Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday June 12 2015, @06:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the we-will-not-ban,-much dept.

The Washington Post:

"We will not ban questionable subreddits," Reddit's then-CEO, Yishan Wong, wrote mere months ago. "You choose what to post. You choose what to read. You choose what kind of subreddit to create."

But in an apparent reversal of that policy, and in an unprecedented effort to clean up its long-suffering image, Reddit has just banned five "questionable subreddits."

The site permanently removed the forums Wednesday afternoon for harassing specific, named individuals, a spokesperson said. Of the five, two were dedicated to fat-shaming, one to transphobia, one to racism and one to harassing members of a progressive video game site.

Unsurprisingly, a vocal contingent of Redditors aren't taking the changes well: "Reddit increases censorship," read one post on r/freespeech, while forums like r/mensrights and r/opieandanthony theorized they would be next.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by stormwyrm on Friday June 12 2015, @08:54AM

    by stormwyrm (717) on Friday June 12 2015, @08:54AM (#195324) Journal
    Trouble is, most of the folks who say "prove it" to statements like "the world is round" aren't sincere, and no matter how much evidence you give them they will not budge from their beliefs. Creationists for instance will say "prove it" to statements like "evolution happens", and they certainly won't budge no matter how much evidence you show them. I'd say that attempting to argue such things with such people accomplishes nothing but lower the SNR of any site, since they aren't actually looking for enlightenment but rather attention. Which is, to my mind, the definition of Troll, and hence the appropriate mod to use if reasonable discourse is to be preserved in the face of such behaviour.
    --
    Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Finkus on Friday June 12 2015, @09:10AM

    by Sir Finkus (192) on Friday June 12 2015, @09:10AM (#195330) Journal

    Creationists for instance will say "prove it" to statements like "evolution happens", and they certainly won't budge no matter how much evidence you show them.

    Funny story. I was raised in a very fundamentalist Christian household. I had science books confiscated from me because they had chapters about Evolution in them. Growing up in this environment, I was a rather staunch creationist for many years into my adulthood. It was by watching debates on the subject that I eventually was able to learn the truth and evolve (har har) my position.

    It's true that some people will insist that 2+2=5 no matter how much evidence you give to the contrary, but if it only convinces one person it's worth the effort.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by mcgrew on Friday June 12 2015, @12:48PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday June 12 2015, @12:48PM (#195369) Homepage Journal

      It's true that some people will insist that 2+2=5

      Rounding errors... 2.3+2.3=4.6=5

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @03:56PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @03:56PM (#195436)

        Is it an error if it is correctly rounded?

      • (Score: 2) by Techwolf on Friday June 12 2015, @08:17PM

        by Techwolf (87) on Friday June 12 2015, @08:17PM (#195522)

        This is why one does not use floats for intergers.

        • (Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 12 2015, @10:36PM

          by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Friday June 12 2015, @10:36PM (#195549) Journal

          Wow, going off topic, but I love libgmp's c++11 support (user defined literal support). Nobody should ever need floats anymore. (Game programmers are using lookup tables and fixed point, no?) Well, I suppose perhaps floats in cases of 4-5 sig figs. Clearly, mcgrew's data only had 1 sig fig.

          • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Saturday June 13 2015, @01:14AM

            by Wootery (2341) on Saturday June 13 2015, @01:14AM (#195586)

            Nobody should ever need floats anymore.

            Tell that to Nvidia.

            • (Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:20PM

              by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:20PM (#195836) Journal

              Ah, yes, the dreaded GL_FLOAT.

              • (Score: 2) by Techwolf on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:24AM

                by Techwolf (87) on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:24AM (#198922)

                As i hobby dev, details please. I am courious.

                • (Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday June 24 2015, @01:31PM

                  by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Wednesday June 24 2015, @01:31PM (#200373) Journal

                  I might have failed to capture what you meant above, but floats can be problematic in game programming. A friend's writing a game right now, and we recently got into a discussion of how to handle trig. We noticed that her engine was only using 4 out of 8 cores on her Bulldozer [wikipedia.org]. It turns out that those only have 4 FPUs (1 for each 2 core block).

                  A better alternative is to stick to fixed-point or integer only approaches which would scale up to all 8 cores instead of being constrained by the 4 FPUs. As for Intels, floating-point operations are always more expensive than integer operations anyway. Then convert to GL_FLOAT at the last minute to make OpenGL calls.

                  I still avoid floats in normal business applications in favor of libgpm. The c++11 user-defined types makes using the library a breeze.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:26PM (#195404)

      "only convinces one person it's worth the effort"

      That depends on how much effort and if it will do more harm than good.

      Wrestling pigs in the mud.

      http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/02/25/peds.2013-2365 [aappublications.org]

      • (Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Saturday June 13 2015, @02:17AM

        by Sir Finkus (192) on Saturday June 13 2015, @02:17AM (#195607) Journal

        I can only speak for myself, but I'm grateful that people would directly engage proponents of intelligent design instead of trying to censor them. If they hadn't, I'd probably believe in the same things as I was brought up with.

        • (Score: 1) by KGIII on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:59AM

          by KGIII (5261) on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:59AM (#195654) Journal

          The number of people who change their views based on online arguments is statistically so small that it might as well be nil. I have been online since... Wow... It was long before the WWW. I had a hobby, it was phreaking. So, yeah, I have been around for a long time - this does not make me an authority so consider what I share just my personal observations... Anyhow, I think I have changed my mind less than a dozen times during all of this and I think that very few other people are willing to do so. I am not exceptional, just open minded and willing to admit I am wrong. Then again, that may be exceptional but not in any way that is important beyond my own growth. That you, too, admit to having been wrong and changing your view is also exceptional - this is not the norm. I have witnessed the same group of people having the same argument for years - at a time when doing so was really expensive!

          The other thing I find odd is that many (probably most) approach online conversations as if they are arguments. More amusing is the folks who failed their Critical Thinking 101 course throwing around the names of logical fallacies incorrectly. Anyhow, people use the anonymity of the web to say things they would never dare say in the real world and trying to apply logic to an illogical person is illogical in and of itself. It is noble to think we may change minds but we are, mostly, just shit slinging to get accolades or a response. The SNR of the shit-slinging (of which we are all guilty, of this I am certain and am no exception) is so pervasive that productive discourse is neigh-on-impossible. This site, that site, and the other sites are all like this. If you find one that does have productive conversations then it is probably heavily moderated and does not allow much in the way of dissenting opinions that differ from those of the group or the moderators. Such is life. Such is the internet. The funny part is that this is actually better than it used to be. Wow, we were assholes back in the day. It really was a bit "Wild West."

          --
          "So long and thanks for all the fish."
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @03:38PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @03:38PM (#195801)

            More amusing is the folks who failed their Critical Thinking 101 course throwing around the names of logical fallacies incorrectly.

            So if they use it incorrectly, you correct them, pointing out that the logic is sound, and explain why its not an example of that fallacy. The first step in debate is seeing if your opponent's argument is actually sound, if its not then you don't have to refute them because their argument is already invalid, and there's no point in trying to invalidate something that's not valid in the first place. What I'm seeing is that lots of idiots are trying to plant the idea that people are incorrectly pointing out fallacies because they refuse to admit that their arguments are logically invalid and they refuse to admit that they could ever be wrong about anything ever.

            • (Score: 1) by KGIII on Sunday June 14 2015, @08:25AM

              by KGIII (5261) on Sunday June 14 2015, @08:25AM (#196042) Journal

              I have been told I am odd because I am quite willing to admit that I am mistaken and to learn from that. I do not mind criticism. I am not perfect nor is my ego so small I have to insist I am. My goal is, and I know I am odd, to learn - which is one of the reasons that I visit the comments section of sites as frequently as I do. More often than not I simply read.

              --
              "So long and thanks for all the fish."
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @07:41PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @07:41PM (#196624)

                Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were doing that, but its something I've been seeing a lot lately. Once I had the displeasure of arguing with somebody who tried to call logic itself a lie when his sophistry was pointed out. Its not just that one person either, irrational people will do anything and everything to hold on to their delusions, including trying to undermine logic and the validity of pointing out fallacies.

    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday June 12 2015, @05:03PM

      by Freeman (732) on Friday June 12 2015, @05:03PM (#195454) Journal

      I find that somewhat saddening as a person of Creationist thought. I'm expected to believe that red blood cells miraculously survived over a 75 million year time span? http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33067582 [bbc.com] There is documented proof that organic matter can be preserved for thousands of years via mummification. That works only if, "kept in cool and dry conditions.". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy [wikipedia.org] Believing that the dinosaurs were wiped out within the last few thousand years and that some remnant of red blood cells were found in a fossil is actually believable. I recently got to thinking about the origin of oil and had a somewhat disturbing thought. Oil is decomposed organic matter. It is probably at least partially made up of decomposed human flesh. So, I guess my car kind of runs on Soylent Green. Kind of a creepy thought.

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by bitrotRnotbitrot on Friday June 12 2015, @07:08PM

        by bitrotRnotbitrot (5444) on Friday June 12 2015, @07:08PM (#195490)

        You are not expected to believe anything, from TFA:

        Co-author Dr Sergio Bertazzo said: "We still need to do more research to confirm what it is that we are imaging in these dinosaur bone fragments.

        "If we can confirm that our initial observations are correct, then this could yield fresh insights into how these creatures once lived and evolved."

        So essentially there is more work needed but extremely interesting if it holds up.

        Have you read the paper?

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @08:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @08:19PM (#195523)

        I'm expected to believe that

        You're approaching this incorrectly. You are not expected to "believe". Facts are meant to be accepted if they are reliable. Possible explanations for these facts are hypothesized and evaluated based on how consistent they are with reality. Hypotheses are revised to better reflect all the facts or discarded in favor of a better one if enough facts contradict it.

        actually believable

        creepy thought

        How believable at first glance or how creepy facts are does not matter. Scientists may approach the observations with extreme skepticism but physical reality does not care what you feel.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by penguinoid on Saturday June 13 2015, @06:57AM

        by penguinoid (5331) on Saturday June 13 2015, @06:57AM (#195681)

        The trouble with Creationists is that they don't do science (make predictions and test predictions vs reality) but rather try to fight evolution. You have to understand, science is not about truth it is about prediction. For example, Newtonian physics is known to be false, but is still used because the predictions remain accurate in a given range. Quantum mechanics or Relativity are almost certainly wrong given that they conflict on the details of gravity -- but neither is going away until a theory arises that makes better predictions. The same goes with evolution -- the details are probably wrong but that just means the mistaken bits get updated to account for the new facts, and it remains the best theory for making predictions about biology. Even were creationism true, evolution is still the way to go when doing science because creationism won't give you a numerical prediction for the genetic variation in the retrovirus fragments embedded in cow DNA vs the retrovirus fragments embedded in horse DNA.

        Moreover, if Genesis were literally true, creationists would have much better things to do than try to find holes in evolution -- and in fact could be publishing all that in the most respected scientific journals. Although creationists like to focus on the 7 day creation story, there's nothing to say there because "God did it" doesn't make predictions. The real juicy bits would be in the story of the Flood.

        Creationism (literal reading of Genesis) makes the following predictions:
        *Living things predicted to look like they were intelligently designed, and then cursed. Predict multiple novel genes in superficially similar species, or perhaps genes copied verbatim among distantly related species as would make sense for a particular species (unless God used an evolutionary algorithm to design everything).
        *Predict very low rates of mutation in each gene, corresponding to 6,000 years of mutation.
        *Predict genetic evidence of population bottlenecks in all land animals 4000 years ago, down to population size 1 pair for all unclean land animals, and 7 for clean land animals. For humans, population bottleneck down to a population of 1 man and 4 women, one of whom did not pass on her mitochondria. (Genetically, Noah’s children count as the DNA from Noah and his wife, unless they were born of adultery.) Evolution would fail to predict a smaller bottleneck on “unclean” species vs “clean” ones vs species that would survive a Flood.
        *Ancient oceans predicted to look like 2000 years of marine life, plus a year’s worth of catastrophic flood sediment, plus 4000 years more. Ancient land predicted to look like 2000 years of all modern land flora and fauna, covered with a year’s worth of catastrophic flood sediment and marine life, plus 4000 more years. Predict bronze and iron implements, and cities, below Flood layer.
        *Predict large layer of sediments and fossils in an arrangement consistent with a single catastrophic flooding. In particular, fossils in this layer should consist of a mix of all modern species sorted by Flood. The clearest predictions could probably be concerning microscopic fossils, palynology, since they’re basically dust and should behave more predictably than complex organisms, and exist in large quantities. Would look rather different than evolution’s predicted migration patterns and sorting by age.
        *Predict long-lived trees like bristlecone pines can either survive a Flood or all be younger than 4,000 years.

        --
        RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:50PM (#195413)

    Exactly. It takes more effort and time to address these questions than it does to ask them. The goalposts keep on moving and guess who gets tired.

    An example form the Creationism debate is how the human eye used to be the pinnacle of Intelligent Design that was irreducibly complex, until it wasn't. The bacterial flagella then became the pinnacle, until it wasn't. Is the debate over? Did anybody win? No. The goalposts just keep moving and those trying to reach them will just get exhausted.

  • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday June 12 2015, @03:49PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday June 12 2015, @03:49PM (#195429)

    Yep, this lands in Poe's Law: It is impossible to tell the difference between a fanatic and a parody.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @08:48AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @08:48AM (#196401)

    A troll is someone who is fishing for angry or clueless responses with a fake posting that doesn't represent the authors true opinions, logic etc. You cannot hurt a troll without taking him out of the character, because that character doesn't really exist. On the other hand, a crackpot, even the attention-seeking provocative kind, is vulnerable. He has made emotional investment on that stuff. He'll eventually get angry or depressed if you keep swinging shit towards him.