3 ms·

"Reddit is known as a democratic site run by its users where free speech is sacrosanct. The more votes a story gets, the more likely it will be posted on a fron

"Reddit is known as a democratic site run by its users where free speech is sacrosanct. The more votes a story gets, the more likely it will be posted on a front page." It's an example of why direct Democracy doesn't work. Anything that is even slightly against the extreme-left majority is down voted and ignored. The average Redditor probably loves this...until the same thing happens to them.

DanBC 12y ago
Reddit is not an "extreme left" site. I'm a bit confused how anyone who's spent any time on Reddit could come to that conclusion.
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  I guess if you change the definition of "extreme left", you might have a point. But otherwise, just look here: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics http://www.reddit.com/r/politics The headlines are all about: Evil Republicans, Capitalism and how the government should be paying for Healthcare, Employment, and a basic income. There is no middle ground, everything is shown from one, extreme, biased, view. The comments show even more evidence of this.
  - itsybitsycoder 12y ago
    Wanting publish healthcare is "extreme left"? Isn't the US pretty much the only first-world country that doesn't have it yet?
    - droidist2 12y ago
      Single payer healthcare? No, only a handful of countries have it (Canada, the UK, a couple others). The majority of first world countries have a mix and public and private.
      - itsybitsycoder 12y ago
        Canada and the UK have a mix of public and private healthcare available as well... having public health care doesn't necessarily preclude private healthcare. I guess I was caught up on the distinction between "government paying for everything" (single-payer) and public healthcare, which most developed nations besides the US do have. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_health_care#Varieties_of_public_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_health_care#Var...) I'm in BC which is apparently the only province to not have single-payer. Instead we make mandatory insurance payments that are adjusted based on income. In a "left vs right" context though I'm not sure there is much of a practical difference between public health and single-payer health. Either you give a government-determined amount of money to the government who passes it on to the healthcare system, or the government requires you to give a government-determined amount of money to the healthcare system directly. I would imagine any conservative against one would be against the other? What am I missing that single-payer health care is considered so crazy left wing?
        droidist2 12y ago
        > Most developed countries, with the exception of the United States, have partially or fully publicly funded health systems. I don't think this line from the article is correct, unless it was written before the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)? Doesn't the US have partially publicly funded healthcare? Of course conservatives don't like this, but they'd be way unhappier with something more extreme like single-payer or socialized medicine.
  - scintill76 12y ago
    Only gov't paying for employment and basic income sound extreme, and only by US standards. I'm not saying they're not there, but what are you seeing that's about subsidized employment and basic income anyway?

DanBC 12y ago

Reddit is not an "extreme left" site. I'm a bit confused how anyone who's spent any time on Reddit could come to that conclusion.

paulhauggis 12y ago
I guess if you change the definition of "extreme left", you might have a point. But otherwise, just look here: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics http://www.reddit.com/r/politics The headlines are all about: Evil Republicans, Capitalism and how the government should be paying for Healthcare, Employment, and a basic income. There is no middle ground, everything is shown from one, extreme, biased, view. The comments show even more evidence of this.
- itsybitsycoder 12y ago
  Wanting publish healthcare is "extreme left"? Isn't the US pretty much the only first-world country that doesn't have it yet?
  - droidist2 12y ago
    Single payer healthcare? No, only a handful of countries have it (Canada, the UK, a couple others). The majority of first world countries have a mix and public and private.
    - itsybitsycoder 12y ago
      Canada and the UK have a mix of public and private healthcare available as well... having public health care doesn't necessarily preclude private healthcare. I guess I was caught up on the distinction between "government paying for everything" (single-payer) and public healthcare, which most developed nations besides the US do have. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_health_care#Varieties_of_public_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_health_care#Var...) I'm in BC which is apparently the only province to not have single-payer. Instead we make mandatory insurance payments that are adjusted based on income. In a "left vs right" context though I'm not sure there is much of a practical difference between public health and single-payer health. Either you give a government-determined amount of money to the government who passes it on to the healthcare system, or the government requires you to give a government-determined amount of money to the healthcare system directly. I would imagine any conservative against one would be against the other? What am I missing that single-payer health care is considered so crazy left wing?
      - droidist2 12y ago
        > Most developed countries, with the exception of the United States, have partially or fully publicly funded health systems. I don't think this line from the article is correct, unless it was written before the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)? Doesn't the US have partially publicly funded healthcare? Of course conservatives don't like this, but they'd be way unhappier with something more extreme like single-payer or socialized medicine.
- scintill76 12y ago
  Only gov't paying for employment and basic income sound extreme, and only by US standards. I'm not saying they're not there, but what are you seeing that's about subsidized employment and basic income anyway?