6 ms·

Doesn't it abuse "groups of people" then?

by comrh 11y ago

DanBC 11y ago
Apparently users of coontown say a lot of hateful but keep it to that subReddit. People in FPH said a lot of hateful stuff, but they didn't keep it to their sub, they posted it in other subs and other forums and other social networks.
- slg 11y ago
  >Apparently users of coontown say a lot of hateful but keep it to that subReddit. I think that is naive. People aren't going to segment their personality like that. I subscribe to /r/baseball because I'm a baseball fan. If baseball comes up on HN or /r/dataisbeautiful, I will often chime in because I'm still a baseball fan. Is that going to be any different for someone who subscribes to /r/coontown? They likely subscribe because they are racists and enjoy reinforcing that belief. Do we expect those same racist users to suddenly keep those ideas to themselves when they stumble upon Jesse Jackson posting in /r/iama?
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Users of coontown are racist, yes, and that's probably detectable in their posts. But users of coontown apparently[1] don't post threads linking to other subs and then visit that other sub with thousand of votes and dozens of comments. FPH did. [1] i've never read coontown so maybe I am totally wrong. Maybe they do brigade but they're so small it doesn't matter?
    - slg 11y ago
      Coontown makes Reddit an attractive place for racists to congregate. As the overall userbase of Reddit starts to include more racists, it will inherently lead to racist users voting and posting comments on other posts. Coontown doesn't necessarily need to promote users spreading their ideas to other subreddits, its mere existence helps to accomplish the same.
      - rory096 11y ago
        So you argue that reddit should exclude people, rather than content? What if a user is found being racist on another site, should they be banned from reddit?
        slg 11y ago
        That is a step beyond anything I have said. I am just pointing out that we shouldn't say "Coontown is fine because they keep to themselves." The fact is that people are attracted to Reddit based on content. You don't need to ban any people if you change the content to attract (and repel) different people. Reddit is now the most popular site on the Internet for racists to congregate. I think that is a problem for the whole site. Making the site less accommodating to racists would seem to be a good first step in addressing that issue. Reddit doesn't appear willing to do that.
        leereeves 11y ago
        I don't know who said this, but I heard it somewhere: "If you support free speech, you can count on being accused of supporting the worst things anyone can say."
        slg 11y ago
        I don't think that is relevant here. We already establish that Reddit is going to be stricter than the law. Right now we are only debating how much stricter than the law it should be.
        leereeves 11y ago
        I'm not sure we've established that. If reddit is stricter than the law in banning cyber harassment and some non-consensual photographs, they aren't much stricter. There are laws against those things in California.
        11y ago
leereeves 11y ago
By that vague definition, doesn't /r/politics "abuse" Republicans?
- Balgair 11y ago
  Bingo.
- nl 11y ago
  I just took a look at the /r/politics front page. I don't think there is anything there a reasonable person would think was harassment, bullying or abuse. The closest is a claim that "right wing extremists have no qualms destroying people's lives", but I don't think that would pass the reasonable person test.
  - leereeves 11y ago
    I agree. /r/politics shouldn't be banned for harassment, bullying, or abuse, but it could qualify under some definitions. For example, check out the comments on https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/3di5ty/ben_carson_will_attend_iowa_religious_liberties/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/3di5ty/ben_carson...
    - nl 11y ago
      Can you point to a specific comment? There is one where he is called a religious nut, but that seems as bad as it gets. I don't see any problem. It isn't useful presenting hypothetical situations. If there is a problem on /r/politics then point to it.
      - leereeves 11y ago
        Well, we have the usual insults about Republicans: racist, crazy, bigots, stupid. > The GOP can't run a black guy. The rift between voting Republican and maintaining baseless hatred for minorities would cause too many voters' heads to explode. > You're talking as though the republican electorate has a memory. > Can you all just admit that the entire republican party represents the ideals that this guy embraces (hating gay people) and what Donald Trump continues to spew (hating immigrants and hispanics). The specific baseless suggestion for this post: Ben Carson wants to kill gays (because he accepted an invitation). > Ben "Compassionate Execution" Carson > i.e. gays are like insects? Wait, best not to give Carson any ideas... A random suggestion that Ben Carson is a drug abuser: > I can't comprehend how a Doctor that graduated from John Hopkins and Yale turned out the way he did. > ... > unfettered access to the best drugs? Some random insults: > Bobby "Stupid Party" Jindal, Tom "Tehran" Cotton, James "Senator Snowball" Inhofe, Bobby "the exorcist" Jindal > Alas, it is true...Ben Carson does not have a neocortex. All fairly typical for a political discussion, I know. Still disgusting. (Speaking as a liberal-leaning independent.)

Doesn't it abuse "groups of people" then?

by comrh 11y ago

Doesn't it abuse "groups of people" then?

DanBC 11y ago

Apparently users of coontown say a lot of hateful but keep it to that subReddit. People in FPH said a lot of hateful stuff, but they didn't keep it to their sub, they posted it in other subs and other forums and other social networks.

slg 11y ago
>Apparently users of coontown say a lot of hateful but keep it to that subReddit. I think that is naive. People aren't going to segment their personality like that. I subscribe to /r/baseball because I'm a baseball fan. If baseball comes up on HN or /r/dataisbeautiful, I will often chime in because I'm still a baseball fan. Is that going to be any different for someone who subscribes to /r/coontown? They likely subscribe because they are racists and enjoy reinforcing that belief. Do we expect those same racist users to suddenly keep those ideas to themselves when they stumble upon Jesse Jackson posting in /r/iama?
- DanBC 11y ago
  Users of coontown are racist, yes, and that's probably detectable in their posts. But users of coontown apparently[1] don't post threads linking to other subs and then visit that other sub with thousand of votes and dozens of comments. FPH did. [1] i've never read coontown so maybe I am totally wrong. Maybe they do brigade but they're so small it doesn't matter?
  - slg 11y ago
    Coontown makes Reddit an attractive place for racists to congregate. As the overall userbase of Reddit starts to include more racists, it will inherently lead to racist users voting and posting comments on other posts. Coontown doesn't necessarily need to promote users spreading their ideas to other subreddits, its mere existence helps to accomplish the same.
    - rory096 11y ago
      So you argue that reddit should exclude people, rather than content? What if a user is found being racist on another site, should they be banned from reddit?
      - slg 11y ago
        That is a step beyond anything I have said. I am just pointing out that we shouldn't say "Coontown is fine because they keep to themselves." The fact is that people are attracted to Reddit based on content. You don't need to ban any people if you change the content to attract (and repel) different people. Reddit is now the most popular site on the Internet for racists to congregate. I think that is a problem for the whole site. Making the site less accommodating to racists would seem to be a good first step in addressing that issue. Reddit doesn't appear willing to do that.
        leereeves 11y ago
        I don't know who said this, but I heard it somewhere: "If you support free speech, you can count on being accused of supporting the worst things anyone can say."
        slg 11y ago
        I don't think that is relevant here. We already establish that Reddit is going to be stricter than the law. Right now we are only debating how much stricter than the law it should be.
        leereeves 11y ago
        I'm not sure we've established that. If reddit is stricter than the law in banning cyber harassment and some non-consensual photographs, they aren't much stricter. There are laws against those things in California.
        11y ago

leereeves 11y ago

By that vague definition, doesn't /r/politics "abuse" Republicans?

Balgair 11y ago
Bingo.
nl 11y ago
I just took a look at the /r/politics front page. I don't think there is anything there a reasonable person would think was harassment, bullying or abuse. The closest is a claim that "right wing extremists have no qualms destroying people's lives", but I don't think that would pass the reasonable person test.
- leereeves 11y ago
  I agree. /r/politics shouldn't be banned for harassment, bullying, or abuse, but it could qualify under some definitions. For example, check out the comments on https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/3di5ty/ben_carson_will_attend_iowa_religious_liberties/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/3di5ty/ben_carson...
  - nl 11y ago
    Can you point to a specific comment? There is one where he is called a religious nut, but that seems as bad as it gets. I don't see any problem. It isn't useful presenting hypothetical situations. If there is a problem on /r/politics then point to it.
    - leereeves 11y ago
      Well, we have the usual insults about Republicans: racist, crazy, bigots, stupid. > The GOP can't run a black guy. The rift between voting Republican and maintaining baseless hatred for minorities would cause too many voters' heads to explode. > You're talking as though the republican electorate has a memory. > Can you all just admit that the entire republican party represents the ideals that this guy embraces (hating gay people) and what Donald Trump continues to spew (hating immigrants and hispanics). The specific baseless suggestion for this post: Ben Carson wants to kill gays (because he accepted an invitation). > Ben "Compassionate Execution" Carson > i.e. gays are like insects? Wait, best not to give Carson any ideas... A random suggestion that Ben Carson is a drug abuser: > I can't comprehend how a Doctor that graduated from John Hopkins and Yale turned out the way he did. > ... > unfettered access to the best drugs? Some random insults: > Bobby "Stupid Party" Jindal, Tom "Tehran" Cotton, James "Senator Snowball" Inhofe, Bobby "the exorcist" Jindal > Alas, it is true...Ben Carson does not have a neocortex. All fairly typical for a political discussion, I know. Still disgusting. (Speaking as a liberal-leaning independent.)