SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"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.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @01:45PM
I think he has a good point.
Basically these people are looking for a fight. They 'won' their original fight and still want to continue on. Because the cause was not the real reason they were there. They were there to look good or they just like to fight.
It is a problem of 'once you get to your goal then what?' Most people do not think it thru. They jump all in and then forget what they wanted. Then when they get it they keep going because 'its not enough'. 'Not enough' can turn you into the bully you used to fight against.
I have seen it many times. Usually when someone gets a good size paycheck. They somehow think they are better than everyone around them and treat them like crap and only their opinion is worth anything. They do not just realize they are wildly lucky and are 2 paychecks away from living under a bridge. I have saved up and am around 50 paychecks away or about 2 years :) But one good illness and thats gone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:52PM
> They were there to look good or they just like to fight
That is just the same circular argument that the dusty monkey made. "Their motives are selfish so they are selfish." It is convenient rationalization for dismissing the actual content of their arguments by saying that they themselves don't even care about their own arguments. It is a close cousin to saying things like Snowden only did it because he's a gloryhound.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 12 2015, @06:18PM
I think what GP is getting at is that they were there to fight, so when the fight was the good fight in the 60s and 70s, they were there fighting. Now the good fight is won (with some curmudgeons left over, but the only fix for that is time), but for some reason they're still finding things to fight. In fact, I'm feeling that their continued pushes toward lunacy are actually causing harm and undoing the previous victory (albeit in small ways).
Example: lack of women programmers. This is clearly bad, no arguments here about that. Who do they attack? Men who are programmers. Their evidence? Circumstances beyond those male programmers' control (and with turbo assist because it's fun to bully nerds). Result: any time an unknown woman is present, they must now circle the wagons unless I'm available to be essentially a Fair Witness [wikipedia.org] in the event she takes something out of context or the wrong way (mistaking valid criticism for “mansplaining” or sexism) or just makes shit up to get someone fired. (Not that it hasn't stopped gender lunatics from shutting down other women before, but as always they keep missing the target.)
It would be as if the NSA, TSA et al were dissolved tomorrow, a constitutional amendment or two passed, police forces demilitarized, etc, but yet Snowden goes on to leak stuff that actually should be confidential, causes some real damage, and starts calling everyone against that leak an authoritarian and uses the opposition to that leak as evidence that it needed to be leaked.
A bit long winded, but I hope that made sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @06:43PM
> I think what GP is getting at is that they were there to fight, so when the fight was the good fight in the 60s and 70s, they were there fighting.
I'm pretty sure that nobody thinks the majority of "SJWs" are 60+ years in age.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 12 2015, @07:55PM
Fair point. Give parent a touché mod. I was unclear. The torch has been passed on to the current “SJWs,” and they're running with it, whether the place they're running to makes any sense at all, with no perspective from experiencing the original issues, fueled on by a minority of gynocentric chauvinists and g. c.* works from throughout the 20th century.
(Gynocentric chauvinism is nothing new, but it seems to have really gained traction and gone mainstream.)
* Please do not turn that into an actual acronym! I just didn't want to be repetitive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @08:00PM
g. c.* works
Wait, what's this about garbage collection?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @08:13PM
> The torch has been passed on to the current “SJWs,”
So the people who are in it now have never been in it for valid reasons, they've always been in it just for self aggrandizement.
How is your point any different from the other two people making the same circular argument?