"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: 5, Insightful) by Sir Finkus on Friday June 12 2015, @07:04AM
I find that most sites that use up and downvote ratings to affect post visibility trend towards an echo chamber. Reddit never really has been about free speech in the sense that controversial comments are almost always downvoted into oblivion. The same goes for sites like hacker news, "the other site", and soylent news. A very small minority of people actually believe in free speech enough that they won't downvote something because they merely disagree with it.
The more communities that I've participated in, the more I believe that the concepts of karma, identity, and post ranking are toxic to the free exchange of ideas. The closest thing we probably have to a place that actually supports free speech are sites like 4chan and IRC channels with good OPs. Maybe newsgroups or older forums as well.
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mojo chan on Friday June 12 2015, @07:35AM
Merely downvoting stuff not censoring it or stifling free speech. It's still there, people can still read it.
The problem is that if you go the other way and give equal prominence to all posts with no moderation or filter, like 4chan, most of the people who aren't just there to troll will leave. That's equally bad for having a free and open debate, when people feel that they don't want to participate because of the risk of being doxxed or the fact that others are doing everything they can think of to annoy them.
In any case, you can make any point or put forward any view in a way that isn't trolling or illegal (doxxing, threats etc.) If you can't do that, don't expect people to listen to you. The fault is your own, you failed to put your point over in a way that others will listen to it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Finkus on Friday June 12 2015, @08:06AM
The problem is that if you go the other way and give equal prominence to all posts with no moderation or filter, like 4chan, most of the people who aren't just there to troll will leave. That's equally bad for having a free and open debate, when people feel that they don't want to participate because of the risk of being doxxed or the fact that others are doing everything they can think of to annoy them.
I'd agree, but 4chan is anonymous unless you choose for it not to be. There also aren't any imaginary internet points to acquire or lose if people judge your post as spammy.
As far as the "annoying" part goes, nobody reading your argument seriously is going to slight you for not replying to a "ur a faggot" post or other similar trollish remarks. You waste a few bytes of bandwidth and at most, a few seconds of your time. You gain having your beliefs challenged, which has quite a few benefits.
For instance, I suspect that most people here believe the world is round. If I were to post a reply to a comment stating that with "prove it" I'd be downvoted into oblivion and I'd lose karma, which affects post visibility. If my post was visible, it might generate additional understanding of how the world works to those who now want to refute it. If you were transported thousands of years into the past, how would you demonstrate the Earth was round, or that it orbits the sun? By exploring these truths that most people "know" because they've been told them, you gain additional knowledge.
I've changed my mind on many issues that I very firmly believed by watching debates and arguing with people. The answer to "bad" speech is more speech.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by stormwyrm on Friday June 12 2015, @08:54AM
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Finkus on Friday June 12 2015, @09:10AM
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.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 3, Touché) by mcgrew on Friday June 12 2015, @12:48PM
It's true that some people will insist that 2+2=5
Rounding errors... 2.3+2.3=4.6=5
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @03:56PM
Is it an error if it is correctly rounded?
(Score: 2) by Techwolf on Friday June 12 2015, @08:17PM
This is why one does not use floats for intergers.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 12 2015, @10:36PM
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
Nobody should ever need floats anymore.
Tell that to Nvidia.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:20PM
Ah, yes, the dreaded GL_FLOAT.
(Score: 2) by Techwolf on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:24AM
As i hobby dev, details please. I am courious.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday June 24 2015, @01:31PM
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
"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.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday June 12 2015, @05:03PM
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
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
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
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: 2) by Freeman on Monday June 15 2015, @04:09PM
You do have some valid points. Here is an example of Creationist Scientists at work: http://dinosaurproject.swau.edu/ [swau.edu] Interesting reading: http://origins.swau.edu/papers/dinos/default.html [swau.edu] , but specifically http://origins.swau.edu/papers/geologic/geology [swau.edu]
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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:50PM
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
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
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @11:50AM
I believe that point wasn't about free speech, but groupthink. People surround themselves with like-minded opinions and that enables them to go completely bonkers because there's no reality-check.
The "blue team" and the "red team" hardly even know the other one exists via some real concrete proof such as meeting one of them in person. There only a caricature transmitted during their daily two minutes of hate.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday June 12 2015, @08:20AM
John Stuart Mill 1806 – 1873, British philosopher, political economist and civil servant. Influential contributor to social theory, political theory and political economy.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @08:32AM
Life-long employee of the British East India Company. Imperialist bastard!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by https on Friday June 12 2015, @03:47PM
I find comments I disagree with modded to +5 ALL THE TIME around here. Your "echo chamber" is pretty much theoretical.
I don't want the free exchange of ideas. I want the free exchange of good ideas. Bad ideas, give them roadblocks - a toll, even.
Community moderation, namely having to convince a majority of interested people that your idea is good before it becomes visible-by-default to a casual observer, is effective. That it has flaws is not a reason to abandon it - there is no system that cannot be gamed from time to time.
This Mills dude didn't think it all the way through. Some ideas deserve death after their collision with truth.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2) by nukkel on Friday June 12 2015, @07:15PM
Mod parent troll ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @02:10AM
Minor correction. The Social Justice League won there, too. Mentioning GamerGate is a bannable offense. Thankfully Hotwheels set up 8chan.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @07:08AM
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post. However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NCommander on Friday June 12 2015, @07:48AM
That's the automated karma filter. If a subnet (/24 IPv4, /56 IPv6) or an individual IP or IPv6/64 gets more than -25 negative karma, AC posting is temporarily blocked. That requires 25 separate downmods to kick off, and it ages out after a few days if I remember the code correctly. There's the right to discuss whatever topics you feel like, there isn't a right to general disruptiveness on SN.
To the best of my knowledge, we've never implemented a hard ban against anyone aside from spambots, and usually thats an AC only ban, registered users from the same block can still post.
Still always moving
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @10:34AM
Interesting. Is it net or gross negative karma? How could a lowly AC find out their own hidden karma?
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Friday June 12 2015, @10:52AM
Net. Positive karma cancels out negative on a per IPID/SUBID basis. Its currently not visible to anyone beside site editors. Perhaps something to be changed with a site update.
Still always moving
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @04:00PM
That might help things. It would be easier to tell the bad actors that post nonsense from the good. For me personally I try very hard most days to post interesting content, even if it is blatant criticism. I won't get an account on principle for the same reasons I was on slashdot for 15 years without an account. Apart from not leaving a trail for whale phishing expeditions it challenges me to post better, as it takes far more work for an AC to get +5.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday June 13 2015, @02:34AM
Question...does the system (or an admin) actually check to see who has done the downmodding before issuing such a ban? Because if not it would seem like a perfect target for attack. Simply crank up some sockpuppets, karma whore the accounts to get plenty of positive karma so they can downmod without taking too big a hit, then modbomb any user you do not like until they can no longer respond.
So while such a system on its face sounds fair and reasonable one must always look at it as a weapon and see how it can be used by a bad actor. For an example of why that is required just look at Slash, where the sockpuppetry got so bad you had "Mikey(ever increasing number)" and my personal fav the "knock off guy" who made all of his sockpuppets as knock off of known Slash posters. He had twittler, macthrope, hairytoes, he would then simply copy the post of the person whose account he was knocking off and then reply higher in the thread which was pretty damned genius actually, as he not only gained the positive karma that the other person's post was gonna get but made the real person look like they were ripping off the knock off. Once he had the accounts in good standing with modpoints? Here came the trolling and modbombs.
So any time you have a system like that you should always ask "If I were a troll and wanted to use this system to my advantage, what would I do?" and then try to come up with ways to counter the threat.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @07:14AM
>" NeoF- didn't harass a single person. It didn't dox posters. It didn't attack social media accounts or whatever other BS use to harass others. All it did was call GAF out on its bs. Their posts are public; why should we be prohibited from criticizing them? There was no justification to ban it. " That statement was from a user of the subreddit. Personally, It was not my cup of tea but everything in that statement is true. This was going after "wrong think" by Chairman Pao and nothing more. Long live Voat [voat.co]!
>Washington Post, I was the founder/creator of the anti-trans subreddit featured in the article. My user name was "Detroit_Safari" featured in the image associated with the article.
You got the wrong subreddit. The subreddit mentioned in the article was banned 2 months ago - the subreddit banned today was a different one that arose after the one in the article was banned. The content was the same. The fact that you are using pictures of a subreddit that was banned 2 months ago proves that you either archived content yourself when the sub was active, or reddit fed you the information directly.
The anti-trans sub was created to point out the hypocrisy of rule enforcement on reddit. The LGBT related subs, specifically transgender based ones, were allowed to do whatever they wanted to on reddit, free reign. The rules didn't apply to them. However, rules were strictly enforced on communities and posters that didn't sympathize with the left wing social justice agenda. We were put under a microscope and were banned if we did something that may have even somewhat violated a rule.
For example, a transgender sub was able to openly organize a doxx and brigade attempt on my anti-trans sub and I reported it several times to the admins and they did nothing. Meanwhile, I had multiple subreddits and accounts banned for simply suspicion of brigading that never happened. Plus you have other left wing friendly subreddits like SRS and SubRedditDrama that are allowed to openly harrass and brigade, and get away with it because they sympathize with the liberal agenda.
There are two sets of rules on reddit, rules for those who sympathize with the social justice warriors, and those who don't. Today was just a further advancement of that unwritten rule.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NCommander on Friday June 12 2015, @08:01AM
My biggest issue with reddit's policy is its inconsistently applied at best, and has no transparency. Reddit has rules against doxxing, and similar practices, but again, enforcement is so hit or miss it really appears to me that reddit administrators only do something when forced to by bad media. Reddit, for better or worse, has always taken a stance that whatever topic you wish to discuss has a home on their site. I don't know how this was discussed internally at reddit, but for them to take a massive change against their's site stance of "any topic is fair game" with no prior discussion or announcement is going to rub a LOT of people the wrong way.
Still always moving
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @08:57AM
What the AC above failed to mention is that high traffic pro-SJW subreddits are getting trolled out of existence. While anti-SJW subreddits may occasionally see a retaliation, if you go into a popular pro-SJW subreddit you will see every single topic touching on the dividing issues heavily trolled, with troll comments upvoted to the top.
You see threads with people asking is there some other place they can go to to have a peaceful discussion all the time.
Some less popular subreddits with active mods manage to keep things under control, but popular ones need help from reddit itself if they are to survive.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @07:05PM
What the AC above failed to mention is that high traffic pro-SJW subreddits are getting trolled out of existence.
Considering the majority of "SJWs" I've seen on the internet gang up to relentlessly troll anyone and anything they don't approve of, I'd say they brought it on themselves. If they can't handle being trolled back, then they should probably stop witch hunting and fabricating drama over idiotic things like fitness ads and smoothie labels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @11:12AM
> Reddit has rules against doxxing, and similar practices, but again, enforcement is so hit or miss
That's because the majority of reddit's enforcement is done by volunteer editors. If it were done by corporate staff it would take a much larger payroll than they can afford.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday June 12 2015, @01:30PM
All rules applied on a grand scale are hit-or-miss, NCommander.
I don't use reddit, it's a shitty community and represents the worst of internet navel-gazing. But it's gigantic. And when a moderator on your site sets out to specifically harrass the CEO of one of your biggest corporate collaborators, of course that's going to draw enough attention to warrant actual enforcement.
Redditors will turn anything into a free speech issue, up to and including illegal, privacy violating porn subreddits. The r/creepshots whinestorm is only a couple years old.
Here's what's going to happen: the worst trolls will flee to voat, the vast majority of redditors will stop caring about this next month, and a scant few internet idiots are going to do illegal, shitty things to "get back" at reddit.
Internet imagined "free speech" ideologues are the worst.
(Score: 3, Informative) by K_benzoate on Friday June 12 2015, @04:00PM
including illegal, privacy violating porn subreddits
Citation needed. It may have been distasteful and creepy but no one ever proved they were breaking any laws. Some users were using private messages to share genuinely illegal content, but the same can be said for e-mail. The solution is to take action against those specific criminals. Also, some of the SJW subreddits were deliberately planting material and then reporting it to try and shut down subs they didn't like. It's a tactic they tried again more recently (unsuccessfully) against 8ch.
Free expression is the most important right that we have, and defending it will always mean battles at the fringes of decency. You should be more grateful that people are willing to do so on your behalf.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:17AM
The freedom of speech only applies to the government. If a business (or person) want to stop you from espousing your views on their website they are free to do so. If the government tries to stop you then you have a matter of law on your hands. There is no protected speech on this site, on Reddit, on Fark, or on any site.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @10:42AM
No it doesn't. FoS means the freedom to speak without fear of prosecution or retaliation over the expressed ideas.
If a business (or person) want to stop you from espousing your views on their website they are free to do so.
That doesn't mean they aren't violating FoS, merely that they aren't committing a crime.
(Score: 2) by K_benzoate on Saturday June 13 2015, @09:49PM
You're confusing the concept of free expression, which is a philosophical position and ethical ideal, with the First Amendment to the US Constitution. When a government entity violates The First Amendment, a crime has been committed, as well as a moral outrage. When reddit starts banning speech they find offensive, they've not necessarily broken any laws, but they're slipping into an abyss of ethical decay. We've decided, as a society, not to criminalize all behavior that are merely unethical. It's not illegal to cheat on your wife*, for example, but you are not acting ethically. If you try to defend yourself by saying, "Hey, I'm not breaking any laws" you would be both factually correct and morally bankrupt.
People who fire back with the "it's only censorship when the government does it!" non-rebuttal miss the point entirely. reddit isn't breaking the law, they're just acting shitty.
*I believe it actually is a crime for members of the Military, but I'm not certain
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Sunday June 14 2015, @08:08AM
I do not believe I am missing the point of free expression. I just do not feel that they have an obligation to provide it. Should they? I think so. It is not my site and I can not force my opinions on them. I can complain but that does nothing more than give them the power to control my emotions. Frankly, I would rather not cede that right to a bunch of pixels.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday June 14 2015, @05:09PM
adultery (cheating on your spouse) is illegal in most of the US, and you're correct that its a violation of the UCMJ (article 134); for officers they also get hit with article 133 (conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman).
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:53AM
Some users were using private messages to share genuinely illegal content
What's scary is that such a thing even exists. Government censorship at its finest. The first amendment may list no exceptions, but the government doesn't care about that.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Friday June 12 2015, @04:42PM
I'll 2nd this. When I worked in radio, the late great George Kellas [theintelligencer.net] told me something I'll always remember: You'll never do a show that's all things for all people. That advice can be applied to anything.
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 5, Informative) by bitrotRnotbitrot on Friday June 12 2015, @08:33AM
I was doxxed on reddit some time back, they didn't like a gay dude calling them on their nasty SJW bullshit. Apparently they were 'gay allies' and I should have joined their nasty, vile little hatefest.
Idiots being idiots, most will grow out of it.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday June 12 2015, @12:51PM
Idiots being idiots, most will grow out of it.
That hasn't been what I've seen. Visit a redneck bar some time, lots of old offline trolls there.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 12 2015, @03:58PM
This hits the nail on the head.
Idiots being idiots, most will grow out of it.
The rest become women's studies majors and get publishers to print their crap in dead tree form.
I didn't bookmark it, but I read a fascinating but short essay last night written by a black feminist in 2008 accusing the operators of some feminist conference of racism and hinting at wide-spread racism in the feminist movement.
Another example is the preponderance of “no penis” policies, which excludes trans women who are not wealthy enough to afford bottom surgery. For some reason, access to bottom surgery or in some cases medical care at all simply isn't an issue for mainstream feminism. Go figure.
I'm leaving out a lot of complexity surrounding that issue for brevity. The real topic here is the utter lack of sensitivity and complete hypocrisy routinely displayed by the gender lunatics (many of whom also operate under the guise of feminism).
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:25AM
I will take them seriously when I see NOW outside the courthouse protesting that women often get lighter sentences than men. No, I am not a misogynist. I believe all people should be treated equally and judged on their own merits.
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=sentencing+disparity+men+and+women&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 [google.com]
There are a number of good articles and citations for my assertion that men get harsher sentences than women for the same crime. Wanting equality is a far cry from wanting special treatment.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 1) by spezek on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:06PM
Men are considered by present society to be more rational actors than women. Women are driven by emotion, men by logic, or so it goes. It makes sense in such a climate for men to be treated more harshly when they misbehave, since they are making more conscious decisions and guilt is determined by mens rea.
So, in essence, this problem might be said to be caused by the belief that men are "better" than women. In this case, and many others, patriarchy hurts men.
Feminists, as a rule, dislike patriarchy.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:11PM
I remember reading on A Voice for Men that one of the reasons there was a push for female eligibility for jury duty was that men are reticent to convict women. I believe the concept of the gender inequality in prison populations is the “glass cellar” if I'm remembering correctly.
Personally, I think if these gender lunatics were serious about creating an equal society, they'd take the Amazon nation more seriously. It's obvious that they want special treatment, and they have the privilege of being unaware of their cisfemale privilege. They're also playing on the “protect girls” instinct that one guy who's a close friend believes is inherent to masculinity. Basically, it's the perfect social engineering hack.
As a side note, he often likes to quote King [goodreads.com]: “The soil of a man's heart is stonier….”
I wonder what we have to do to encourage more men to take the “red pill,” as it were—that there is nothing wrong about questioning the veil of weakness so many women erect? I think I'd consider myself a “redpiller,” and I'm often confused when considering other folks who have lived as both genders who have somehow avoided taking the “red pill.” When one transitions, from the first moment one finds that one has cisfemale privilege (even if on loan as Serano wrote), I don't understand how one cannot contemplate the true nature of the gender dichotomy. Was I physically stronger when I had a male form? Perhaps, maybe an inch or two taller. Yet, I balk at the notion that having a female body makes me weak.
There's an old saying in Amazon philosophy that asks for some contemplation: “It's a man's world, not because it should be, but because we let them have it.”
(Philosophy war! Bring it, Aristarchus—I assume you're familiar with Amazon philosophy and its fork from Greek philosophy way back when! This will likely need to wait for a future thread.)
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Sunday June 14 2015, @08:17AM
You raise some very good points. I am familiar with the Amazonian philosophy. To boil it all down to the size of a grain of rice, I am a firm believer in equality. I think that we need to be judged on our merits, to be known by our skills, and to be able to try for anything. Trying, however, does not mean success. One needs to also accept that they are incapable of performing all tasks they may wish to achieve.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dusty monkey on Friday June 12 2015, @08:52AM
The thing is that certain ideologies are far less tolerant than others, and its often the ones that pretend to be the most tolerant that are actually the most intolerant.
For instance, in Gamergate it was Zoe Quinn illegally issuing DMCA takedown notices against youtubers that werent towing the feminist line that really blew up the whole thing. But arent Feminists tolerant? Well they pretend to be, but no, not at all. One of the least tolerant groups of people, and I think I have an explanation:
The problem with feminism is that it mostly accomplished its goals a long time ago, so it has to focus on smaller and smaller details. These small details (of which crap like "micro aggressions" is a part) cannot be protested against seriously, so what they do instead is to go on the attack.
If you want to hold a talk on Mens Rights (or even just Male Suicide), well you are going to have to climb over an onslaught of feminist roadblocks first. If you manage to climb all those roadblocks and start your talk, a feminist will still literally pull a fire alarm to prevent the talk from happening. I know of 4 different times this has happened and been reported on.
It has basically become a cause looking for an issue so it manufactures them whenever it can, and as such it cannot afford to be tolerant.
You also see the same sort of behavior amongst those progressives that argued for socioeconomic safety nets. They wanted a safety net so we created one many layers deep. Now they are a cause looking for an issue, so their tune is now full blown class warfare.
When a cause gets what it wants, it then becomes intolerant. The intolerance is a sign that they won. I think the name "social justice warriors" is appropriate, because warriors will continue to be warriors even after the fight is over.
- when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil - stop supporting evil -
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @01:17PM
When a cause gets what it wants, it then becomes intolerant. The intolerance is a sign that they won. I think the name "social justice warriors" is appropriate, because warriors will continue to be warriors even after the fight is over.
Skipping past all the other aggrevied-class rationaliazations, that last one takes the cake. You might as well have said, "we have a black president so racism is over."
(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?
(Score: 2, Informative) by dusty monkey on Friday June 12 2015, @05:35PM
Skipping past all the other aggrevied-class rationaliazations
Ah yes, skipping past the fact that feminists have tried to (and often successfully) stopped mens issues talks from happening, and have even pulled fire alarms to prevent them... because hey, fuck men.
This one happened ever a decade before gamergate [youtube.com]
Here they are pulling a fire alarm (and cheering when it happens) at an MRA meeting [youtube.com]
In case you think its out of context, here they immediately start disrupting the talk (ends with another fire alarm pulling) [youtube.com]
- when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil - stop supporting evil -
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @05:44PM
> Ah yes, skipping past the fact that feminists...
What is your point? Seems like all you want to do is continue railing about your greviances rather than address the point that no, egalitarianism has not been acheived.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Friday June 12 2015, @05:50PM
If it hasn't been achieved, it's at least partially the fault of feminism actively fighting to create inequity between the sexes (in favor of women).
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @06:08PM
> If it hasn't been achieved, it's at least partially the fault of feminism actively fighting to create inequity between the sexes (in favor of women).
Yay, a concern troll FTL!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @06:15AM
What the hell is a "concern troll", and why do so many people use "troll" to describe someone they disagree with? It's ridiculous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:54PM
Urban dictionary definition [urbandictionary.com]:
Rational wiki entry [rationalwiki.org]:
lrn2googl, troll
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday June 12 2015, @08:57PM
no, its the fault of extremist nutjobs who use the banner of "feminism" as their excuse, the exact same way that extremist nutjobs use various religions as their excuse to oppress and force their will on others. just like with religion, being a "feminist" is something that is typically known via self-identification, but when you look at the actual morals and goals and such involved, the extremists' actions and beliefs do not match with the actual movement. extremists doing this crap have the effect of destroying the reputation and trust of whatever system they're using as their excuse, but even though they're really not "believers" (for lack of a better term) in the system, pointing out that they're not is difficult if not impossible to distinguish from the "No True Scottsman" fallacy (eg, "They're not real feminists/Christians/Muslims/etc", even though they're really not). at any rate, the blaming all feminists for the actions of a minority of extremists is a false generalization fallacy, no question about that.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:34AM
Part of the problem (perhaps the biggest part) is that it is the extremists who do the extreme things (circular, I know). In other words, it is the vocal minority who are heard. If we look back at the Occupy movement, it was not the rational thinkers that got press - it was the insane that were on the news. This is not unusual. News is precisely that. News is not about the norm, it is about the exception and that is what makes it newsworthy.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 13 2015, @06:18AM
but even though they're really not "believers" (for lack of a better term) in the system, pointing out that they're not is difficult if not impossible to distinguish from the "No True Scottsman" fallacy
That's because it is the No True Scotsman fallacy. You don't get to decide what a "true" Muslim, Christian, or feminist looks like, and especially not if the definitions aren't even objective to begin with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @10:58AM
It's not a "no true Scotsman" when you take on a specific label and yet do not act in accordance to the mutually agreed upon definition. Suppose we can both agree that humanism is about protecting the right of people to live and be happy. If I were to call myself a humanist despite insisting on boiling babies alive and eating them, then it wouldn't be NTS to say that I'm not a humanist.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 13 2015, @11:07AM
It's not a "no true Scotsman" when you take on a specific label and yet do not act in accordance to the mutually agreed upon definition.
Except that there is no specific, objective definition of these terms. Furthermore, they're not "mutually agreed upon"; there are many differing views. The people in the WBC probably believe others aren't "true Christians", and other Christians believe the WBC aren't "true Christians". Well, at least the WBC more closely follows their holy book, I guess.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 13 2015, @11:27AM
And even the above definition of "humanism" you gave is open for debate. Maybe someone would use a different definition of "people", "happy", etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @02:10PM
Except that there is no specific, objective definition of these terms.
Feminism - the ideology of advancing pro-female agenda with the explicit goal of securing equal standing of women in society. When people act to give women special privileges or take away men's privileges then this explicitly contradicts the mission statement.
$RELIGION_DENOMINATION - the belief and effort to adhere to the creed of a given religion. Note, that adherence needs not be complete, as religious is not a boolean state.
The people in the WBC probably believe others aren't "true Christians", and other Christians believe the WBC aren't "true Christians". Well, at least the WBC more closely follows their holy book, I guess.
Yes, and that would be fallacious. However, it's also not relevant here because that would be discriminating based on arbitrary non-indicative criteria. Strictly speaking each form of Christianity is it's own sect and should be considered a separate religion in the same religious family, but that's not relevant in casual discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @02:15PM
men's privileges
That was poorly worded of me, it should have read "equal rights for men". An example would be the legal statue of protection against genitalia mutilation, which is total for women, and yet male circumcision is permitted. A while back, there was a strong backlash from self-identified feminists against outlawing the practice for boys.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:27PM
Feminism - the ideology of advancing pro-female agenda with the explicit goal of securing equal standing of women in society. When people act to give women special privileges or take away men's privileges then this explicitly contradicts the mission statement.
That's not an objective definition; there is plenty of vague and subjective terminology there. Someone doesn't like how someone is trying to achieve their goals, so they say they're not "true feminists"; it's nonsense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:50PM
There's no such thing as a perfectly objective, non-vague, non-general definition for any word. "Mutually agreed-upon by the majority" is the closest you can get.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 14 2015, @11:00AM
There's no such thing as a perfectly objective, non-vague, non-general definition for any word.
But some are more vague than others. Some people have essentially arbitrarily decided that certain people aren't True Feminists because they go about trying to accomplish their goals in ways they don't like.
"Mutually agreed-upon by the majority" is the closest you can get.
That's not too convincing. Within subcultures, the majority can agree on a definition. Maybe these feminist 'extremists' have their own definitions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @05:19PM
The goal of feminism is gender equality, it is not to make women superior to men or to have men subservient to women. The so-called feminists who aren't working for equality but instead are working to make men subservient to women or otherwise make men inferior are not, by definition, feminists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @05:34PM
To clarify, think of corporate espionage. A worker from company B goes to work for company A; the spy is labeled as a worker for company A, but he's not, he's working for entirely different goals than the rest of the workers of company A. He's really not a Company A worker, he only appears to be one on the surface. So-called feminist who have taken the label but are working for entirely different goals are just like corporate spies, working within a group and calling themselves a member, but working to accomplish something entirely different. Pointing out that they're working for entirely different goals and thus not a member is different from the fallacy because the fallacy is based on trying to redefine the group to exclude unpleasant acts or traits, but there's no attempted redefinition going on when the people weren't part of the group except to use it as camouflage or to smear the group's name.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 14 2015, @06:05PM
Only if they agree with your definition of "equality", "subservient", "inferior", etc.
(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.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @01:52PM
The thing is that certain ideologies are far less tolerant than others, and its often the ones that pretend to be the most tolerant that are actually the most intolerant.
That's like saying I know I'm OK, I don't sugarcoat things because I'm interested in serious discussion but the other side seems incapable of civility.
Turn it around. What do you think the other side thinks of you?
For instance, in Gamergate it was Zoe Quinn illegally issuing DMCA takedown notices against youtubers that werent towing the feminist line that really blew up the whole thing. But arent Feminists tolerant? Well they pretend to be, but no, not at all.
Take another look at these tweets, [dailymail.co.uk] that included a top developer's home address. I'd have been scared too. I'd have called the cops as well.
But maybe that would've been overreaction to a joke posting.
The problem with feminism is that it mostly accomplished its goals a long time ago, so it has to focus on smaller and smaller details.
Like the small detail of trying to be successful in a male-dominated profession without being doxed and getting death threats?
(Score: 3, Informative) by K_benzoate on Friday June 12 2015, @04:14PM
If you want to have any credibility, AC, you might not want to submit as evidence quotes from one of the most shameless, self-serving, abusive, liars in the intersection of indie "game dev" and radical feminism. Brianna Wu has been outed as a liar several times. She has been caught forging threats against herself on Twitter and on Steam, making any claims of feeling threatened highly dubious at best.
There might be a case to be made on your side, but using her is just pathetic this late in the game. The only people still defending her are the naive or the true believers. I'm hoping you're just unaware how horrible she is.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @04:24PM
Link?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @05:11PM
Collection of them: http://pastebin.com/tY523LLz [pastebin.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @06:36PM
Jesus christ, links to links to llinks to links.
Who the fuck has time for that?
If the goal is to make a convincing summary then someone needs to summarize all that shit. Otherwise citing it just looks like an attempt to bury any argument under a crapflood.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @07:30PM
> ask for evidence
> receive evidence
> disregard evidence
Sounds about right.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @07:40PM
> ask for evidence
> receive crapflood
> disregard crapflood
FTFY
I spent 5 minutes trying to parse through those links looking for clearly articulated proof before I gave up. I think that's more than fair.
If someone asks for a soda and you hand them a bag of syrup and spray them with a firehose, they don't owe you anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @07:56PM
http://i.imgur.com/VRLD4sT.png [imgur.com]
There's something, and it's only one link. If you want to bury your head in the sand then go right ahead, but at least admit it if you do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @08:26PM
What is that suppossed to mean?
How does that prove she is a liar?
Since you failed to explain it, I had to spend at least 15 minutes googling trying to figure that shit out, what I think I see is Wu parodying the people with a hate-on for her. Asking if she "is a terrible person" is such dorky wording it is funny. Even one of the comments - left out of the screen shot you linked to [archive.is] - recognized it as a joke. If her laughing at gg'ers qualifies as duplicitious then all I'm left with is confirmation that gg'ers are thin-skinned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @08:09PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @11:21AM
Here is Wu lying about filing criminal charges [archive.is] and how law enforcement isn't doing anything about it, which was later proven false [archive.is].
Bonus points, here is evidence of Wu being in her cozy home [theralphretort.com] while crying about being "forced to flee home".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @03:49PM
So, she gets a death threat, and then a bunch of assholes phonebomb and mailbomb the prosecutor saying the guy in question didn't make one? How is that proof of anything? You really need to look up what the word "proof" means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:51PM
If you want to pretend you are that dumb, then you should drop the perfect grammar. It's an obvious tell.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @05:41PM
You're suffering from "true believer syndrome", you believe everything is proof of what you've already decided is the truth despite the evidence showing something entirely different. The evidence shows that its time to officially categorize you gamergate nutjobs along with creationists, flat-earthers, and AGW-deniers. Enjoy your delusions, but the more you scream them from the sidewalk, the more people will understand how crazy you are and ignore you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @01:51AM
LINK?
Where is a link from either a top news site (not some racist or gamergate hangout) or a mainstream news site?
You don't have one. You have rumors, rumors, rumors, innuendo, innuendo, and slurs.
(Score: 2) by K_benzoate on Saturday June 13 2015, @09:54PM
I found the Wikipedian!
Tell me, how can we document ethical abuses of the mainstream media if we are only allowed to use the mainstream media as sources? This is exactly the mindset that has let the GamerGate article on Wikipedia stay so horribly inaccurate and biased.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @05:47PM
I thought it was about "ethics in gaming journalism", since when is gaming journalism mainstream? At any rate, you need facts, not frothing lunatics thinking every single sentence from your target is somehow proof of what you've already made up in your mind. The articles you nutjobs are claiming as "proof" are just as coherent as the TimeCube page, and backed up by just as many facts.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 12 2015, @06:03PM
Unsupported Ad-Hominem, about par for the course....
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Friday June 12 2015, @02:45PM
Many well-known successful groups of benign idealists become victim of their own success, to the point where the original leaders even disavow the acts and ideals of the very organization they started. New converts jump on the gravy train but need more fuel to sustain their momentum or purpose for existing, so they become more extreme to protect their newfound power and keep growing their base, and when others confront them about how they're straying from their ideals they double down and pull the persecution card.
The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition
French Revolution
US Tea Party
Greenpeace
MADD
PETA
Parent Television Council
Modern examples seem to be more liberal/progressive groups, I think because by definition they're looking to improve or change the status quo. Conservative/regressive groups like anti-abortion organizations, men's rights, anti-LGBTQ lobbies, etc tend not to get more extreme because they don't see much social or legal advancement of their causes, and/or start off extreme to begin with (the evangelical anti-science lobby is an exception, having seen some success in forcing creationism into school science classes and legally denying the existence or mention of climate change in some places).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @09:04PM
The idea that women can't / shouldn't own their own bodies is about as extreme as you can get.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @11:27AM
You are grossly misrepresenting them. The idea is not that women shouldn't own their bodies, the ideas is that they shouldn't own the souls of their unborn babies. As an atheist I find it ridiculous, but at least I can see where they are coming from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @03:53PM
Except there's no such thing as a "soul" and unborn fetuses are nothing more than parasites until they're born. Unborn babies do not have self-sovereignty, they can't because they're not born! How does being infested with a parasite make one lose ownership of their own body? How does that logic work?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:41PM
Furthermore, I just had this argument in person - "So you think those whores should be able to go out fucking whoever they want, being sluts, and abort hundreds of babies?", "They should give it up for adoption!" (with refusal to acknowledge the near year and risk to life and health required to carry it to term and birth it), and "Then they shouldn't be having sex in the first place! Sex has consequences!". There is no mischaracterization about the anti-abortion movement - it is pure misogyny, that women who dare have any kind of libido should have to suffer the consequences of pregnancy every time they have sex, that women should not be able to own their own bodies because they're nothing more than property, masturbation material for men to be used up and thrown away as the man sees fit. And to top it off, the person I heard those quotes from is a total deadbeat dad who has all his property in other people's names, and wanted to put his new vehicle in my name today, so that they won't be taken away because of all the back-child support he owes.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday June 12 2015, @07:38AM
When I was asked to make this address I wondered what I had to say to you boys who are graduating. And I think I have one thing to say. If you wish to be useful, never take a course that will silence you. Refuse to learn anything that implies collusion, whether it be a clerkship or a curacy, a legal fee or a post in a university. Retain the power of speech no matter what other power you may lose. If you can take this course, and in so far as you take it, you will bless this country. In so far as you depart from this course, you become dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners.
As a practical matter, a mere failure to speak out upon occassions where no statement is asked or expect from you, and when the utterance of an uncalled for suspicion is odious, will often hold you to a concurrence in palpable iniquity. Try to raise a voice that will be heard from here to Albany and watch what comes forward to shut off the sound. It is not a German sergeant, nor a Russian officer of the precinct. It is a note from a friend of your father's, offering you a place at his office. This is your warning from the secret police. Why, if you any of young gentleman have a mind to make himself heard a mile off, you must make a bonfire of your reputations, and a close enemy of most men who would wish you well.
I have seen ten years of young men who rush out into the world with their messages, and when they find how deaf the world is, they think they must save their strength and wait. They believe that after a while they will be able to get up on some little eminence from which they can make themselves heard. "In a few years," reasons one of them, "I shall have gained a standing, and then I shall use my powers for good." Next year comes and with it a strange discovery. The man has lost his horizon of thought, his ambition has evaporated; he has nothing to say. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don't be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time.
John J. Chapman
Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @08:05AM
Spoken like a wealthy lawyer who was never imprisoned for the crime of merely speaking in a manner arbitrarily deemed unacceptable. As a Harvard graduate and a member of the bar, John Jay Chapman had absolutely no concept whatsoever of common life.
Chapman's criminally bad advice only applies if the following conditions are met:
1. Be Rich.
2. Don't Be Poor.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @08:20AM
Mod this anonymous asshole down, because John J Chapman is rich and famous and dead, and nobody gives a shit about the contrary opinions of anonymous fucking trolls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @11:04AM
I assume you are talking about yourself here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @03:15PM
I'm not so sure about that. Plenty of rich people won't rock the boat. They have too much to lose. Plenty of poor people will say some crazy things. They have nothing to lose. Of course most of those poor people don't get much attention. If they do, they tend to become rich. If they can resist the temptation to become corrupt, they become heroic.
I get your point though. There are a lot of people who have to work for a living to feed a family. They think about speaking out in some radical way, but figure it to be irresponsible.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday June 12 2015, @11:27PM
kuro5hin's orion blastar is desperately concerned that I am making many bad decisions, such as that I am likely to go back to sleeping under a highway overpass as well as dining at the portland rescue mission.
he points out that he has a wife and child and mortgage - he's mentally ill too, with the same thing I've got.
but I don't have a wife and child nor mortgage. What I've got is a macbook pro and some technical books, also lots of good libraries here. What I don't want are others to make my decisions.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday June 12 2015, @11:24PM
I was once arrested for felony terrorists threats because I told a grover beach, california police officer that I was conducting research into the effect of software faults on aviation safety.
Despite that I requested to act pro se, I had a public defender forced upon me who proceeded to refuse to defend me. She flatly refused to obtain any of the evidence nor to have an investigator interview any of the witnesses, of which there are many.
In hopes of paying my domain registration renewal, I pleaded guilty to... what was it I can't remember now I just woke up. The charge was pulled out of my attorney's ass because it had the convenient feature of not being a three strikes offense despite being a felony.
Now I can't get a job because I have a criminal record. That gets me down but I know the procedure as it was my general plan in my early twenties, when I was the most severely mentally ill, that being to start a business.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday June 12 2015, @11:33PM
I can't speak for Chapman as I don't know much else about him, but John F. Kennedy was also a Harvard alumnus, as is Richard Stallman - he was a physics major.
it is quite common for one to join the bar in hopes of fighting injustice; for example a santa cruz, california attorney who focussed on pro bono work for the homeless was unable to pay his bar association dues, so a county judge paid them - anonymously. (I'm not real sure how we know it was a judge, but it was.)
a friend of my ex-wife's obtained a master's in biology then went on to law school and is now an environmental lawyer.
I myself, while not a lawyer have quite an interest in the law not so much because I get arrested so much but because Jack Batson, my high school history teacher - and later mayor of fairfield, california - taught us that the supreme court does not make advisory opinions. That is one cannot simply request that a law be struck down as unconstitutional, one has to violate it then defend oneself.
It is my most-fervent hope to do that myself someday. So far all I've accomplished is to get my charges dismissed a few times.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @08:31AM
The only right men have is the right to go to prison, where all men belong.
Lesbian Powa! Lick a sista for Shezus.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Friday June 12 2015, @08:37AM
So we can expect more misogynist racists talking trash against the SJWs, right here on SoylentNews? Load your mod-cannons, people, it's going to be a rough ride!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @08:50AM
White bitches are the worst bitches, you know it's true!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by bitrotRnotbitrot on Friday June 12 2015, @08:53AM
Well I'm new here, I have a pretty strong dislike for SJWs. I'm neither misogynist or racist though, same as most sane people who dislike them.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @12:49PM
I'm neither misogynist or racist though
I bet you're an excellent driver, too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @10:13AM
Get on with the times grandpa, misogyny means criticizing any SJW narrative these days.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @03:58PM
"Misogyny" has an actual definition, unlike "SJW" which is nothing but a meaningless euphemism used to attack people who disagree with the speaker, just like "politically correct". Go ahead, try to define them, you'll have your own personal definition, which won't match anybody else's, so those words have no real meaning - they're merely meaningless attack words.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @05:06AM
Oh my god, you cannot be serious. Are you honestly arguing from some unseen arbitrary measure of the legitimacy of words? Do you even have any idea how language works?
There is no moral authority which gets to decide which words are "worthy" to exist. A word or phrase is born whenever two or more people decide on a shared meaning for it. You can huff and puff as much as you want, but the fact that it's used to convey meaning makes it word by definition.
As for your actual "argument"...
unlike "SJW" which is nothing but a meaningless euphemism
I disagree, prove it.
Go ahead, try to define them, you'll have your own personal definition, which won't match anybody else's
That's not how honest discussion works. You don't get to demand that the opposition proves that your empty assertions are false.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @07:12PM
Strawman. Who said anything about words being "worth[y of] exist[ing]"?
You're asking me to prove that a word doesn't have a definition? Well here you go! [google.com] Nothing in the dictionary! Proof that it is meaningless.
Still waiting for you to define this word which you assert has a definition, like I asked for originally. Burden of proof is in your court.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by cubancigar11 on Friday June 12 2015, @08:54AM
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Also look up "false dilemma" on google.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @11:51AM
Signal your enlightenment harder. Your SWPLness is laughable.
(Score: 3, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @10:12AM
As a less dramatic example, let's consider the cone of silence that's descended on the great init system debate. It's amazing how the System D thing got shut down--and continually gets shut down--in the tech world. This post will be modded -1: Troll within minutes of my posting it. This post will explore the reasons behind this.
Consider the following statement:
"For a while System D was this inflamed sore spot, now it's old news, a settled debate, and no longer worth discussing."
We can abstract it and apply it to any number of discussions:
"For a while $TOPIC was this inflamed sore spot, now it's old news, a settled debate, and no longer worth discussing."
...where $TOPIC is a subset of (evolution, gun control, affirmative action, gay marriage, gnu vs. gnu/linux, system d,etc)
Why is this? I'd offer two possible explanations:
1) Deadlock. At some point, some debates are recognized as being intractable, and eventually, even bringing them up evokes the "eyes rolled heavenward" response (just think, "vi vs. emacs")
2) Debate fatigue. After enough screaming, the losing party usually gives up or gives in, and nobody wants to talk about it anymore.
I'd argue that in modern society (say, the past 50+ years or so) a great number of contentious debates have been resolved, not by reaching a compromise or consensus, but by the discussion reaching the point where options 1 and/or 2 are the only way forward. Once that mark has been reached, reviving the topic is considered to be in poor taste, to say the least! The result: downmodding, banning, etc.
So here we are in the Linux world. Apparently System D has "won" and it's "settled science." I'm sure Reddit hasn't banned any anti-System D subreddits yet, but I'm sure that's only a matter of time. Part of this might be generational: the millenials tendency toward apathy means that we arrive at the second state (Debate fatigue) with increasing fatigue.
In conclusion, I can only state this observation: people are always excited about a debate or controversy, but only as long as it's fashionable. One could argue that real or manufactured controversies are the lifeblood of a comment-driven website (or, more broadly speaking, the entire news media), and that once debate fatigue sets in, it's time to move on to a new topic.
For some of us, System D provides an endless source of amusement and hilarity, and the topic remains forever fresh and lulzworthy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @10:43AM
Your prediction was obviously wrong. There's still no troll moderation (or any other moderation) on your post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @10:47AM
But do snarky replies count? Discuss amongst yourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @10:58AM
No, they don't count. They don't decrease visibility of the post; indeed, they increase it. Therefore if anything, they should be considered an up moderation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @07:12PM
While it may increase the visibility, it also adds to the noise drowning out what little signal there may have been.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @07:30PM
> While it may increase the visibility, it also adds to the noise drowning out what little signal there may have been.
Only for people who read comments sorted newest first, all other sort options will make the original post more prominent than the snarky replies. Unless that is, the snarky reply gets modded above a filter threshold that would have made it invisible. But that still increases visibility for the OP since without that upmodded snarky reply the entire thread would be invisible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @09:08PM
So decreasing post visibility is censorship? By posting, you're increasing the number of posts, which decreases the visibility of each individual post, which means posting is censorship!
Stop posting, otherwise you're censoring me!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @10:54AM
Evolution is about what happend. That's a question that can be settled through science. And it has been settled through science, by mounting heaps of evidence for it. The only thing that could legitimately re-open the debate is new evidence that doesn't fit evolution.
All other topics in your list (with the possible exception of "affirmative action"; I have no idea what you mean with that) are about what should happen. That is, a question that cannot ever be decided purely through science; science can help in making the decision, but there's no way this can be decided by science. Therefore those questions can ultimately only be settled by agreement.
In short: Evolution does not belong on your list.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:41PM
You are so right about the systemD amusement.
It's like a B rated movie trying to be serious, but just gets funnier as you watch.
I especially like the binary log thing.
Why not run the logs through some brainfuck program and then encrypt it all too, while your at it?
There must be an App for that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cykros on Saturday June 13 2015, @03:27AM
I think the big thing with systemd is that those of us that decided it was problematic enough have resolved to use open systems that don't use it (Slackware, Gentoo, the BSD's, etc). The rest either don't care, and use whatever most popular/supported distro they're going to use, or outright LIKE systemd (while it may seem strange, I can kind of relate, being someone who voluntarily uses pulseaudio on Slackware due to some of its functionality actually making my system do what I want it to...#slackware on freenode will NEVER let me hear the end of it if it gets brought up though). The rest at this point is generally just repeating what has already been said in countless other situations, and yes, it gets tiresome. Moreover, it derails other conversations that all parties involved actually are able to find middle ground on into a realm of shouting matches.
That isn't to say it should never be a topic that gets discussion, just that the time and place for those discussions are no longer in the big general forums, but rather, with those who have not yet become aware of the debate in the first place, or those who are just now realizing the issues that are resulting from having systemd. You can yell at the masses all you like, and then complain when they turn their backs and walk away (or outright find some way to silence you), but change comes in the trickle of individuals having thoughtful conversations, one on one, and making decisions.
As for places like Soylentnews though, it's worth noting that the choir sometimes gets sick of being preached to. In my experience, there aren't many systemd apologists around here...just those who hated it enough to do something about it for themselves, and those who decided that despite it being abhorrent, the cost of changing things outweighed the benefits, and it's just one more obnoxious part of dealing with modern tech (to throw onto the pile). That isn't to say that novel systems that make avoiding its use won't be welcome, but that merely talking a lot about how nice they'd be will get treated as the empty words and actionless complaining it amounts to. At the end of the day, systemd, sysvinit, bsd init, and the various derivatives are all FOSS, and if you really want to do something about anyone, the source code is in your hands to do something with. Don't be surprised when choosing to complain about it rather than do something about it draws eyerolls instead of applause.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @10:03AM
That, sir or madam, was a very thoughtful post.
I salute you!
(Score: 5, Informative) by bradley13 on Friday June 12 2015, @12:03PM
I'm not on reddit, but I know it by reputation. Reminds me of Usenet: an uncontrolled, seething chaos that includes a lot of dross and a few gems. As I understand it, it is entirely possible to participate in subreddits that interest you, and ignore (or even block) ones that you don't care for. Hence, censorship of any type is utterly unnecessary.
Why did they ever pick Ellen Pao? Her record makes it clear that she is not the "live and let live" type. Of course, she is going to start banning subreddits that she, personally, finds offensive.
It should be noted that her husband is also a lovely guy [wikipedia.org]: he likes to sue organizations for racial discrimination whenever he doesn't get his way. His asset management company was little more than a scam: after a few years of "trading for his own account and on behalf of clients" the fund was bankrupt, the clients lost their money, but he was personally wealthy. Exactly why he wasn't prosecuted, even though the bankruptcy judge explicitly called it "fraud", is a bit of a mystery.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @12:13PM
> Reminds me of Usenet: an uncontrolled, seething chaos
Except for one key fact - that it is controlled by a single corporation plus a bazillion editors who have routinely deleted posts since practically day one. Anyone who knows usenet knows it is barely like reddit. To treat reddit as if it had ever been a place without rules is just a strawman.
Don't like reddit's rules? Go somewhere that does not depend on the beneficience of someone else's pocketbook. As your father once told you, "my house, my rules." I grew up and bought my own house. Every reddit whiner should do the same.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @04:06PM
Yeah, and if you don't like the United States' abuse of surveillance, you should GTFO too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @06:06PM
> Yeah, and if you don't like the United States' abuse of surveillance, you should GTFO too.
Bcause privately owned reddit is exactly the same as public governance. Exactly
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @01:39PM
In 2015, just words can 'harass' somebody.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:44PM
Until you can post interpretive dance to a text-based medium, words will have to do.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday June 12 2015, @08:09PM
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @05:15PM
i can digg it.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 12 2015, @06:39PM
The only solution to this sort of censorship is pretty obvious. Conservative leaning Libertariians must simply create workalike sites to places like this and implement corporate policy that forbids SJW types by having a Code of Conduct none of them could possibly abide. Then allow everyone to freely use the site. Simply making a ghetto (8chan) where only the banned topics exist quickly turns into a suckhole of only the most vile things and firewalls start banning the IP block. No, actually practice tolerance and diversity by allowing all, even the most hardcore SJW to crate forums and freely participate so that eventually all users flow to your more open site. It is simply a fact though that to practice tolerance and diversity means not hiring the fake tolerant Progressive type because they will quickly practice Entryism and once they have control will import the same intolerant policies that forced the original migration.
Yes I'm saying we must replace Facebook, Twitter, Gofundme and pretty much every large social type site as well as reddit. A massive undertaking but massive wealth for the right folks who can pull it off.
Prog leaning Libertarians won't do, they would never enforce a ban on hiring their prog friends, even if they themselves aren't prog enough to pick up the banhammer themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @06:50PM
> A massive undertaking but massive wealth for the right folks who can pull it off.
You seem to be confused about the number of people who give a damn. Reminds me of that libertarian utopia - Galt's Gulch. [vice.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @07:05PM
The only solution to this sort of censorship is pretty obvious. Conservative leaning Libertariians must simply create workalike sites to places like this and implement corporate policy that forbids SJW types by having a Code of Conduct none of them could possibly abide.
Not a racist? Advocating segregation and concentration camps? Oh, My! Besides, doesn't the listing Conservative Faction already have this with Conservapedia and Speaker Bohner's email list? (And, your call for a sugar-daddy is cute, considering how money is the only thing that could compensate for such low numbers of Libertarians.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @09:03PM
Wrong, your solution will lead to exactly the same situation we already have. The problem is with the people, any site can get taken over by any type of group, liberal or conservative. You can't practice tolerance by attempting to ban one group of people... It's simply a sad fact that SJW types fight so hard for tolerance and equality yet often are hypocritical. If you don't want to be a hypocrite then practice tolerance by understanding how/why SJWs become so extreme they violate their own beliefs.
The only type of solution that would result in actual freedom would be a distributed system with impartial rules. Any banning / censorship can be enacted by each individual, or by a group moderator at most. But for true freedom you can't have a central authority over everyone that makes the choices. If a global ban is actually needed, then it is more likely that legal authorities should be contacted...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 12 2015, @11:22PM
Which is why I said you only ban SJWs from -working- for the free and open replacement sites. You want everybody to migrate over and post, create and participate, otherwise you get 8chan or Conservipedia. But if you allow an SJW any authority to hire they will only hire more of their kind and as soon as their numbers grow they will impose their totalitarian worldview on the site.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @12:41AM
> I said you only ban SJWs from -working-
> they will impose their totalitarian worldview on the site.
Don't you hear it?
The unintentional irony in your posts is deafening!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @06:26AM
I don't see how not allowing people who would abuse their powers to be moderators or admins is totalitarian.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:06PM
Since you need it spelled out for you, the proposed "solution" is to have all the admins and mods already be totalitarian power-abusers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:11PM
Before you can "ban SJWs", you first need to define the term. "Anyone who disagrees with me" is not objective, and using subjective rules will only ensure the creation of an oppressive echo-chamber. Weren't you trying to reduce censorship? How does censoring different viewpoints help that?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:20PM
Pretty easy for the purpose of my proposal. If you believe in discrimination on the basis of race, gender, etc. you are out. There is zero difference between Al Sharpton and David Duke other than skin color and political power, if you disagree you are probably a bigot. If you believe science is ever 'settled' and thus believe in sending any remaining dissenters off to the camps, you are out. You may of course laugh at the flat earthers[1], you may not believe it acceptable to ban them from public debate. If you believe there is such a thing as 'hate speech' you are right out. If it isn't speech you strongly disagree with, of course you believe in the right to say it, free speech is is about protecting the stuff you do not approve of.
You simply can't set out to build a beacon of tolerance, diversity and free debate and allow those utterly opposed to all of those values to wield authority. You just can't. You must, on the other hand, allow those intolerant bigots to speak if only for the purpose of debate. Rush Limbaugh once said that, someday, when we retake the Universities we should retain one Communist at each so that future generations can see it, speak with it and understand that we weren't exaggerating the evil and the threat it poses.
Sooner or later we are going to have to make the same decision about the country because the exact same problem exists. You can't have a free country while allowing those utterly opposed to freedom and every other core American value to participate. But that is a much thornier problem which can be deferred to another day, companies (for now) are still allowed to hire as they will so long as they don't infringe on the 'protected classes' and political identification is not yet one of them.
[1] Or Chemtrail nuts, Electric Universe folks, AGW fanatics or other critics, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @06:05PM
Oh, so you propose banning bigots. Say that next time so people can understand you. Is your use of a made-up, meaningless term an attempt to avoid the inevitable "You preach tolerance but you're intolerant of my bigotry!" accusations by only being bigoted and intolerant towards the same label / group as the audience you want to attract is ("SJW"s, whatever that means)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:04PM
Yes, the solution to censorship is more censorship, oppression, and ensuring an echo chamber! Brilliant!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @02:27AM
If this were about behavior, why are they removing content? If they are addressing a behavioral issue, they should be blocking users (includes mods of those subredits if they were involved), but leaving the content. But they deleted content, so now everyone knows that Reddit has reversed its policy of not censoring ideas. The old policy is what attracted people to the site. So now they have changed the game, just as Digg changed its own game when it collapsed.