3 ms·

I don't understand why you would claim no one who posts in /r/science would ever be capable of producing a post, opinion, or content that could fall under reddi

I don't understand why you would claim no one who posts in /r/science would ever be capable of producing a post, opinion, or content that could fall under reddits new guidelines for deletiong and/or banning. Do you believe everyone who touches /r/science cannot, or will not, touch these other subreddits (and vice versa, the people in /r/coontown cannot post in /r/science?). On what do you base that belief?

fixermark 11y ago
That's not my belief at all. The belief is that there's no likely scenario where /r/science gets killed because it's a toxic wasteland of racism. /r/coontown, in contrast, gets no such consideration; it is a toxic wasteland of racism. And if it somehow comes to pass that /r/science's content were to follow in coontown's footsteps, then by all means, cut /r/science out too. Reddit's owners are moving in a direction where they've decided to take a small stand against the worst of the worst harmful subreddits, and people seem to be taking this as a dog-whistle that every forum is up for possible deletion at the whim of some arbitrary, uncontrolled bogeyman tomorrow. That's not how obscenity censorship works and it isn't how human decency works. It's how people of a certain political bent like to pretend they work (because the world would be easier to understand and predict if that were true), but that belief doesn't stand the test of reality.
- mreiland 11y ago
  Where your thinking is flawed is in the idea that major subreddits won't be affected by reddit's stance change. Specifically, banning isn't the only way to affect a subreddit, it's merely one of the most final. As for your fixation on /r/coontown. Can you remind me, wasn't there a famous person once who made a quote about the unpopular opinions being the ones that needed defending? There's a clear difference between what /r/fatpeoplehate was doing and /r/coontown. You may not like that they exist, but your offense should not be enough to get that subreddit banned. OTOH, reddit is a private company and they can do what they want, but taking the moral highroad in this argument from your side is silly, especially seeing how you seem to be wanting to infringe on others' free speech because you don't like what they use it for. And wasn't there a famous person that had a quote pertaining to that? I think so.

fixermark 11y ago

That's not my belief at all. The belief is that there's no likely scenario where /r/science gets killed because it's a toxic wasteland of racism. /r/coontown, in contrast, gets no such consideration; it is a toxic wasteland of racism. And if it somehow comes to pass that /r/science's content were to follow in coontown's footsteps, then by all means, cut /r/science out too. Reddit's owners are moving in a direction where they've decided to take a small stand against the worst of the worst harmful subreddits, and people seem to be taking this as a dog-whistle that every forum is up for possible deletion at the whim of some arbitrary, uncontrolled bogeyman tomorrow. That's not how obscenity censorship works and it isn't how human decency works. It's how people of a certain political bent like to pretend they work (because the world would be easier to understand and predict if that were true), but that belief doesn't stand the test of reality.

mreiland 11y ago
Where your thinking is flawed is in the idea that major subreddits won't be affected by reddit's stance change. Specifically, banning isn't the only way to affect a subreddit, it's merely one of the most final. As for your fixation on /r/coontown. Can you remind me, wasn't there a famous person once who made a quote about the unpopular opinions being the ones that needed defending? There's a clear difference between what /r/fatpeoplehate was doing and /r/coontown. You may not like that they exist, but your offense should not be enough to get that subreddit banned. OTOH, reddit is a private company and they can do what they want, but taking the moral highroad in this argument from your side is silly, especially seeing how you seem to be wanting to infringe on others' free speech because you don't like what they use it for. And wasn't there a famous person that had a quote pertaining to that? I think so.