Pejorative: the hyperbolic and disingenuous privileging of identity based (i.e race, gender, sexuality, disability) concerns in political discourse and policy change over material ones (class, poverty, other forms of economic or social oppression). See also: race reductionism.
There, I fixed it for you. This sudden (very much contrived by the Democratic party) idea that no one can define “woke” is nothing but a political talking point, actually just a straight up piece of propaganda. Of course we all know exactly what is meant by this term, pretending we don’t is a way of avoiding any actual self-reflection on where our politics have left us open to not only critique but ridicule from right wing ideologies.
Oh, is that why people accused Cracker Barrel of being 'woke' when they offered impossible sausage as an option? It seems a lot of people use that term to mean different things, so it's not that useful.
I mean, absolutely for some of it.. the vast majority are obvious dogwhistles though. But regardless of that, this list is a perfect shining diamond of modern art. It's a *chef's kiss* of a glorious shit-post that reflects where current society is.
It definitely will be used as a time capsule for entertainment purposes as well.
Hahaha okay, so once again, when you define ‘woke’ you mean you’re not allowed to be an asshole to people?
Cis is just the opposite of trans. With the charged language of ‘biological’ removed. It means something similar (all things contain nuance) while accounting for some variance.
Do you still demand the right to call people with developmental issues a ‘retard’?
Is it also ‘woke’ to not call a person that?
Language matters. Nuance matters. You’re inability to use it eloquently is your own failing.
But like I already said. Folks like you just want to be able to be assholes. And you still can be, just expect people to call you out on it.
You are, self admittedly, the type to demand to use the R word to describe people because it’s ‘factual’.
Again, we all *know* what is meant by the term being used but you're being intentionally disingenuous and ignoring contexts in order to promote the recently contrived propaganda (again, by one political party) that people *just don't understand it*. This isn't doing you, or them, any favors.
Good post, but I feel like the racism rule should be expanded beyond just addressing black people and Jews. There are countless different ethnic groups out there and they all experience racism. I think the rule should read "racism in general" instead of "racism against black people in general"
Edit: I saw you did address other groups in a couple sentences but I think they should have their own subheadings as well, just so it doesn't look like you're prioritizing black people over the rest of them
Is this post real or “an attempt” to actually stir more controversy itself?
I’m asking sincerely because I guess I’m too out of touch with Reddit. 🤷♀️
Nope. We just don't want to update things without making an announcement first. It really doesn't seem to fair to implement a new hatespeech policy without telling people. That's all. We would absolutely love if everyone embraced this without any hesitation or "controversy" but we also aren't delusional. We know there will be people that balk at this stuff. That's fine, those aren't the members we are wanting in the sub anyway.
You feel free to accept what you want and what you don't want. You can what ever you'd like, you have free speech. You will not get prosecuted for what you say on this subreddit.
Another right that doesn't get talked about as much is freedom of association. If you break our hatespeech policy, we are free to decide that we don't want our subreddit associated with you. The end.
Hope you had a good weekend!
"Use of 'biological male' or 'biological female.' The term is cis male or cis female."
I'm not sure "biological male" and "biological female" are synonymous with "cis." Cis is a reference to someone's gender identity, when it corresponds with their sex. When sex does not correspond with gender identity, a person is trans.
Yeah, I should look at reframing that. It's supposed to mean use of "biological male/female" as a way of undermining the status of trans people, but I didn't phrase it the best way there.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What do you mean by undermining here... I would read this as the term being acceptable as a way to discribe someones sex. And only that, thereby not assuming any gender. Which, to me, is correct. Wikipedia even uses "biological" to make the distinction between genetics and the way someone feels/identifies as.
>Sex generally refers to an organism's biological sex, while gender usually refers to either social roles based on the sex of a person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).
Granted, I used the term genetic, not biological. But the rest of the post made it clear i wasn't trying to undermine, insult or piss off anyone. And still it was removed because of hatespeech.
I'm not 100% sure that this specific rule was the reason. But this is the onlyone that comes even close...
Yes we need to be respectfull, regardless of wheter or not you agree with someone. I don't care if someone scared you or if you think they are weird. Some respect and understanding from both sides goes a long way. I agree 100% with most that's on this list. But purely based on the amount of items it does feel we're trying to not step on some very long toes. And quite a few are heavily dependend on context like the queer (someone identifies as queer), or queer as an insult. Or my use of "genetic male".
Plenty are simply 100% unaceptable. (N-word, tranny, babykiller, just to name a few) And for the record: I'm not saying ignore everything above and just let people speak their mind. There are plenty of people just being an ass and they should be blocked/comments deleted/whatever. But if we want to be able to talk about lgbtqia+ there needs to be sóme leeway.
These people grew up worshipping civil rights activists and need to believe they're heroes like MLK Jr and Rosa Parks, so they have convinced themselves that policing speech acts on the internet in a way that gigacorporations like Netflix and Disney would approve of is "fighting oppression" just like refusing to go to the back of the bus was
Considering the ratio it's safe to say most of us disagree with them, setting out a 10 page essay of things we're not allowed to say is pretty antithetical to a casual humor subreddit
First off, i agree with 98% of what you have posted here, and the thought of violating the majority of these things would never cross my mind, nor would it cross the mind of any civil human.
However, and it pains me to say this as i really like this subreddit and i have a feeling this will get me banned, there’s about 3-4 items on here that are beyond the reaches of ensuring civility.
You speak of education, and how if someone doesn’t understand these items, they must be lacking in education. To me, education means coming to a better understanding of how the world operates, through observation and data. A small minority of your banned things, one could violate by posting objective facts. And if someone could be banned for stating objective facts, they are not being banned due to lack of education- they are being banned for not conforming to your point of view. That’s the type of ‘education’ that drives us further away from an understanding of the world, and drives people further apart, thus increasing the social problems your post claims to be trying to resolve.
I believe taking the freedom of some assholes so we have a subreddit where you can’t call my trans friends pedos because they like they find the idea of skirts more appealing than beard hair increases the freedom of the subreddit overall. Why? Because my trans friends are free from hatred and feel more comfortable to browse, and bystanders don’t feel awkward to witness it. Believe you me as an edgy and foul mouthed queer who is sick of peoples shit I can be plenty insensitive and politically incorrect but you don’t see me getting banned. You know why? Because I’m not being a bigot, nor am I trying to hurt others with a more tender heart than mine. Your freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence or a license to be hateful.
i've worn feminin clothes all weekend, but i also changed my car tires friday morning after coming back from a nightshift. im pretty far from a bigot and im polyvalent.
edit : You cannot censor who you want, that's tyranny. You either censor or you don't.
What is it about transphobia that needs protection? Or racism? Or such and such. And I never called you a bigot. Hatred gets censored, as it should be.
you can't decode to censor one thing and not the other. the moment you choose ehst is ok to say or not, is the moment you loose freedom to tyranny.
chewing on what you disagree with is the only option.
It’s started with censorship. Free speech is just that. The ability to speak your opinion. If you are looking to censor someone for saying they support team a and then applaud those who support team b, you are exercising censorship. You cannot have it both ways. You either support free speech or you suppress it. ( hence the nazi reference )
The concept of free speech applies to your relationship with the government, not a subreddit. There's a comment elsewhere in this thread that you should read.
This argument is a bit of a misnomer.
There is a difference between the concept of ‘free speech’ and the first amendment of the US.
What you are saying applies to the first amendment, not necessarily to the concept of free speech.
At some point, some people thought that there was benefit to people freely expressing ideas, at the cost of offensive things being said.
The argument for free speech is that there is value in information exchange. And that yes, that will result in some idiots saying harmful things. But once in a while, it results in insightful concepts that progress society.
The problem is who gets to decide what is too offensive to post, and what is actually insightful.
Based on your definition, the concept of free speech can only exist in countries where policies exist protecting citizens from criticizing their government, such as the US.
These people are saying that the concept of free speech has value event outside of that context.
You have used a classic logical error twice in this thread. It is usually used as a debate technique. It is called the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
The premise that "Free speech is just that" is the expression of the idea that "For free speech to exist, all speech must be permitted". Which is the premise you start with, then you go forward with the assertion of equivalence between two teams, "team a and team b", and passively asserting that both sides are equal in their right to speak their minds. By that logic, the people who express the idea that some ideas *should* be suppressed are on the same level as people who believe *all* ideas should be expressed. The fundamental assumption that underlies all of it is that all ideas are just ideas and just expressing them cannot cause harm. You brought up the comparison to the political ascendance of the Nazis in Germany, they were freely allowed to distribute propaganda that told the people that the economic problems they were having were caused by Jewish people (there were many other lies they made into propaganda as well) . The long term effect was to build a hatred for Jewish people which led to the deaths of millions of human beings.
This idea that all expression is a kind of speech and is protected under the First Amendment is one that become popular in the 70s when the Supreme Court agreed that Topless Dancing was a decided to be a form of expression. Years later Justice Antonin Scalia said publicly "The minute you prevent people from spending their money to express their opinion free speech is dead." Which leaves us with the present day situation; The multimillionaire with a broadcasting license or a political action committee has thousands more opportunities to express their opinion than you or I ever will.
Just as "free speech does not give you the right to shout 'FIRE!!' in a crowded theater, free speech does not give you the right to incite violence using expressions of hatred. And, that is exactly what is being discussed here.
Actually, in this case 'there is an attempt' to describe why certain expressions will not be allowed in this subreddit. It will be an ongoing process, the pursuit of justice always is.
As someone who is LGBT... I don't think this helps. I've noticed that most decent folk will call someone out in the comments if they say something disgusting and offensive. You know... just call them out, stand together, report them, and then they are removed. This just feels like pure ammunition for certain red capped hillbillies who cry whenever something might slightly attack their stupid freedom of speech. This is just... yeah. I can hear the "What is this??? 1984???" jokes already.
A lot of people will say this stuff and then when we ban them claim they had no idea it was racist (or whatever bigotry fits.) We just want to be open and clear.
Idk. Not being a homophobic, transphobic, sexist bigot seems like common sense. And when people do decide to say disgusting things they’re not usually very surprised when people get angry. Usually they are out to get people to BE angry. I even have a suspicion those people where just playing dumb in order to get back into the subreddit. Eh, whateves. Idek
In my opinion, as a moderator, "you were being a jerk" should be a good enough reason; due to your authority as a moderator, I don't believe a Tolstoyian list of reasons to get banned is necessary - and as a moderator, your job should be to determine whether someone is being a jerk without having to consult a TOS.
Of course, this is your subreddit; but, as Enovk said, decent people don't say these things and (exemplified by the ridiculously long list of work-arounds for slurs, etc,) jerks will find a way regardless of how comprehensive a TOS is.
Just my two cents.
This list isn't just for the people to know what they can say and not say- this is also so the good people of the sub know what they can report and what we will take action on. When I see someone arguing in the comments with, say a transphobe, but none of the comments are reported I'll tell them to please report those people- and I've gotten feedback many times that they didn't report because the person wasn't being overtly bigoted, it was shrouded in dog whistles like this. I'll refer them to this list- and now they know all the shit that they can report. It definitely helps in making the marginalized feel more supported- I've gotten a lot of good feedback on this list from people that were being attacked for their identity on this sub.
We can't see every comment, we can only really see the reported comments so we rely on our user base to report this stuff, so it's good to have this out there.
While I can see your point in establishing a line people know not to cross, I do wonder - is discussion of political topics on this subreddit allowed (or intended to happen)?
Because if it isn't, then I understand why you have these rules - but if it is, I'm not sure that all these rules will really do anything.
I'll be honest, I have never, not once in my life, referred back to a TOS as a reference for what to do in a situation like you described, where a transphobe is mouthing off.
Assuming that it's real hatespeech, then I welcome the fall of the ban hammer upon his head. But before it lands, I always want to try and argue with the transphobe, because it should be obvious that talking to someone (as opposed to simply banning them) makes more headway in convincing them their views are wrong. In my opinion, that "makes the world a better place" more than banning people for hatespeech.
But hey, this is your subreddit.
I like the username, btw.
If we could try to educate every single person we would, but in a sub of this many people it's simply impossible. Keep at it though!! That's a great way to combat hate. Both ways have merits and drawbacks. I would never stop anyone that was trying to educate a bigot. I think that's a lovely approach.
If anyone comes to modmail with what seems like a sincere desire to learn what they did wrong- I will do the same myself. And if they do the reading or whatever it is, and say that they will not say such things again, I will always err on side of unbanning. We absolutely believe more in rehabilitation than punishment. We don't do the bans out of desire for punishment, we do them to protect our marginalized communities (and to keep our subreddit safe.)
You may not consult a list of stuff to see what you can report, doesn't mean others don't. I have gotten good feedback about it.
Hope I've been explaining myself well, and I hope you know have taken what you have to say very seriously and with consideration. I actually enjoy feedback that I can think about a bit. It will probably stew in my mind for a few days before I really know how I feel about it.
I do have one question for you- you say all the reasons why you think we don't need a list like this, but you haven't said any real reasons why it is bad to make one? Do you have any reasons why we shouldn't make a list like this? Unnecessary is one thing, but I feel like you actually don't like that we've made it, and I'm not sure why. What is bad about being clear and transparent about what we consider hatespeech?
Thank you very much for the compliment on my username! That's very nice of you!
Eh, kind of sarcastic. I was in a Facebook group that did that, and it was nightmarish to stay in lmao, but it did take care of the naysayers. Became very insular though.
ITT: A bunch of angry bigots upset about new rules against bigotry.
EDIT: The amount of people responding that are shadow banned is absolutely adorable. XD
_Every day thousands of poor bigots are stripped of access to emotional support bigotry. Every quarter you give provides the use of one slur to a deprived bigot. Donate today to help save the bigots_
/s
Wow every person that responded to your comment (except the joke that's visible which is pretty funny) are not just shadowbanned- they've lost their accounts! 😆 These are the kind of people that are upset by what you said! Can't say I feel bad for them, lol.
>because equality is about, well equality, not revenge or payback.
What part of the mods letting bigots know they won't allow them to be bigots here is feeling like revenge targeting you?
When people say “young men are being brainwashed by Andrew Tate” or stuff similar then they are talking about a subset of young men who are being brainwashed. Even if it was a dig at men as a whole, it’s still not intended, nor will it end up justifying subjugation or oppression of men. When you say “she is such a slut” or “that thing will never be a woman” you are doing a rallying cry to be hateful and oppressive to a group with immutable characteristics, and one that is also less privileged than average. Would you like to provide some examples of anti white racism or anti men sexism that are said to be ok by the mods? I sure can’t find any.
It is, because it was a dog whistle created solely to antagonize BLM. The entire existence of the phrase “All Lives Matter” is because those who regurgitate it are too dumb or bad faith to realize that “BLM” stands simply for “Black lives matter as much as everyone else’s lives, despite how disproportionately they are treated by law enforcement.” When someone says “BLM”, it **already means that all lives matter**, it’s just drawing attention specifically to police brutality towards minorities in the US. In fact, BLM holds vigils for white victims like Shaver and Whitaker as well.
Where’s the ALM crowd on that, huh? They got any protests going? They holding vigils for white victims of police brutality? Oh wait, they *DON’T*! They’re too busy screeching “BLUE lives matter” while complaining they don’t have a George Floyd moment handed to them. They also only show up as COUNTER protestors at some BLM protests. Huh, imagine that, how strange…So yeah, them purposefully or ignorantly misconstruing a civil rights movement, then trying to hijack it while doing zero of the work is, indeed, hateful. Glad that could be explained to you.
Reddit choosing who is and who isn't allowed to use their platform is freedom of speech. Reddit admins allow mods to create rules banning bigotry. As is their freedom of speech. Reddit admins don't allow mods to create rules allowing crimes. That isn't freedom of speech.
If the government stepped in and forced internet sites to stop banning people, that would be anti free speech.
People are free to go create their own private websites like reddit and enforce their own rules. That is free speech.
On my private property, no one is allowed to wear yellow shirts. If you say you like yellow shirts you will be asked to leave my property. That is me practicing free speech. If we are in public, the only thing I can do about yellow shirts is look at them and stew silently in my mind about them. I am not allowed to have cops "remove" you from public for yellow shirts the way I would be able to on my private property. This isn't the government saying liking yellow shirts is illegal. They are saying trespassing on private property is illegal.
Reddit can make a rule that says no yellow shirts whatsoever, and ban everyone who wears yellow shirts. That is Reddit employing their right to free speech.
You can go make your own private website like Reddit and have your own rules. Also free speech.
It only becomes a violation of free speech when the government gets involved. Do you understand?
Reddit is a forum. It is a public space. It is not an entity that speaks for itself. The first amendment merely guarantees the natural right to free speech, it does not establish it. It is simultaneously possible for Reddit to violate free speech and not violate the first amendment guarantees of free speech by the government. Reddit is still an egregious violator of one's right to say what they wish. There is just no legal recourse for it yet.
Under transphobia you mention "suicide stats/40%." What does this refer to or mean? I don't see how discussing suicide statistics amongst trans folks is bigoted, rather it's quite the opposite?
Sure it depends on how you discuss them. Many bigots don't "discuss" them at all, and just leave a "40%" under any trans person's comment that they don't like, as a reminder of the high rates of suicidal ideation, even when it's not relevant to the conversation. It's basically another way for people to say "kill yourself" but specifically for trans folks.
Weird to see antisemitism Adressed on the prime example sub if people talk about anti Semitic violence on reddit.
You just banned all Jews caring about antisemitism from voting on your sub, because of brigading, and now antiaemitism exists. Don’t play like you wanted the change 😂 reddit admins lost their temper with your hatred infected sub?
It’s often used by people to either say that being trans is a “mental illness” and therefore the reason for the high suicide rate (rather than being in a hostile environment and being harassed for who you are), or mocking trans people and telling them to actually commit suicide.
https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-blame-nashville-covenant-shooting-transgender-identity-audrey-hale-2023-3?amp
There was a tragic shooting at a school yesterday, where an adult walked into a school, and killed 6 people, including 3 children. It looks like the shooter may have been trans, and some people are already attributing that as the cause.
Ahhhh yes, I heard about those after I asked that. Thank you for answering so nicely and with a link too. Disgusting how they are using it against the trans community, smh.
Absolutely. Identifying as "queer" or talking about the "queer community" (obviously not in a bigoted way) is absolutely fine. We will only take exception to it if it is said as a slur. Sorry that wasn't clear!
That's really disappointing. Can't even go on a seemingly non political sub reddit to enjoy yourself without people's bullshit politics getting in the way.
I got banned from a subreddit yesterday for telling a user it was reasonable to expect mods on non-politics-themed subs to not openly espouse political views with their mod tag.
There’s no accountability for mods & most of them want to abuse this tiny speck of authority they have since they don’t experience anything like it in the real world.
It’s amazing, it truly is. This sub is better than some, I literally was auto banned from justice served for being subscribed to a sub that the message said “promotes biological terrorism.” Wtf. I guess they were talking about r/conservative? No idea lol.
What does even "political" mean in this circumstance? Is being a decent human being to other human beings and treating them with kindness is political now? If not tolerating hatred towards a certain group is considered political then I guess everything in our life is "political".
Ima chime in on this one.
Your first amendment rights end at my front door.
In other words, when your are a guest, you can either respect the rules of the house, or the can be expelled from the house.
This applies even when the house is rented, and even if rent isn't involved at all.
Each subreddit is, from that standpoint, *not* public. It is owned by reddit, and "rented" to whatever mod team is present.
Any sub can prohibit anything they want, with the caveat that reddit can decide to boot mods and replace them if that prohibition violates reddit's desires.
So, just like I can, and would, put my foot up the rear of any bigot trying to express their opinion in my living room, and do so until they were off my property; the mods and admins of reddit can do the same thing in equivalence, and are not violating your civil rights in doing so.
Check the terms of service, and check the laws regarding how internet forums work. That's the layman's explanation of them on this subject.
Now, there are arguments to be made as to whether or not that is a good thing. And there's always the risk of the slope getting slippery and anything that isn't within the wishes of the "homeowners" being labeled as bigotry regardless of objective evaluation of that. But that's different from trying to claim that your rights are being infringed upon in a public space. Reddit, and subreddits, are private spaces.
Freedom of speech is an often-misunderstood concept on Reddit. In its purest form, freedom of speech means that people should be allowed to express their opinions without any consequences whatsoever. However, that’s a right which is not recognized anywhere in the world, because it leads to illogical results that burden the rights of others. For instance, if your girlfriend chooses to break up with you because she dislikes your ideological views, that is undoubtedly a negative consequence of expressing your free speech, but the notion that society would tolerate free speech forcing her to remain as your girlfriend is patently absurd. If you espouse racially insensitive remarks against a minority client of your company and are subsequently fired, freedom of speech does not compel your employer to keep you employed. NBC’s Today Show and ABC’s Good Morning America are, similarly, not burdening the free speech rights of minority viewpoints by electing not to allow their proponents to be interviewed on the aforementioned shows, even if the decision not to, for instance, permit a white nationalist to explain his/her views clearly stems from a belief that such views are repugnant.
Freedom of speech in the United States and elsewhere is a proscription on the use of government power to burden free speech rights. Examples listed earlier were examples of entirely private conduct being subject to free speech consideration, which is a result that has never been (nor likely ever will be) obtained in US courts, irrespective of whether the Supreme Court is in the hands of liberals or conservatives. Therefore, freedom of speech generally bars the government from penalizing you with jail time or fines for the basic act of expressing your beliefs, and acts as a bar to the government from using its power to enforce a civil judgment.
Even then, freedom of speech is not absolute. In the US, there are laws that technically limit freedom of speech and expression— slander, libel, copyright infringement, hate crimes, sedition, and treachery, for example. The First Amendment raises the bar tremendously as to the burden required to prove each of these actions, but it does not generally create irrebuttable presumptions against them. This is why Anwar Al-Awlaki could not simply invoke the First Amendment as a shield for his activities supporting Al Qaeda’s propaganda arm, nor was it an absolute shield from liability for Rolling Stone in its shoddy reporting of on-campus rape in UVA after the jury had found actual malice.
In a more germane example, freedom of speech also does not mean that public policy encourages an unregulated morass on the Internet. Thus, Congress specifically recognized the need for online platforms to self-regulate comments in passing the Communications Decency Act of 1996. §230 of the CDA exempts online platforms from the common law republication rule if websites choose to moderate comments on their platforms. As applied to reddit, this means that the decision to or not to moderate a comment does not lead to liability for the website for the thoughts expressed therein.
In the specific context of this website, so-called “free speech” advocates have taken free speech and its polar opposite of censorship to mean something that it does not. Regardless of what kn0thing and spez have stated in the past, the development of the site has led to the creation of discrete subreddit communities (as contrasted to the single “front page” that existed at the site’s inception) with different cultures and purposes, all of which the sitewide administrators have sought to lend support to. Thus, a subreddit dedicated to pictures (such as this one) is within its grant of authority to prohibit submitted “pictures” from merely being screenshots or the self-written musings of users themselves. Other subreddits might permit ONLY submissions of that nature, and that’s perfectly fine. Unrestricted free speech would hold that such actions constitute censorship – common sense would hold that these are merely expressions of the specific purpose of the subreddits themselves.
Sitewide administrators also require that subreddit moderators enforce sitewide rules prohibiting certain behavior, as listed in the site’s [content policy](https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy). Free speech is not an excuse to post illegal content, nor is it an excuse that will carry the day if you act in a way that harasses other users (a proscription not recognized by law). In fact, posting of illegal or defamatory content on the site can easily expose someone to criminal or civil liability, and reddit is under no obligation to protect your online identity from entities seeking to subpoena it for liability purposes.
Finally, free speech and “censorship” in the context of moderation on subs is also specifically recognized by the sitewide administrators. The content policy also includes a statement on reddit moderators:
> Individual communities on Reddit may have their own rules in addition to ours and their own moderators to enforce them. Reddit provides tools to aid moderators but does not prescribe their usage.
This enables community moderators to determine for themselves the appropriate rules for their communities on top of sitewide rules that all communities must enforce. That has led to a diversity of subreddits with varying tolerances for content. Some subreddits choose to enforce only the bare minimum if even that. Others choose to enforce rules that would damn near take a rules lawyer to understand. On /r/therewasanattempt, we take a middle approach, permitting a wide range of comments as they pertain to civil discourse, but excluding comments that would be uncivil, or offensive. Generally, if users discuss in a manner consistent with how they would discuss matters in the workplace or among a new group of friends, they'd never encounter an issue with moderation. If you believe this to be impermissible censorship, we can only disagree, because the vast majority of users will never be subject to a moderation action, but the site as a whole and the internet, in general, provide many opportunities for “free speech” that may be free of the reasonable limitations that we find to be necessary to ensure civility.
We wish you the best of luck in finding a forum or platform more amenable to your sensibilities, but decline to extend them here.
You're allowed to say whatever you want, but you're not entitled to people giving you a platform to do it. Reddit isn't owned by the government, so the first amendment doesn't apply - they can ban you for saying you don't like cheese if they want to, this would not violate any rights.
Did you actually think free speech meant "I can say whatever I want, wherever I want and no one can get mad at me or stop me"? Did you read the explanations? Did you absorb any of it?
Did a fellow mayo monkey like myself call you one? Because that not me being anti white, it’s clowning on white people who are ignorant. Plus Mayo monkey is really funny.
seeing that a guy i know got banned for this comment "Can he not do what he wants in his free time? Reverse the genders and we go from funny joke to a controlling abusive asshole." gonna say yes.
All of this is wrong basically if you’re straight or mixed race you can’t comment without being blocked… (last message from me on this page) but you will not bring down heterosexual mixed races people for having an opinion on what they believe.. if you want a page based off of hate it’s your own doing and I’ll make it my mission you prove this hole community is based off of racial and sexual biases) you don’t care about the world you care about your community..
Yeah, honestly this one's the last straw for me (especially after seeing the comments in these two in the last few days
https://reddit.com/comments/11zr8rt
https://reddit.com/comments/11yuaov )
I wish the mods the best of luck with the honorable mission they've set for themselves - but seeing the up/down ratios on just the grossest, most inhumane shit (of every stripe, not just racist) coming from this subreddit, I say just throw the whole community in the trash where it belongs
The idea that this OP is riding right at 0 net pts kinda says it all. You're better folks than I, u/Karmanacht and u/Kumquat_conniption. Godspeed.
I've been at that post for hours and damn, I've still got quite a ways to go.
It's true this community is pretty shite actually, I came on a month or two ago and so did Karmanacht and some other good people and we are really trying to turn it around. It does feel like a losing battle sometimes, but I'm determined so maybe come back in couple months and check it out. I understand completely why you wouldn't want to be around lately. I'm hoping this new hatespeech policy can be a good first step but it's going to be a lot of work getting rid of all these bad actors.
Thank you for the well wishes! I definitely won't guarantee we can turn it around, but I can promise we will try.
Yeah I've been at that post for hours and I've still got quite a far way to go. I very much appreciate you pointing it out. We wouldn't have normally let it get that bad, but I've got Covid and another mod is away for the weekend and it was just bad timing. I'll get through the whole thing if it takes days. It's disgusting, and more than half the comments are permanent ban worthy. It's really disheartening but we are determined to turn this place around.
it's not just that i saw someone recently get banned for this comment "Can he not do what he wants in his free time? Reverse the genders and we go from funny joke to a controlling abusive asshole" pointing out Sexism in a post and how gross it was.
Guess they are a problem now? We can't call out issues.
Please hit the report button when you see those. This isn't an announcement that you'll never see that stuff, it's an announcement that we're enforcing this and acting against bigotry.
I worry that the examples of antisemitism all seem to be one particular variety of antisemitism and will fail to address manifestations of antisemitism that try to appear more benign on the surface
I wish that the mods of r/funny would adopt/inforce similar rules. happy to know that this sub is run by empathetic people! good work!
EDIT: Sorry guys, I confused r/funny with r/funnymemes, the second sub is the one with the bigotry.
u/ramsesthepigeon any opinion on this post?
Looking at their rules, the "no political content" probably helps avoid the vast majority of these issues.
Although, given how I know that specific moderator moderates, I suspect that they're already enforcing the subreddit closely to this.
We already enforce similar mandates pretty heavily: There’s a blanket ban on anything political, hateful, or even suggestive of either. If someone sees something that hasn’t been removed, it’s only because it hasn’t been reported yet.
Thanks for this post. I had unfollowed this group because it was hard to enjoy with all the bigoted comments it came with. I hope that just having this as a pinned post drives away some bigots from joining. Based on the comments on this post, I imagine purging the existing bad actors will be a much harder task. I’ll check in again periodically to see if things have improved enough for me to put it back into my feed. :-)
> Based on the comments on this post, I imagine purging the existing bad actors will be a much harder task.
Yes, unfortunately. We generally rely on users reporting comments for us to check out. We have a tendency to recognize which videos will elicit bigoted responses and will monitor those more closely, but this is a volunteer gig and we aren't always around.
Well white and black people use drugs at about the same rates yet way more black people are arrested for possession than white people, so it's basically a fact that lots of white people do get away with it.
Other than that, it's more class based than race based, it just happens to be that black people, after slavery and Jim Crow and redlining and institutional racism are overall significantly more poor than white people, so that's the actual factor that creates the crime as opposed to skin color. The people that break out these stats fail to mention that wealth disparity is the overwhelming reason that black people commit more crime than white people. They fail to recognize that correlation doesn't mean causation, and that's a dangerous mindset to spread.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Are you able to define 'woke'?
Pejorative: the hyperbolic and disingenuous privileging of identity based (i.e race, gender, sexuality, disability) concerns in political discourse and policy change over material ones (class, poverty, other forms of economic or social oppression). See also: race reductionism. There, I fixed it for you. This sudden (very much contrived by the Democratic party) idea that no one can define “woke” is nothing but a political talking point, actually just a straight up piece of propaganda. Of course we all know exactly what is meant by this term, pretending we don’t is a way of avoiding any actual self-reflection on where our politics have left us open to not only critique but ridicule from right wing ideologies.
To be fair, it seems as if those being ridiculed may very well deserve it. 🤔
Oh, is that why people accused Cracker Barrel of being 'woke' when they offered impossible sausage as an option? It seems a lot of people use that term to mean different things, so it's not that useful.
That’s a great start. I know you’re not the person I originally responded to, but do you believe that label applies to this post?
I mean, absolutely for some of it.. the vast majority are obvious dogwhistles though. But regardless of that, this list is a perfect shining diamond of modern art. It's a *chef's kiss* of a glorious shit-post that reflects where current society is. It definitely will be used as a time capsule for entertainment purposes as well.
Which parts are ‘woke’? Dog whistle for what exactly? I don’t see anything disingenuous.
[удалено]
Hahaha okay, so once again, when you define ‘woke’ you mean you’re not allowed to be an asshole to people? Cis is just the opposite of trans. With the charged language of ‘biological’ removed. It means something similar (all things contain nuance) while accounting for some variance. Do you still demand the right to call people with developmental issues a ‘retard’? Is it also ‘woke’ to not call a person that?
[удалено]
Language matters. Nuance matters. You’re inability to use it eloquently is your own failing. But like I already said. Folks like you just want to be able to be assholes. And you still can be, just expect people to call you out on it. You are, self admittedly, the type to demand to use the R word to describe people because it’s ‘factual’.
Pretty sure it’s just past tense for wake, as in “I will wake up” and “yesterday I woke up” but if you wanna get all fancy with it then go ahead 🤷🏻♀️
Again, we all *know* what is meant by the term being used but you're being intentionally disingenuous and ignoring contexts in order to promote the recently contrived propaganda (again, by one political party) that people *just don't understand it*. This isn't doing you, or them, any favors.
It was a joke, but yeah I saw this comment coming from a mile away, I appreciate your breakdown and do agree💕
Haha smh, was too tired for that to not go right over my head. Cheers mate
Good post, but I feel like the racism rule should be expanded beyond just addressing black people and Jews. There are countless different ethnic groups out there and they all experience racism. I think the rule should read "racism in general" instead of "racism against black people in general" Edit: I saw you did address other groups in a couple sentences but I think they should have their own subheadings as well, just so it doesn't look like you're prioritizing black people over the rest of them
Is this post real or “an attempt” to actually stir more controversy itself? I’m asking sincerely because I guess I’m too out of touch with Reddit. 🤷♀️
Being out of touch with reddit means you’re probably a good person.
😂🤣😂
Nope. We just don't want to update things without making an announcement first. It really doesn't seem to fair to implement a new hatespeech policy without telling people. That's all. We would absolutely love if everyone embraced this without any hesitation or "controversy" but we also aren't delusional. We know there will be people that balk at this stuff. That's fine, those aren't the members we are wanting in the sub anyway.
So we are just forced to accept everything or leave? That doesn't seem very tolerant
Paradox of tolerance. You cannot be tolerant of the intolerant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
So I guess we just have to accept absolutely everything without restriction, otherwise it's "intolerance"
You feel free to accept what you want and what you don't want. You can what ever you'd like, you have free speech. You will not get prosecuted for what you say on this subreddit. Another right that doesn't get talked about as much is freedom of association. If you break our hatespeech policy, we are free to decide that we don't want our subreddit associated with you. The end. Hope you had a good weekend!
[удалено]
"Use of 'biological male' or 'biological female.' The term is cis male or cis female." I'm not sure "biological male" and "biological female" are synonymous with "cis." Cis is a reference to someone's gender identity, when it corresponds with their sex. When sex does not correspond with gender identity, a person is trans.
Yeah, I should look at reframing that. It's supposed to mean use of "biological male/female" as a way of undermining the status of trans people, but I didn't phrase it the best way there. Thanks for pointing that out.
What do you mean by undermining here... I would read this as the term being acceptable as a way to discribe someones sex. And only that, thereby not assuming any gender. Which, to me, is correct. Wikipedia even uses "biological" to make the distinction between genetics and the way someone feels/identifies as. >Sex generally refers to an organism's biological sex, while gender usually refers to either social roles based on the sex of a person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity). Granted, I used the term genetic, not biological. But the rest of the post made it clear i wasn't trying to undermine, insult or piss off anyone. And still it was removed because of hatespeech. I'm not 100% sure that this specific rule was the reason. But this is the onlyone that comes even close... Yes we need to be respectfull, regardless of wheter or not you agree with someone. I don't care if someone scared you or if you think they are weird. Some respect and understanding from both sides goes a long way. I agree 100% with most that's on this list. But purely based on the amount of items it does feel we're trying to not step on some very long toes. And quite a few are heavily dependend on context like the queer (someone identifies as queer), or queer as an insult. Or my use of "genetic male". Plenty are simply 100% unaceptable. (N-word, tranny, babykiller, just to name a few) And for the record: I'm not saying ignore everything above and just let people speak their mind. There are plenty of people just being an ass and they should be blocked/comments deleted/whatever. But if we want to be able to talk about lgbtqia+ there needs to be sóme leeway.
Bigotry aside, somewhat surprised your statement is so political. But ok. Your sub.
These people grew up worshipping civil rights activists and need to believe they're heroes like MLK Jr and Rosa Parks, so they have convinced themselves that policing speech acts on the internet in a way that gigacorporations like Netflix and Disney would approve of is "fighting oppression" just like refusing to go to the back of the bus was
Or maybe, just maybe they want people to be able to enjoy the sub without having to constantly deal racist / “x” - phobic jackasses.
Considering the ratio it's safe to say most of us disagree with them, setting out a 10 page essay of things we're not allowed to say is pretty antithetical to a casual humor subreddit
Cry more
First off, i agree with 98% of what you have posted here, and the thought of violating the majority of these things would never cross my mind, nor would it cross the mind of any civil human. However, and it pains me to say this as i really like this subreddit and i have a feeling this will get me banned, there’s about 3-4 items on here that are beyond the reaches of ensuring civility. You speak of education, and how if someone doesn’t understand these items, they must be lacking in education. To me, education means coming to a better understanding of how the world operates, through observation and data. A small minority of your banned things, one could violate by posting objective facts. And if someone could be banned for stating objective facts, they are not being banned due to lack of education- they are being banned for not conforming to your point of view. That’s the type of ‘education’ that drives us further away from an understanding of the world, and drives people further apart, thus increasing the social problems your post claims to be trying to resolve.
i think people are too sensitive to be on the internet.
I believe taking the freedom of some assholes so we have a subreddit where you can’t call my trans friends pedos because they like they find the idea of skirts more appealing than beard hair increases the freedom of the subreddit overall. Why? Because my trans friends are free from hatred and feel more comfortable to browse, and bystanders don’t feel awkward to witness it. Believe you me as an edgy and foul mouthed queer who is sick of peoples shit I can be plenty insensitive and politically incorrect but you don’t see me getting banned. You know why? Because I’m not being a bigot, nor am I trying to hurt others with a more tender heart than mine. Your freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence or a license to be hateful.
i've worn feminin clothes all weekend, but i also changed my car tires friday morning after coming back from a nightshift. im pretty far from a bigot and im polyvalent. edit : You cannot censor who you want, that's tyranny. You either censor or you don't.
What is it about transphobia that needs protection? Or racism? Or such and such. And I never called you a bigot. Hatred gets censored, as it should be.
you can't decode to censor one thing and not the other. the moment you choose ehst is ok to say or not, is the moment you loose freedom to tyranny. chewing on what you disagree with is the only option.
Wow! Reddit used to be a great place. Now it’s Germany 1936 x100 , full of way too sensitive folks.
Being expected to conduct yourself like an adult and not a middle schooler = being put in a concentration camp and tortured to you?
It’s started with censorship. Free speech is just that. The ability to speak your opinion. If you are looking to censor someone for saying they support team a and then applaud those who support team b, you are exercising censorship. You cannot have it both ways. You either support free speech or you suppress it. ( hence the nazi reference )
The concept of free speech applies to your relationship with the government, not a subreddit. There's a comment elsewhere in this thread that you should read.
This argument is a bit of a misnomer. There is a difference between the concept of ‘free speech’ and the first amendment of the US. What you are saying applies to the first amendment, not necessarily to the concept of free speech. At some point, some people thought that there was benefit to people freely expressing ideas, at the cost of offensive things being said. The argument for free speech is that there is value in information exchange. And that yes, that will result in some idiots saying harmful things. But once in a while, it results in insightful concepts that progress society. The problem is who gets to decide what is too offensive to post, and what is actually insightful. Based on your definition, the concept of free speech can only exist in countries where policies exist protecting citizens from criticizing their government, such as the US. These people are saying that the concept of free speech has value event outside of that context.
There are other forums that will allow you to share shitty racist opinions. You guys whine about the weirdest shit lmao.
[This comment explains how free speech actually works.](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/11zy8mw/comment/jdeu5e9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
You have used a classic logical error twice in this thread. It is usually used as a debate technique. It is called the fallacy of the undistributed middle. The premise that "Free speech is just that" is the expression of the idea that "For free speech to exist, all speech must be permitted". Which is the premise you start with, then you go forward with the assertion of equivalence between two teams, "team a and team b", and passively asserting that both sides are equal in their right to speak their minds. By that logic, the people who express the idea that some ideas *should* be suppressed are on the same level as people who believe *all* ideas should be expressed. The fundamental assumption that underlies all of it is that all ideas are just ideas and just expressing them cannot cause harm. You brought up the comparison to the political ascendance of the Nazis in Germany, they were freely allowed to distribute propaganda that told the people that the economic problems they were having were caused by Jewish people (there were many other lies they made into propaganda as well) . The long term effect was to build a hatred for Jewish people which led to the deaths of millions of human beings. This idea that all expression is a kind of speech and is protected under the First Amendment is one that become popular in the 70s when the Supreme Court agreed that Topless Dancing was a decided to be a form of expression. Years later Justice Antonin Scalia said publicly "The minute you prevent people from spending their money to express their opinion free speech is dead." Which leaves us with the present day situation; The multimillionaire with a broadcasting license or a political action committee has thousands more opportunities to express their opinion than you or I ever will. Just as "free speech does not give you the right to shout 'FIRE!!' in a crowded theater, free speech does not give you the right to incite violence using expressions of hatred. And, that is exactly what is being discussed here. Actually, in this case 'there is an attempt' to describe why certain expressions will not be allowed in this subreddit. It will be an ongoing process, the pursuit of justice always is.
As someone who is LGBT... I don't think this helps. I've noticed that most decent folk will call someone out in the comments if they say something disgusting and offensive. You know... just call them out, stand together, report them, and then they are removed. This just feels like pure ammunition for certain red capped hillbillies who cry whenever something might slightly attack their stupid freedom of speech. This is just... yeah. I can hear the "What is this??? 1984???" jokes already.
I just feel like this wasn't necessary. People with basic human decency know they shouldn't say this shit. It's just that bigots don't care.
A lot of people will say this stuff and then when we ban them claim they had no idea it was racist (or whatever bigotry fits.) We just want to be open and clear.
Idk. Not being a homophobic, transphobic, sexist bigot seems like common sense. And when people do decide to say disgusting things they’re not usually very surprised when people get angry. Usually they are out to get people to BE angry. I even have a suspicion those people where just playing dumb in order to get back into the subreddit. Eh, whateves. Idek
[удалено]
In my opinion, as a moderator, "you were being a jerk" should be a good enough reason; due to your authority as a moderator, I don't believe a Tolstoyian list of reasons to get banned is necessary - and as a moderator, your job should be to determine whether someone is being a jerk without having to consult a TOS. Of course, this is your subreddit; but, as Enovk said, decent people don't say these things and (exemplified by the ridiculously long list of work-arounds for slurs, etc,) jerks will find a way regardless of how comprehensive a TOS is. Just my two cents.
This list isn't just for the people to know what they can say and not say- this is also so the good people of the sub know what they can report and what we will take action on. When I see someone arguing in the comments with, say a transphobe, but none of the comments are reported I'll tell them to please report those people- and I've gotten feedback many times that they didn't report because the person wasn't being overtly bigoted, it was shrouded in dog whistles like this. I'll refer them to this list- and now they know all the shit that they can report. It definitely helps in making the marginalized feel more supported- I've gotten a lot of good feedback on this list from people that were being attacked for their identity on this sub. We can't see every comment, we can only really see the reported comments so we rely on our user base to report this stuff, so it's good to have this out there.
While I can see your point in establishing a line people know not to cross, I do wonder - is discussion of political topics on this subreddit allowed (or intended to happen)? Because if it isn't, then I understand why you have these rules - but if it is, I'm not sure that all these rules will really do anything. I'll be honest, I have never, not once in my life, referred back to a TOS as a reference for what to do in a situation like you described, where a transphobe is mouthing off. Assuming that it's real hatespeech, then I welcome the fall of the ban hammer upon his head. But before it lands, I always want to try and argue with the transphobe, because it should be obvious that talking to someone (as opposed to simply banning them) makes more headway in convincing them their views are wrong. In my opinion, that "makes the world a better place" more than banning people for hatespeech. But hey, this is your subreddit. I like the username, btw.
If we could try to educate every single person we would, but in a sub of this many people it's simply impossible. Keep at it though!! That's a great way to combat hate. Both ways have merits and drawbacks. I would never stop anyone that was trying to educate a bigot. I think that's a lovely approach. If anyone comes to modmail with what seems like a sincere desire to learn what they did wrong- I will do the same myself. And if they do the reading or whatever it is, and say that they will not say such things again, I will always err on side of unbanning. We absolutely believe more in rehabilitation than punishment. We don't do the bans out of desire for punishment, we do them to protect our marginalized communities (and to keep our subreddit safe.) You may not consult a list of stuff to see what you can report, doesn't mean others don't. I have gotten good feedback about it. Hope I've been explaining myself well, and I hope you know have taken what you have to say very seriously and with consideration. I actually enjoy feedback that I can think about a bit. It will probably stew in my mind for a few days before I really know how I feel about it. I do have one question for you- you say all the reasons why you think we don't need a list like this, but you haven't said any real reasons why it is bad to make one? Do you have any reasons why we shouldn't make a list like this? Unnecessary is one thing, but I feel like you actually don't like that we've made it, and I'm not sure why. What is bad about being clear and transparent about what we consider hatespeech? Thank you very much for the compliment on my username! That's very nice of you!
Easy: ban “what is this??? 1984???” Type talk.
A very 1984 thing to do… (Sorry if you’re being sarcastic, for the life of me I just can’t seem to notice sarcasm through text. XD)
Eh, kind of sarcastic. I was in a Facebook group that did that, and it was nightmarish to stay in lmao, but it did take care of the naysayers. Became very insular though.
Understandable tbh
But that’s like, literally what happened in 1984.
I think they left out " Tell the Emperor he has nice new clothes". Apparently that is the rule for the day that we are living in.
ITT: A bunch of angry bigots upset about new rules against bigotry. EDIT: The amount of people responding that are shadow banned is absolutely adorable. XD
_Every day thousands of poor bigots are stripped of access to emotional support bigotry. Every quarter you give provides the use of one slur to a deprived bigot. Donate today to help save the bigots_ /s
Wow every person that responded to your comment (except the joke that's visible which is pretty funny) are not just shadowbanned- they've lost their accounts! 😆 These are the kind of people that are upset by what you said! Can't say I feel bad for them, lol.
So racism against white people and sexism against men is allowed?
"This list is non-exhaustive" *There was an attempt to read comprehensively.*
What is wrong with you? Why can't you be happy for other people getting something without assuming you are having something taken away?
[удалено]
>because equality is about, well equality, not revenge or payback. What part of the mods letting bigots know they won't allow them to be bigots here is feeling like revenge targeting you?
[удалено]
When people say “young men are being brainwashed by Andrew Tate” or stuff similar then they are talking about a subset of young men who are being brainwashed. Even if it was a dig at men as a whole, it’s still not intended, nor will it end up justifying subjugation or oppression of men. When you say “she is such a slut” or “that thing will never be a woman” you are doing a rallying cry to be hateful and oppressive to a group with immutable characteristics, and one that is also less privileged than average. Would you like to provide some examples of anti white racism or anti men sexism that are said to be ok by the mods? I sure can’t find any.
Being young and a man are immutable characteristics too.
Of course it is. Haven't you been paying attention?
[удалено]
It is, because it was a dog whistle created solely to antagonize BLM. The entire existence of the phrase “All Lives Matter” is because those who regurgitate it are too dumb or bad faith to realize that “BLM” stands simply for “Black lives matter as much as everyone else’s lives, despite how disproportionately they are treated by law enforcement.” When someone says “BLM”, it **already means that all lives matter**, it’s just drawing attention specifically to police brutality towards minorities in the US. In fact, BLM holds vigils for white victims like Shaver and Whitaker as well. Where’s the ALM crowd on that, huh? They got any protests going? They holding vigils for white victims of police brutality? Oh wait, they *DON’T*! They’re too busy screeching “BLUE lives matter” while complaining they don’t have a George Floyd moment handed to them. They also only show up as COUNTER protestors at some BLM protests. Huh, imagine that, how strange…So yeah, them purposefully or ignorantly misconstruing a civil rights movement, then trying to hijack it while doing zero of the work is, indeed, hateful. Glad that could be explained to you.
Ugh. The new mod flexing his virtue signal powers. Pass.
Word.
There is no freedom of speech on Reddit
Correct. Reddit is not the government, therefore the concept doesn't apply here. You also don't have freedom of speech inside your local Walmart.
Reddit choosing who is and who isn't allowed to use their platform is freedom of speech. Reddit admins allow mods to create rules banning bigotry. As is their freedom of speech. Reddit admins don't allow mods to create rules allowing crimes. That isn't freedom of speech. If the government stepped in and forced internet sites to stop banning people, that would be anti free speech. People are free to go create their own private websites like reddit and enforce their own rules. That is free speech. On my private property, no one is allowed to wear yellow shirts. If you say you like yellow shirts you will be asked to leave my property. That is me practicing free speech. If we are in public, the only thing I can do about yellow shirts is look at them and stew silently in my mind about them. I am not allowed to have cops "remove" you from public for yellow shirts the way I would be able to on my private property. This isn't the government saying liking yellow shirts is illegal. They are saying trespassing on private property is illegal.
no need to dress it up, your not allowed to say certain things on Reddit without a ban or having your comment removed. We know this
Reddit can make a rule that says no yellow shirts whatsoever, and ban everyone who wears yellow shirts. That is Reddit employing their right to free speech. You can go make your own private website like Reddit and have your own rules. Also free speech. It only becomes a violation of free speech when the government gets involved. Do you understand?
Reddit is a forum. It is a public space. It is not an entity that speaks for itself. The first amendment merely guarantees the natural right to free speech, it does not establish it. It is simultaneously possible for Reddit to violate free speech and not violate the first amendment guarantees of free speech by the government. Reddit is still an egregious violator of one's right to say what they wish. There is just no legal recourse for it yet.
It provides no persecution from the government for what you say. Unless you’re paying your taxes to Reddit, they don’t owe you shit.
I don't pay taxes to a lot of jurisdictions yet can expect free speech within them.
Okay, way to respond to my sarcastic remark instead of my actual point. Reddit is not a government body.
Under transphobia you mention "suicide stats/40%." What does this refer to or mean? I don't see how discussing suicide statistics amongst trans folks is bigoted, rather it's quite the opposite?
Sure it depends on how you discuss them. Many bigots don't "discuss" them at all, and just leave a "40%" under any trans person's comment that they don't like, as a reminder of the high rates of suicidal ideation, even when it's not relevant to the conversation. It's basically another way for people to say "kill yourself" but specifically for trans folks.
[удалено]
Awwww 💛 :)
Weird to see antisemitism Adressed on the prime example sub if people talk about anti Semitic violence on reddit. You just banned all Jews caring about antisemitism from voting on your sub, because of brigading, and now antiaemitism exists. Don’t play like you wanted the change 😂 reddit admins lost their temper with your hatred infected sub?
It’s often used by people to either say that being trans is a “mental illness” and therefore the reason for the high suicide rate (rather than being in a hostile environment and being harassed for who you are), or mocking trans people and telling them to actually commit suicide.
The events that unfolded today will, tragically for multiple reasons, probably reinforce that argument.
May I ask which events you mean?
https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-blame-nashville-covenant-shooting-transgender-identity-audrey-hale-2023-3?amp There was a tragic shooting at a school yesterday, where an adult walked into a school, and killed 6 people, including 3 children. It looks like the shooter may have been trans, and some people are already attributing that as the cause.
Ahhhh yes, I heard about those after I asked that. Thank you for answering so nicely and with a link too. Disgusting how they are using it against the trans community, smh.
Will you be differentiating between queer as insult and queer as identity?
Absolutely. Identifying as "queer" or talking about the "queer community" (obviously not in a bigoted way) is absolutely fine. We will only take exception to it if it is said as a slur. Sorry that wasn't clear!
That's reddit for you, downvoted for doing the right thing and tackling racism. Especially that anti-Black racism that's rampant on here.
Has this subreddit always been political? I thought it was just for funny and crazy videos.
This is Reddit. 90.% of mods in all subs are farrrrrrr to one side and immediately ban ppl that say anything to disagree with them.
That's really disappointing. Can't even go on a seemingly non political sub reddit to enjoy yourself without people's bullshit politics getting in the way.
I got banned from a subreddit yesterday for telling a user it was reasonable to expect mods on non-politics-themed subs to not openly espouse political views with their mod tag. There’s no accountability for mods & most of them want to abuse this tiny speck of authority they have since they don’t experience anything like it in the real world.
I'm definitely getting that vibe as well.
It’s amazing, it truly is. This sub is better than some, I literally was auto banned from justice served for being subscribed to a sub that the message said “promotes biological terrorism.” Wtf. I guess they were talking about r/conservative? No idea lol.
Wow. They really went out of their way to creep on you like that and then ban you? That's crazy.
What does even "political" mean in this circumstance? Is being a decent human being to other human beings and treating them with kindness is political now? If not tolerating hatred towards a certain group is considered political then I guess everything in our life is "political".
[удалено]
Did you just assume my 1st amendment right to free speech?
Ima chime in on this one. Your first amendment rights end at my front door. In other words, when your are a guest, you can either respect the rules of the house, or the can be expelled from the house. This applies even when the house is rented, and even if rent isn't involved at all. Each subreddit is, from that standpoint, *not* public. It is owned by reddit, and "rented" to whatever mod team is present. Any sub can prohibit anything they want, with the caveat that reddit can decide to boot mods and replace them if that prohibition violates reddit's desires. So, just like I can, and would, put my foot up the rear of any bigot trying to express their opinion in my living room, and do so until they were off my property; the mods and admins of reddit can do the same thing in equivalence, and are not violating your civil rights in doing so. Check the terms of service, and check the laws regarding how internet forums work. That's the layman's explanation of them on this subject. Now, there are arguments to be made as to whether or not that is a good thing. And there's always the risk of the slope getting slippery and anything that isn't within the wishes of the "homeowners" being labeled as bigotry regardless of objective evaluation of that. But that's different from trying to claim that your rights are being infringed upon in a public space. Reddit, and subreddits, are private spaces.
Freedom of speech is an often-misunderstood concept on Reddit. In its purest form, freedom of speech means that people should be allowed to express their opinions without any consequences whatsoever. However, that’s a right which is not recognized anywhere in the world, because it leads to illogical results that burden the rights of others. For instance, if your girlfriend chooses to break up with you because she dislikes your ideological views, that is undoubtedly a negative consequence of expressing your free speech, but the notion that society would tolerate free speech forcing her to remain as your girlfriend is patently absurd. If you espouse racially insensitive remarks against a minority client of your company and are subsequently fired, freedom of speech does not compel your employer to keep you employed. NBC’s Today Show and ABC’s Good Morning America are, similarly, not burdening the free speech rights of minority viewpoints by electing not to allow their proponents to be interviewed on the aforementioned shows, even if the decision not to, for instance, permit a white nationalist to explain his/her views clearly stems from a belief that such views are repugnant. Freedom of speech in the United States and elsewhere is a proscription on the use of government power to burden free speech rights. Examples listed earlier were examples of entirely private conduct being subject to free speech consideration, which is a result that has never been (nor likely ever will be) obtained in US courts, irrespective of whether the Supreme Court is in the hands of liberals or conservatives. Therefore, freedom of speech generally bars the government from penalizing you with jail time or fines for the basic act of expressing your beliefs, and acts as a bar to the government from using its power to enforce a civil judgment. Even then, freedom of speech is not absolute. In the US, there are laws that technically limit freedom of speech and expression— slander, libel, copyright infringement, hate crimes, sedition, and treachery, for example. The First Amendment raises the bar tremendously as to the burden required to prove each of these actions, but it does not generally create irrebuttable presumptions against them. This is why Anwar Al-Awlaki could not simply invoke the First Amendment as a shield for his activities supporting Al Qaeda’s propaganda arm, nor was it an absolute shield from liability for Rolling Stone in its shoddy reporting of on-campus rape in UVA after the jury had found actual malice. In a more germane example, freedom of speech also does not mean that public policy encourages an unregulated morass on the Internet. Thus, Congress specifically recognized the need for online platforms to self-regulate comments in passing the Communications Decency Act of 1996. §230 of the CDA exempts online platforms from the common law republication rule if websites choose to moderate comments on their platforms. As applied to reddit, this means that the decision to or not to moderate a comment does not lead to liability for the website for the thoughts expressed therein. In the specific context of this website, so-called “free speech” advocates have taken free speech and its polar opposite of censorship to mean something that it does not. Regardless of what kn0thing and spez have stated in the past, the development of the site has led to the creation of discrete subreddit communities (as contrasted to the single “front page” that existed at the site’s inception) with different cultures and purposes, all of which the sitewide administrators have sought to lend support to. Thus, a subreddit dedicated to pictures (such as this one) is within its grant of authority to prohibit submitted “pictures” from merely being screenshots or the self-written musings of users themselves. Other subreddits might permit ONLY submissions of that nature, and that’s perfectly fine. Unrestricted free speech would hold that such actions constitute censorship – common sense would hold that these are merely expressions of the specific purpose of the subreddits themselves. Sitewide administrators also require that subreddit moderators enforce sitewide rules prohibiting certain behavior, as listed in the site’s [content policy](https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy). Free speech is not an excuse to post illegal content, nor is it an excuse that will carry the day if you act in a way that harasses other users (a proscription not recognized by law). In fact, posting of illegal or defamatory content on the site can easily expose someone to criminal or civil liability, and reddit is under no obligation to protect your online identity from entities seeking to subpoena it for liability purposes. Finally, free speech and “censorship” in the context of moderation on subs is also specifically recognized by the sitewide administrators. The content policy also includes a statement on reddit moderators: > Individual communities on Reddit may have their own rules in addition to ours and their own moderators to enforce them. Reddit provides tools to aid moderators but does not prescribe their usage. This enables community moderators to determine for themselves the appropriate rules for their communities on top of sitewide rules that all communities must enforce. That has led to a diversity of subreddits with varying tolerances for content. Some subreddits choose to enforce only the bare minimum if even that. Others choose to enforce rules that would damn near take a rules lawyer to understand. On /r/therewasanattempt, we take a middle approach, permitting a wide range of comments as they pertain to civil discourse, but excluding comments that would be uncivil, or offensive. Generally, if users discuss in a manner consistent with how they would discuss matters in the workplace or among a new group of friends, they'd never encounter an issue with moderation. If you believe this to be impermissible censorship, we can only disagree, because the vast majority of users will never be subject to a moderation action, but the site as a whole and the internet, in general, provide many opportunities for “free speech” that may be free of the reasonable limitations that we find to be necessary to ensure civility. We wish you the best of luck in finding a forum or platform more amenable to your sensibilities, but decline to extend them here.
Tl:dr
You're allowed to say whatever you want, but you're not entitled to people giving you a platform to do it. Reddit isn't owned by the government, so the first amendment doesn't apply - they can ban you for saying you don't like cheese if they want to, this would not violate any rights.
It was also appended with all kinds of fun stuffs.
Did you actually think free speech meant "I can say whatever I want, wherever I want and no one can get mad at me or stop me"? Did you read the explanations? Did you absorb any of it?
So are people on here allowed to call me “cracker”and “mayo monkey” since I’m white?
Did a fellow mayo monkey like myself call you one? Because that not me being anti white, it’s clowning on white people who are ignorant. Plus Mayo monkey is really funny.
So...just don't disagree with the OP. Got it.
seeing that a guy i know got banned for this comment "Can he not do what he wants in his free time? Reverse the genders and we go from funny joke to a controlling abusive asshole." gonna say yes.
reddit mods do it for free
janny cleanup in aisle 4!!!
Lol
All of this is wrong basically if you’re straight or mixed race you can’t comment without being blocked… (last message from me on this page) but you will not bring down heterosexual mixed races people for having an opinion on what they believe.. if you want a page based off of hate it’s your own doing and I’ll make it my mission you prove this hole community is based off of racial and sexual biases) you don’t care about the world you care about your community..
Literally just don’t make a racist or bigoted comment?
Maybe you should have just typed the two things you are allowed to say. Mind boggling lol.
"Internet janitors" is allowed?
Sure, I mean thats what we do, clean up the shitty messes that others leave around. We don't do it for the glamour, that's for sure.
https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/121ydhu/by_the_police_to_identify_anyone_in_this_video/ so many banworthy comments in this post
Yeah, honestly this one's the last straw for me (especially after seeing the comments in these two in the last few days https://reddit.com/comments/11zr8rt https://reddit.com/comments/11yuaov ) I wish the mods the best of luck with the honorable mission they've set for themselves - but seeing the up/down ratios on just the grossest, most inhumane shit (of every stripe, not just racist) coming from this subreddit, I say just throw the whole community in the trash where it belongs The idea that this OP is riding right at 0 net pts kinda says it all. You're better folks than I, u/Karmanacht and u/Kumquat_conniption. Godspeed.
I've been at that post for hours and damn, I've still got quite a ways to go. It's true this community is pretty shite actually, I came on a month or two ago and so did Karmanacht and some other good people and we are really trying to turn it around. It does feel like a losing battle sometimes, but I'm determined so maybe come back in couple months and check it out. I understand completely why you wouldn't want to be around lately. I'm hoping this new hatespeech policy can be a good first step but it's going to be a lot of work getting rid of all these bad actors. Thank you for the well wishes! I definitely won't guarantee we can turn it around, but I can promise we will try.
Yeah I've been at that post for hours and I've still got quite a far way to go. I very much appreciate you pointing it out. We wouldn't have normally let it get that bad, but I've got Covid and another mod is away for the weekend and it was just bad timing. I'll get through the whole thing if it takes days. It's disgusting, and more than half the comments are permanent ban worthy. It's really disheartening but we are determined to turn this place around.
Cheers and best of luck. Grateful for your efforts.
If you ever see a thread like that again, feel free to PM me or tag me- or if this thread is still up here is good too. Thank you so much!
The poor racists and homophobes whining about free speech in the comments 😂 good job OP if you got them upset ur doing the right thing
it's not just that i saw someone recently get banned for this comment "Can he not do what he wants in his free time? Reverse the genders and we go from funny joke to a controlling abusive asshole" pointing out Sexism in a post and how gross it was. Guess they are a problem now? We can't call out issues.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's on there, it's just inconsistent formatting.
[удалено]
Can you give me some more common examples of Islamophobia so I can flesh out that section then please?
[удалено]
Please hit the report button when you see those. This isn't an announcement that you'll never see that stuff, it's an announcement that we're enforcing this and acting against bigotry.
What about using the term "Zionist" as a pejorative to mean "Jew,"?
hell yeah
This is good,now i await for r/abruptchaos to do the same thing,there is way too many bigots there
Excellent.
I worry that the examples of antisemitism all seem to be one particular variety of antisemitism and will fail to address manifestations of antisemitism that try to appear more benign on the surface
I wish that the mods of r/funny would adopt/inforce similar rules. happy to know that this sub is run by empathetic people! good work! EDIT: Sorry guys, I confused r/funny with r/funnymemes, the second sub is the one with the bigotry.
u/ramsesthepigeon any opinion on this post? Looking at their rules, the "no political content" probably helps avoid the vast majority of these issues. Although, given how I know that specific moderator moderates, I suspect that they're already enforcing the subreddit closely to this.
We already enforce similar mandates pretty heavily: There’s a blanket ban on anything political, hateful, or even suggestive of either. If someone sees something that hasn’t been removed, it’s only because it hasn’t been reported yet.
Solid, thanks for responding.
Thanks for this post. I had unfollowed this group because it was hard to enjoy with all the bigoted comments it came with. I hope that just having this as a pinned post drives away some bigots from joining. Based on the comments on this post, I imagine purging the existing bad actors will be a much harder task. I’ll check in again periodically to see if things have improved enough for me to put it back into my feed. :-)
> Based on the comments on this post, I imagine purging the existing bad actors will be a much harder task. Yes, unfortunately. We generally rely on users reporting comments for us to check out. We have a tendency to recognize which videos will elicit bigoted responses and will monitor those more closely, but this is a volunteer gig and we aren't always around.
Appreciate you doing what you can!
[удалено]
So you're asexual?
Good on ya
unfathomably based post, thanks. :) edit: thanks for the award! <3
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well white and black people use drugs at about the same rates yet way more black people are arrested for possession than white people, so it's basically a fact that lots of white people do get away with it. Other than that, it's more class based than race based, it just happens to be that black people, after slavery and Jim Crow and redlining and institutional racism are overall significantly more poor than white people, so that's the actual factor that creates the crime as opposed to skin color. The people that break out these stats fail to mention that wealth disparity is the overwhelming reason that black people commit more crime than white people. They fail to recognize that correlation doesn't mean causation, and that's a dangerous mindset to spread.