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) by tathra on Saturday June 13 2015, @03:27PM
correct. if you take the label of "christian" ("one who follows the teachings of Christ") and then don't follow Christ's teachings and in fact do the exact opposite, you're not a christian. this is different from the fallacy, eg "no real christian would ever eat pork!". for a non-religious example, if you call yourself a painter but never paint, you're not a painter! "no real painter would ever let a day off pass without painting" is fallicious, but a pointing out that a "painter" who never paints and never has painted is not. this is the difference i'm trying to point out. sometimes what appears to be an example of the fallacy isn't really an example, but its tough to distinguish sometimes.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 14 2015, @07:45PM
correct. if you take the label of "christian" ("one who follows the teachings of Christ") and then don't follow Christ's teachings and in fact do the exact opposite, you're not a christian.
Then there are basically no Christians. Face it: The bible is an inconsistent mess of a fairy tale book. There are contradictions everywhere, and it's impossible to follow everything. When someone finds something they don't like, they just claim that that part of the bible is 'metaphorical' and therefore it doesn't count. There are many different interpretations of the bible, obviously, so you can't just claim that someone isn't a True Christian just because they don't use the same interpretation that you do.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday June 15 2015, @06:53PM
nice strawman, but i didn't say anything about them not being "true" christians. i'm not trying to redefine "christian" to exclude certain people or acts (which is the definition of the fallacy [rationalwiki.org]), but saying that if they don't even meet the loosest definition possible, then they aren't a part of the group. you're exaggerating the actual fallacy; its not fallicious to say that somebody who doesn't meet the definition of a group isn't part of the group. self-labeling is not magic, being part of any group has more specific requirements than mere self-labeling.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday June 15 2015, @07:04PM
ah, just to make sure we're using the same definition, i defined "christian" as "one who follows the teachings of christ", but you seem to be using the definition "one who attends a christian denomination church" (which would be Christian, big C); they're the same word but vastly different groups. the rest of the bible doesn't apply to the former definition, the one i stated i was using, so in addition to using a strawman, you're equivocating.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday June 16 2015, @12:44AM
nice strawman, but i didn't say anything about them not being "true" christians.
Nice strawman, but the "you" there was meant as a general "you", since I've seen it done before.
As for your definition above, as I said, the bible is extremely vague and inconsistent in many places. It's not hard to claim to follow Christ's teachings even if it seems to everyone else that you're not.
No equivocation or straw men here.
you're exaggerating the actual fallacy; its not fallicious to say that somebody who doesn't meet the definition of a group isn't part of the group. self-labeling is not magic, being part of any group has more specific requirements than mere self-labeling.
The problem is that the labels themselves often have extremely subjective or vague definitions, enabling nearly anyone to qualify. Which teachings must they follow? How many can they ignore before they don't qualify? What if the 'correct' interpretation of this mess of a fairy tale book that you must use, if any? The terms would have to be more objectively defined.
So I don't disagree that if you don't meet the definition of a group that you're not part of the group, but if the qualifications are sufficiently vague and subjective, just about anyone can qualify.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday June 16 2015, @01:19AM
which is exactly why i said can be difficult if not impossible to differentiate between examples of the fallacy and pointing out that somebody really isn't part of a group. people lie all the time, anybody can say they're a member of a group, but that doesn't automatically make them a member. all that can be done is looking at the loosest definition of the group and seeing if they fit; so long as its a pre-existing definition and not being narrowed to exclude the person or people in question, its not fallicious. if a group is so broadly defined that self-labeling is all thats required to be part of it, then there's no point in labeling anyone as a member, the same way a word thats so broad that it could mean anything is meaningless and useless to use.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday June 16 2015, @03:57AM
if a group is so broadly defined that self-labeling is all thats required to be part of it, then there's no point in labeling anyone as a member, the same way a word thats so broad that it could mean anything is meaningless and useless to use.
There goes most labels. Good riddance.