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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:26PM
"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
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.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:59AM
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
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
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
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.