikeshed this. People did the same to defend TD and other crazy communities. Most of the posts are fine, but occasionally blatant sexism will make the front page and mods don't do anything about it, or even encourage it by putting the post in "real believer" mode where opposing viewpoints can't exist. Same as TD. Best example I've seen https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/hzis4w/a_note_to_the_men_on_this_sub_yes_all_of_the_men/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/hzis4w/a_n... "A message to all men" . Basically telling "all men" their opinions aren't valued or wanted on the sub. Wonderful. And it hit the Reddit front page. Imagine a "mancave" sub on Reddit with mods saying women's opinions don't matter and aren't welcome here and shit like that. It would be banned immediately, probably after making 5 o'clock news

jaywalk 6y ago

Oh yeah. They removed that tidbit from the ToS but still enforce it the same way.

haunter 6y ago

Removed but still enforced aka we have written and unwritten rules >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.

james-mcelwain 6y ago

Punching up vs punching down is a super important distinction to make in these kinds of policies.

sukilot 6y ago
When punching down it's important to dress it up so it looks like punching up. Attack the innocent who look like the guilty because the guilty are too hard to reach.
meowface 6y ago
I don't think it should be. I think punches above a certain threshold of force shouldn't be permitted, regardless of whether they're aimed left, right, up, down, or diagonally. Also, who exactly is definitively judging these directions in each of these cases? What's the judgment criteria when two people reside among a distribution of different relative directions across multiple different parameters? I think eliminating double standards in the enforcement of these policies is crucial for them to be effective and accepted by a community. You're just trading one set of implicit and explicit biases in for another, and many of the same issues start to bubble up. Yes, certainly not all of the same issues in the case of one group wielding more capability to carry out a threat than another group, but many of the important ones, especially when it comes to matters of epistemology and reasoning.
specialp 6y ago
I thought we are trying to stop hate for characteristics someone has no control over (sex, sexuality, race, gender, disability, nationality). I think any "punches" thrown at a group that was just born that way is not fair and the direction should not be a factor. Shouldn't someone be judged on their character and thoughts, not their biology or circumstances? If you aren't doing that then you aren't being genuine for stopping stereotyping and hate. This includes "majority" populations and those more privileged. We shouldn't give hateful or blanket statements for them as they never decided to be that way. Putting entire groups of people based on some trait they were born with on blast is wrong. Also the direction is a slippery slope too. "Well yes I can direct blanket negative/stereotypical/hate statements against Indians because I myself am a disabled, trans minority" ad-infinitum.
- john-shaffer 6y ago
  > I thought we are trying to stop hate for characteristics someone has no control over (sex, sexuality, race, gender, disability, nationality). Some of use are, but we seem to be losing. > Shouldn't someone be judged on their character and thoughts, not their biology or circumstances? This is considered racist now. This was explained to me by a friend that if a person wants to be seen as a "$race man", than not seeing him that way would be offensive.
- james-mcelwain 6y ago
  The solution to "stop the punching" isn't to demand oppressed people not be upset. The solution is to stop punching down. We stop racism by reversing the material effects of racism, not by spreading an imaginary "color blind" ideology. The last thing we should be doing right now is pretending that race doesn't matter.

antiterra 6y ago

To be fair to their intentions, the the cultural meaning is different based on social context. This is why successfully policing content on a global or even national social media site is nigh impossible. When a woman is recounting frustration at being talked over during a meeting and says "kill all men," there's a non-literal connotation based in a belief in patriarchal suppression. When a man says "kill all women" it reads darker, based on a belief that men subject women to violence specifically based on their gender/sexuality. Even if it's clearly not meant to be taken literally, there's still a dark underpinning culturally (e.g. see Marilyn Manson's 'I Want to Kill You Like They Do in The Movies’) As a result, "kill all women" is much less likely to be said in mixed company; the more common communication discriminating against women will be longer form, and not easily string-matched. Therefore, with 'even' enforcement, an offhand complaint about men's place in society will often instantly trigger an automatic deletion/ban, while a misogynistic screed will require human review to be removed.

happytoexplain 6y ago
Well said - while this point is somewhat subtle, I think the real reason most people "miss" it is because of a human tendency to overlook pragmatism in the context of language/communication while engaging in even non-heated ideological battles. I.e. they tend to turn a blind eye to colloquial meaning and real consequences in favor of a bias toward literalism as a bad rhetorical tactic.
thunkpad 6y ago
I really agree with this. An American Indian friend of mine once said, "It's not like we want another Trail of Tears." Folks who have been beat down know people don't deserve that just for being a certain way. Now if you're advocating a worldview that carries implicit, targeted violence (looking at you, Neo-Nazis) I think it's a different story. At that point, it becomes a question of what is possible and practical to reduce the overall amount of violence.. even if it means punching someone who wants you dead or subjugated.
meowface 6y ago
I agree "kill all women" reads and is darker for a variety of reasons, but I don't think either statement should be acceptable. I think a high percentage of people who would say "kill all women" would also reply that they're being non-literal and sardonic, but I don't think that would make it acceptable. Both phrases should trigger human review and a ban, in my opinion. Even without the literal meaning, vitriol towards gigantic groups of people based on at-birth traits isn't healthy or rational for anyone. (To make the comparison more palatable, imagine a complaint about an ex-romantic partner followed by a frustrated exclamation of "fuck men" or "fuck women", depending on the parties involved. I don't see why either of these statements should be privileged over the other.) I think double standards should be eliminated across the board, rather than tipping the scales so that a side that historically wielded them is now subjected to them.

thunkpad 6y ago

Wouldn't the difference there be between venting resulting in hurt feelings rather than targeted violence? Reports of genuine, targeted violence against reactionaries are almost non-existent while just a few days ago three trans women were nearly killed while waiting for a cab. If banning r/dropthet (a transphobic subreddit) reduces the amount of eyeballs absorbing phobic talking points that has to be a good thing, no? I always find these sorts of discussions sorely lacking an understanding of The Tolerance Paradox. Hopefully more folks will begin to see the implicit violence present in minority targeted hate speech. It really does lead to loss of life all too often.

nailer 6y ago
> Reports of genuine, targeted violence against reactionaries are almost non-existent Someone is wearing a MAGA hat. Someone else is wearing a Biden hat. Which do you think is more likely to be assaulted?
- thunkpad 6y ago
  I wanted to disagree with you, but honestly my gut also says the MAGA hat person is at risk. Here's the thing though -- where's the data? Has that actually happened in any significance? Especially compared to right wing violence.
  - nailer 6y ago
    Thanks for being honest. There's a huge amount of video footage of people being beaten by rioters.
    - thunkpad 6y ago
      Please link me! I've been following the pipe bomb situation pretty closely so I've missed a lot of that stuff probably.
      - nailer 6y ago

eggsnbacon1 6y ago

Its clearly what they do. The best example, a default sub TwoXChromosomes is full of blatant hate speech against half the species and its touted as a progressive bastion when its a different variation of The Donald.

Someone1234 6y ago
Can you provide recent examples? On their front page right now: - A post about finishing shampoo and conditioner at the same time - Celebration of a black female CEO - Discussion of abortion - Discussion of Women's only gyms (pros/cons/benefits/etc) - Discussion about marketing vis-a-vis unhealthy body image - Inappropriate boss in a meeting None of those posts are even about men, let alone "hate speech against half the species?" So the emphasis is definitely on you to show that this is a popular usage of the sub. Subs don't get removed for a scattering of hateful comments, the moderators are expected to deal with those. Subs get banned because their popular purpose is against Reddit's rules or their moderators are unable/unwilling to enforce the rules.
- sukilot 6y ago
  People ignore the non offensive posts. But every few weeks a "men suck" or "ridiculous attacks on anti-abortion viewpoint" pops up non /r/all.
  - meowface 6y ago
    Without specific examples and links cited, this discussion will just run in circles. It probably will anyway, but it has no way of not without citations.
- eggsnbacon1 6y ago
  its pointless to bikeshed this. People did the same to defend TD and other crazy communities. Most of the posts are fine, but occasionally blatant sexism will make the front page and mods don't do anything about it, or even encourage it by putting the post in "real believer" mode where opposing viewpoints can't exist. Same as TD. Best example I've seen https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/hzis4w/a_note_to_the_men_on_this_sub_yes_all_of_the_men/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/hzis4w/a_n... "A message to all men" . Basically telling "all men" their opinions aren't valued or wanted on the sub. Wonderful. And it hit the Reddit front page. Imagine a "mancave" sub on Reddit with mods saying women's opinions don't matter and aren't welcome here and shit like that. It would be banned immediately, probably after making 5 o'clock news