Reddit Bans Subreddits about Making Fun of Fat People, Neogaf, and others.

[Zakarath]

And nothing of value was lost.

 

[Zontar]

And nothing of value was lost.

Doesn't that statement apply to all websites of this nature? Couldn't all of Reddit be deleted and that statement hold true?

 

[Redryhno]

But it's when you go into someone else's comfort zone, hate on them, make their lives miserable is when you should be yanked to a corner (not the kiddie corner, the one night cell room corner).

Maybe not harsh enough, or to harsh. I don't know .. . just seems like people have no filters these days.

Wow Caramel, I never thought you'd be so accepting of prison rape! Who else but a promoter of rape culture would advocate for this? /sarcasm

But seriously, banning them doesn't do a huge amount beyond just ticking a bunch of people off on principle alone, allows the worst of the bunch to go trollpost on the places that are havens for the ones they make fun of in their own, and just generally makes everyone a bit less tolerant of everyone else there while also lowering the quality of the rest of the site because it's now spread out instead of contained.

I mean, there's a reason 4chan had like five channels appear after MLP went on the air, four dedicated to making fun of Scientology when they were targeted because of jokes being taken seriously, heck, the GG Megathreads were considered a containment for alot of stuff and people have been complaining for months about GID being the GG forum now because there's alot of things that were in the mega now spread out in that forum.

Can someone explain brigading vs harassment to me? There was a distinction between the two but I never got around to actually reading it.

what the lunatic said.

In this reference's context, brigading also means mass posting from other sub's members, and upvoting eac other's posts, so the whole planetside 2 sub got overloaded with Kotakuinaction threads about how outrageous the mods are, and how funny and cool it is to call transvestites and trannssexuals "traps", instead of planetside 2 discussion.

Dude, you're seriously misrepresenting of the event and aren't really all that knowledgable about what "traps" are. It's not about trans, it's first and foremost, in the context it was done in, a Dark Souls joke, anyone that's gotten around the place has had the soapstone messages saying "AMAZING TRAP AHEAD" all around Sen, next to Mimics, parts of Darkroot and by Sif's, and yes, outside of Gwyndolin's room, show up. Outside of that context, it still has nothing to do with transfolk(at least not the original sense before people misread and started the "TRANSPHOBIC" points), it has everything to do with anime and some of the jokes concerning crossdressers and also real life crossdressers, though only the ones that people think are VERY good and pass for the opposite sex very well.

And even me, with all my confusion about transfolk,(even more so the last few months, I've only gotten worse I feel understanding any of it), know that it has nothing to do with hate. It has pretty much everything to do with harmless jokes(that have never affected any character I know of that has been this trope) and appreciation of someone's...dedication and talent to crossdressing. I don't really see it any different than cosplay, except they normally look better.

Spoiler: for example, If I'm remembering the story of this picture, there are no girls in this picture

 

[DrownedAmmet]

Someone spray-painted hateful slurs on a charity center in my city. Next week, they are going to repaint that wall.
Tomorrow, I'm going down there to protest. They are blatantly censoring the graffiti which has a right to exist due to freedom of speech.

Who's coming with me?

That has to be one of the worst analogies I've ever seen in my life. I mean hell, even if Reddit COULD be compared to a charity instead of a the for-profit corporation it is, it still wouldn't work since a better description would be painting over graffiti for a business whose entire model is based on putting up ads next to graffiti to get revenue.

I think the analogy holds up pretty well, all you have to do is replace charity center with Wal-Mart.

I'm not losing any sleep for the loss of "fat people hate" posters because fuck those guys. They can feel free to find another place to be assholes in. Good job Reddit!

 

[DrWut]

Apparently the Reddit admins have now banned r/whalewatching which was not a Fat People Hate clone but a subreddit about actual whale watching. At this point it's pretty clear the admins aren't even actually looking at the subreddits they are banning, and are simply purging anything that has a title that remotely resembles the the subreddits they banned yesterday.

For the record, this is not true.

This [https://archive.is/5LxLK] is what r/whalewatching looked like before the ban.

The last whale-related picture was posted there two years ago, and all of it's current mods were people who were simultanously squatting on hundreds of non-used subs including r/racismplus, r/hitlerjerk, r/RapeWorthy_Feminists, and so on.

Why am I totally not surprised that r/whalewatching actually WAS a Fat People Hate clone and was justifiably deleted for being such contrary to the claims otherwise? Probably because it seems like misrepresenting the situation and spreading misinformation to further one's agenda has become par for the course in certain circles.

I also doubt I'll ever understand why some people are ideologically opposed to businesses being able to exercise their own rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association and property ownership by controlling what people are or are not allowed to do or say on their privately owned property. It's as if they believe that business owner is a class of people who deserve to have their rights denied or restricted. I mean, it's one thing to declare that business owners cannot discriminate against certain types of people, but quite another to argue that they shouldn't be able to discriminate against certain types of ideas or behaviors. Which is to say, a business owner shouldn't be able to deny bald people from entering their establishment on account that they might be a skinhead neo-nazi white supremacist, but should always have the right to kick someone out for waving around a swastica and getting in other customer's faces about how much they hate Jews and Blacks and Mexicans. Likewise, no website should be forced to host content that the owner of the website finds objectionable.

I remember there being some pretty epic ass pain on the internet regarding a certain pizza shop and their refusal to sell pizza to gay weddings.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/01/1374969/-Thanks-For-The-Memories-Pizza

A lot of people seemed to be on board protesting and making fun of said business. Where were all the champions of the corporations back then, I wonder?

And they didn't actually kick anybody out.

What would happen if, for example, a restaurant or an amusement park kicked out a gay couple because they were kissing? Can you look at me with a straight face and tell me you would be vigorously defending the rights of the corporations?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Apparently the Reddit admins have now banned r/whalewatching which was not a Fat People Hate clone but a subreddit about actual whale watching. At this point it's pretty clear the admins aren't even actually looking at the subreddits they are banning, and are simply purging anything that has a title that remotely resembles the the subreddits they banned yesterday.

For the record, this is not true.

This [https://archive.is/5LxLK] is what r/whalewatching looked like before the ban.

The last whale-related picture was posted there two years ago, and all of it's current mods were people who were simultanously squatting on hundreds of non-used subs including r/racismplus, r/hitlerjerk, r/RapeWorthy_Feminists, and so on.

Why am I totally not surprised that r/whalewatching actually WAS a Fat People Hate clone and was justifiably deleted for being such contrary to the claims otherwise? Probably because it seems like misrepresenting the situation and spreading misinformation to further one's agenda has become par for the course in certain circles.

I also doubt I'll ever understand why some people are ideologically opposed to businesses being able to exercise their own rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association and property ownership by controlling what people are or are not allowed to do or say on their privately owned property. It's as if they believe that business owner is a class of people who deserve to have their rights denied or restricted. I mean, it's one thing to declare that business owners cannot discriminate against certain types of people, but quite another to argue that they shouldn't be able to discriminate against certain types of ideas or behaviors. Which is to say, a business owner shouldn't be able to deny bald people from entering their establishment on account that they might be a skinhead neo-nazi white supremacist, but should always have the right to kick someone out for waving around a swastica and getting in other customer's faces about how much they hate Jews and Blacks and Mexicans. Likewise, no website should be forced to host content that the owner of the website finds objectionable.

I remember there being some pretty epic ass pain on the internet regarding a certain pizza shop and their refusal to sell pizza to gay weddings.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/01/1374969/-Thanks-For-The-Memories-Pizza

A lot of people seemed to be on board protesting and making fun of said business. Where were all the champions of the corporations back then, I wonder?

And they didn't actually kick anybody out.

What would happen if, for example, a restaurant or an amusement park kicked out a gay couple because they were kissing? Can you look at me with a straight face and tell me you would be vigorously defending the rights of the corporations?

The real problem here is you have this odd view that people must be doing it in support of corporations. Of course it doesn't seem consistent, half the situation is something you made up!

 

[Zontar]

Someone spray-painted hateful slurs on a charity center in my city. Next week, they are going to repaint that wall.
Tomorrow, I'm going down there to protest. They are blatantly censoring the graffiti which has a right to exist due to freedom of speech.

Who's coming with me?

That has to be one of the worst analogies I've ever seen in my life. I mean hell, even if Reddit COULD be compared to a charity instead of a the for-profit corporation it is, it still wouldn't work since a better description would be painting over graffiti for a business whose entire model is based on putting up ads next to graffiti to get revenue.

I think the analogy holds up pretty well, all you have to do is replace charity center with Wal-Mart.

I'm not losing any sleep for the loss of "fat people hate" posters because fuck those guys. They can feel free to find another place to be assholes in. Good job Reddit!

I have to disagree on account of the fact that Walmart doesn't operate by having ads placed next to the graffiti on its walls.

It doesn't help that they're lying about who what is being enforced and what their position is. Chairman Pao claims that it's only subreddits that are harassing or doxing people which are being banned, this is a lie. She also states that Reddit is all for freedom of speech, which is also a lie.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A lot of people seemed to be on board protesting and making fun of said business. Where were all the champions of the corporations back then, I wonder?

I'm curious, Wut, if you are one of those folks who generalizes "people" as some homogenous entity that speaks with one mind, and likes to imagine they are calling it out on hypocrisy. Or do you have specific individuals in mind?

I mean, I hear people on Reddit criticizing this decision, and then there are other people on Reddit supporting the decision! Fucking people right? Always contradicting themselves.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

snip

So what happens when the corporations own everything? Please don't tell me it can't happen as they've already taken over incarceration and certain law enforcement duties. So we can sit in the backyard and talk to only a handful of people at once? Super! Let's just hope the corporations don't feel like censoring customer complaints. Oh wait! Some companies actually have put into their EULAs that in order to get a refund you have to sign an NDA stating you won't speak about your issues with the company. So it's starting.

That's why people have that issue. And it's more to do with corporations (which are NOT people despite what the SC said) rather than individual, small business owners. It would be a simple enough distinction to make legally.

I think you're missing the real big problem with your situation. See, the problem is corporations owning everything. It's just not a convincing argument to worry about limiting corporations in a situation where they own it all. How the fuck are you going to limit them if they do? You couldn't. They could do what they like.

It's like worrying about being polite come an apocalypse. You're worrying about tiny details in a ruinous situation.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I didn't realize it was cool to censor negative things that we don't like. I don't give a shit what Reddit does, never been there. The only issue I take with them is that they apparently set themselves up as the bastions of free speech and then censored things (and yes, private companies can censor things; not just the government). My issue is mainly with everyone saying "Freedom of speech ends when you're mean." and I always thought that was the exact kind of speech that needed protecting. Granted it's tricky because we're talking about a private entity, but with the US government becoming less and less concerned with the awareness that our politicians are blatantly serving corporate interests, I can see a day when the distinction is irrelevant. I believe we're seeing the start. So have at me with your "Strawman!" and your "Slippery Slope!" cries as if they automatically invalidate a point of view. They don't; they are valid in some cases but not just because the word is uttered.

Why do you think it needs protecting from society? From the government, yes. But you seem to think ideas shouldn't be allowed to be weeded out of society.

It seems awfully... well weak to just want to protect all things regardless of their worth. Fear of making a judgement so you just protect it all.

 

[Objectable]

I've heard the phrase "ruining our fun" in regard to shutting down the fatshaming subreddit.

When did "fun" become code for "psychopathy?"

 

[The Lunatic]

It seems awfully... well weak to just want to protect all things regardless of their worth. Fear of making a judgement so you just protect it all.

Perhaps it's more the realisation that value is entirely subjective and that just because some people think some speech is more valuable than others doesn't actually make it so.

And so instead of arguments about value, it's simply better to accept that given the subjectivity of value, people should be free to say what they like, and others free to apply their own value.

 

[DrWut]

A lot of people seemed to be on board protesting and making fun of said business. Where were all the champions of the corporations back then, I wonder?

I'm curious, Wut, if you are one of those folks who generalizes "people" as some homogenous entity that speaks with one mind, and likes to imagine they are calling it out on hypocrisy. Or do you have specific individuals in mind?

I mean, I hear people on Reddit criticizing this decision, and then there are other people on Reddit supporting the decision! Fucking people right? Always contradicting themselves.

No, I am asking Zeconte specifically if, on that given instance, they would be on the same side of the issue defending the rights of corporations to deny service and kick out people who they have unilaterally deemed "undesirable". I was just putting an example of a previous issue were people were agreeing that the corporation in question were being idiots.

But don't let that get in the way of your little personal dig that has exactly 0 to do with any argument.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

No, I am asking Zeconte specifically if, on that given instance, they would be on the same side of the issue defending the rights of corporations to deny service and kick out people who they have unilaterally deemed "undesirable". I was just putting an example of a previous issue were people were agreeing that the corporation in question were being idiots.

I'm not Zeconte, but the pizza parlor had the right to do that (however distasteful) just as Reddit has the right to do this (however poorly handled).

But don't let that get in the way of your little personal dig that has exactly 0 to do with any argument.

Seemed a pretty fair representation of the argument you presented. I can see having it criticized has upset you, though, so...I'm sorry?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It seems awfully... well weak to just want to protect all things regardless of their worth. Fear of making a judgement so you just protect it all.

Perhaps it's more the realisation that value is entirely subjective and that just because some people think some speech is more valuable than others doesn't actually make it so.

And so instead of arguments about value, it's simply better to accept that given the subjectivity of value, people should be free to say what they like, and others free to apply their own value.

Value being subjective does not mean you must treat it all the same. That is the same foolish notion that leads people to think that if you believe morality is subjective you can never support one moral position over another. It has the bizarre implied belief that all subjective things must be treated the same. It simply isn't so.

Its really quite clear when you stop playing games when arguing. You can make judgements on their value then act accordingly instead of hand-wringing over how value is subjective so how can you possibly not treat them the same. Because we are not forced to be impartial beings.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Why do you think it needs protecting from society? From the government, yes. But you seem to think ideas shouldn't be allowed to be weeded out of society.

It seems awfully... well weak to just want to protect all things regardless of their worth. Fear of making a judgement so you just protect it all.

And you seem to think the only speech that will ever be censored is that which is obviously useless. Do I think that "Fat People Hate" is an idea deserving of consideration and social debate? Of course not. But once the precedent for censorship is set, then it can broaden a little more...and a little more...and a little more. I'm not scared of making a judgement, but thanks for thinking an opposing viewpoint is automatically cowardice. I can't see why discourse goes nowhere on the internet at all.

Seem to think..? Do you have evidence or is this just an accusation because I don't agree with you? Do you think everyone who realizes that MUST agree with you?

And you somehow think taking a stand here is going to prevent people from ever moving forward on censoring something of value? What, do you think it will forever be ingrained in our minds that fph lost here so we have to allow other censorship? Do you think people who want to censor other ideas would change their minds if fph was allowed to continue? The problem with your logic is that there seems to be no clear cause and effect for how it happens. Just that SOMEHOW it broadens. But not any details on how that works.

I see it as weak because I see it as bring afraid for no justifiable reason. I see no clear way in which this idea spreads just because fph got banned. WHO changes their mind and decides it's okay for it to happen elsewhere because of this where they weren't okay with it before?

 

[DrownedAmmet]

Someone spray-painted hateful slurs on a charity center in my city. Next week, they are going to repaint that wall.
Tomorrow, I'm going down there to protest. They are blatantly censoring the graffiti which has a right to exist due to freedom of speech.

Who's coming with me?

That has to be one of the worst analogies I've ever seen in my life. I mean hell, even if Reddit COULD be compared to a charity instead of a the for-profit corporation it is, it still wouldn't work since a better description would be painting over graffiti for a business whose entire model is based on putting up ads next to graffiti to get revenue.

I think the analogy holds up pretty well, all you have to do is replace charity center with Wal-Mart.

I'm not losing any sleep for the loss of "fat people hate" posters because fuck those guys. They can feel free to find another place to be assholes in. Good job Reddit!

I have to disagree on account of the fact that Walmart doesn't operate by having ads placed next to the graffiti on its walls.

It doesn't help that they're lying about who what is being enforced and what their position is. Chairman Pao claims that it's only subreddits that are harassing or doxing people which are being banned, this is a lie. She also states that Reddit is all for freedom of speech, which is also a lie.

Okay, so a better analogy would be if Wal-Mart owned a billboard, and let people come and draw things on it, but then they came in later and covered some stuff up, and then people got mad....
Yeah, analogies suck...

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Okay, so a better analogy would be if Wal-Mart owned a billboard, and let people come and draw things on it, but then they came in later and covered some stuff up, and then people got mad....
Yeah, analogies suck...

I think what we can all agree on is that Walmart had no business covering up that graffiti.

Let's picket them.

 

[DrWut]

No, I am asking Zeconte specifically if, on that given instance, they would be on the same side of the issue defending the rights of corporations to deny service and kick out people who they have unilaterally deemed "undesirable". I was just putting an example of a previous issue were people were agreeing that the corporation in question were being idiots.

I'm not Zeconte, but the pizza parlor had the right to do that (however distasteful) just as Reddit has the right to do this (however poorly handled).

But don't let that get in the way of your little personal dig that has exactly 0 to do with any argument.

Seemed a pretty fair representation of the argument you presented. I can see having it criticized has upset you, though, so...I'm sorry?

The argument I was presenting has nothing to do with people being a monolithic entity. If I am irritated it's because my mother language is not English and I'm tired, and you have no fucking idea how frustrating is, under this conditions, having to post at people who are doing their best to misunderstand the argument rather than get the general point that you are trying to make.

The general point that I am trying to make is that I predict that the reaction towards a corporation kicking people out of the "premises" is highly dependent on the popularity of said people. This is normal and it's the first reaction. But one has to think a bit further and realize that the arbitrary silencing that you like today could be applied to you tomorrow.

It's something that the governments have done for long with, for example, denying rights to terrorists. At first it's OK, then the definition of terrorist sorta keeps expanding. And no, I am not comparing this situation to Guantánamo, it's a simile so you get a better idea on the sort of shit that can come from accepting unfair treatment for people you don't like. It's just short-sighted.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Value being subjective does not mean you must treat it all the same.

Well, as far as giving the public the ability to decide for themselves, then it should all be treated the same by the media. Let's say that the media decided that gay marriage was an abomination and decided not to cover any positive aspects of it. Hey, corporations have rights so I guess you'll just have to get that info from....oh wait, where does one get news if not from the media? The nosy old lady at the end of the block?

Well no I don't want the media trying to tell us about the positives of slavery and genocide. Maybe one day media will leave it up to us if we wish to celebrate the deaths of our nation's soldiets. I mean that is what being purely neutral on values gets you, no?

To me this looks like... well ignorance of the fact that right now ideas already don't get treated the same and we are fine with it. And we know some ideas will never be treated the same because society heavily weighs against them. We don't need this non-existent pure neutrality to save us from gay marriage being treated poorly.

You seem to believe this idea of neutrality is needed to protect us. I say it does not exist and the means to protection is social pressure. If you lack social support to a sufficient degree then all else won't save you. I think that is realistic and the idea that trying to play at being neutral will protect us is fantasy