Extreme Z7

Massive GREEN Step for Reddit

131 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

@crab12 Do you have some examples of how progressives are ignorant?

Edit: Sorry, I misread your comment, so do you have some examples of how progressives are intolerant?

Edited by Peter-Andre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crab12 said:

It low-key blows my mind how intolerant progressives are. Surely all of you have done plenty of shadow work on your own consciousness. This is exactly the opposite of shadow integration.

Why allow those subreddits on reddit? They were stupid and obnoxious, you could have tried arguing with them but it wouldn't have worked. Now that they're banned those communities will no longer be promoting bad ideas and hate against groups of people.


3paj2a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, crab12 said:

It low-key blows my mind how intolerant progressives are. 

Uncle Tom was kicked out of Sally’s wedding. The people there were so intolerant!!! Poor Uncle Tom complained for weeks about how intolerant the people at the wedding were.

Well, it turns out Uncle Tom came to the wedding drunk, pissed in the punch bowl, shouted racist slurs and started a fist fight. . . 

All issues of intolerance are not equal. Be mindful of creating false equivalencies with blanket statements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Peter-Andre said:

@crab12 Do you have some examples of how progressives are ignorant?

Edit: Sorry, I misread your comment, so do you have some examples of how progressives are intolerant?

Banning Stefan Molyneux on Youtube.

3 hours ago, tenta said:

Why allow those subreddits on reddit? They were stupid and obnoxious, you could have tried arguing with them but it wouldn't have worked. Now that they're banned those communities will no longer be promoting bad ideas and hate against groups of people.

I have visited r/The_Donald a couple of times and it was cringe. But these people still hold their beliefs, they still exist, where are they gonna turn to now?

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Uncle Tom was kicked out of Sally’s wedding. The people there were so intolerant!!! Poor Uncle Tom complained for weeks about how intolerant the people at the wedding were.

Well, it turns out Uncle Tom came to the wedding drunk, pissed in the punch bowl, shouted racist slurs and started a fist fight. . . 

All issues of intolerance are not equal. Be mindful of creating false equivalencies with blanket statements. 

I don't think I am making a false blanket statement. There have been multiple wide-reaching purges of right-wing personalities on social media.

Edited by crab12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, crab12 said:

I don't think I am making a false blanket statement. There have been multiple wide-reaching purges of right-wing personalities on social media.

It depends on what the purges are over. To me, these purges seem to be for things like white supremacy, racism, hate speech and advocating violence. Advocating for white supremacy, racism and violence was once for fringe groups, yet they have gotten more access in recent years. Especially after Charlottesville. It looks like they are getting pruned back toward the fringe. I’m not seeing purges over regular disagreements. 

These purges are disempowering white supremacists that have been empowered over the last few years.

3 hours ago, crab12 said:

I have visited r/The_Donald a couple of times and it was cringe. But these people still hold their beliefs, they still exist, where are they gonna turn to now?

Toward the marginalized fringe. They will be much less toxic and harmful there. 

Imagine a KKK group. If they had full access to media such as YT, FB, cable TV they would be empowered. If they were allowed to create documentaries glorifying white supremacy, they would be empowered. If they had wide access online, they could more easily recruit members. However, if they were marginalized to their basements without social media, they would be disempowered. The idea is to make it harder for white supremacists to spread their toxic ideology and recruit new members - not easier. 

In doing so, one thing to keep an eye out for is white supremacist / hate code phrases like “preserving our heritage” or violence codes like “we will express our 2nd amendment rights to achieve our goals”.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Reddit is a privately owned and run website. They are allowed to ban hate speech if they desire.

I agree with your points. However, who becomes the arbiter of what is "hate speech"?

The one who decides what is hate speech wields all power over free speech. 

Reddit is a privately owned company. That is true. However, Reddit is hosted on Amazon AWS. What if one day Amazon decides that posting memes about Bezos is hate speech and shuts down Reddit? A company can not be the arbiter of free speech. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, JosephKnecht said:

I agree with your points. However, who becomes the arbiter of what is "hate speech"?

The one who has the power decides what counts as 'hate speech'. That's literally how this works.

If you want this to change, you have one option. That is to start your own platform and moderate it as you want to.


"Do not pray for an easy life. Pray for the strength to endure a difficult one." - Bruce Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, JosephKnecht said:

I agree with your points. However, who becomes the arbiter of what is "hate speech"?

The one who decides what is hate speech wields all power over free speech. 

Reddit is a privately owned company. That is true. However, Reddit is hosted on Amazon AWS. What if one day Amazon decides that posting memes about Bezos is hate speech and shuts down Reddit? A company can not be the arbiter of free speech. 

Yes, it’s challenging to determine who draws the line and where the line should be drawn. On the margins, these are fairly straight-forward, yet in grey areas it gets much more complicated.

I would first start drawing lines at the margins. At the margins, I think it’s more important that the lines get drawn for harm reduction than who draws them. Using the statues example: I think the most important thing is to remove statues at the margin: confederate statues that honor men for their white supremacy and fighting to continue slavery. Yes, there is some relativity here yet there is a majority consensus of what counts as a confederate slave trader / general that was a white supremacist fighting to promote slavery. I don’t care so much wether the decision to remove them comes from the mayor, state senators or the governor. The important thing is they come down. Then we get into gray areas of men like Thomas Jefferson.

Similarly, I would go after online groups at the margin. The ones promoting white supremacy, hate and violence. At the margins, there is likely to be a majority consensus of what is over the line, such as groups promoting white supremacy and hate. I’m not that concerned about who brings it down, to me it’s more important to bring it down and reduce the harm. If there is an online group working to make bombs to blow up buildings, we can all agree that is over the line. It doesn’t really matter who takes it down since we all agree. 

Then, we enter grey areas. You bring up the question of mega corporate power. Yes, they can over-reach into these grey areas and become arbiters of what counts as “hate speech”. One thing I would do is break up large corporations so they don’t have this mega power and I would prevent lobbying and remove their power over politicians. If it is someone’s private forum, I think they should have the right to decide what counts as hate speech within the grey areas. Yet there still needs to be some public oversight. Even if it’s a private forum if that forum is about making bombs to blow up buildings, they cannot hide behind a shield of “free speech”. . . In terms of the public sphere of what counts as hate speech and who decides, I think it’s important that these decisions have a variety of input. For example, what counts as over-the-line  “racism” should not be determined by a panel of white people. What counts as over-the-line “misogyny” should not be decided by a panel of men. An example of this was in the 1980s in the U.S. Congress was nearly all men and they were the ones who decided what counted as sexual harassment and sexual assault. That is absurd. . . So I would try to create diverse groups making these public decisions with input from the public. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, Molyneux was banned from YT??

That is a pretty bold move.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Wait, Molyneux was banned from YT??

That is a pretty bold move.

Yep, along with David Duke and Richard Spencer. 

A YT spokesperson said that Stefan Molyneux’s channel had repeatedly violated the platform's 2019 policy prohibiting “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see which video he got banned for.

I mean, he was a right-winger, but overall I didn't consider him to be that toxic. Sorta in the ilk of Jordan Peterson.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I'd like to see which video he got banned for.

I mean, he was a right-winger, but overall I didn't consider him to be that toxic. Sorta in the ilk of Jordan Peterson.

As far I can remember he clearly was against jews and all "genetically low iq" people with violent cultures and religions.

He himself apparently promoted peace and raising children peacefully.

Jordan Peterson never said something bad about jews as far as I can remember.

Edited by Epikur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I'd like to see which video he got banned for.

I mean, he was a right-winger, but overall I didn't consider him to be that toxic. Sorta in the ilk of Jordan Peterson.

I would say that Stefan Molyneux is not just your run-of-the-mill conservative. He has said a lot of racist stuff publicly in the past and I think it's completely justified to call him a white supremacist, or at the very least a racist and an ethno-stater. Here is a list of some pretty bad things he has said before: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux

It's not really a wonder he eventually got banned off Youtube, although I don't know if there was a specific video he got banned for.

Edited by Peter-Andre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I'd like to see which video he got banned for.

I mean, he was a right-winger, but overall I didn't consider him to be that toxic. Sorta in the ilk of Jordan Peterson.

I can’t believe you don’t know this.

Eugenics and race and IQ has a huge audience online.

 

Edited by Akemrelax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, louhad said:

@Akemrelax 10 seconds in and I can't watch this stupidity

Jordan Peterson introduces him to his audience.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Using the statues example: I think the most important thing is to remove statues at the margin: confederate statues that honor men for their white supremacy and fighting to continue slavery.

What is a statue but the immortalization of human stupidity? A statue is an attempt to solidify the image of a hero who in the times which he/she lived fought for that which society believed to be just. But society changes, and so does justice.  

Now take a more enlightened perspective. Every statue in a million years will be perceived as a deluded idiot who fought for something that was already perfect in the eyes of God. It was only his Ego that saw imperfections and tried to make it perfect. In the end, we should bring down every statue, not just the confederate ones. Or maybe, we should let them stand as a symbol of human stupidity. 

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yes, it’s challenging to determine who draws the line and where the line should be drawn.

If you can't decide who draws the line, then don't draw the line. 

Sites like Reddit, Youtube, Amazon have gained monopoly power over the way we communicate. If they gain the power to censor communication, eventually they might seek power to control what, how, and when we communicate. 

One of the reasons why the Internet is so successful and prevalent is because it doesn't censure any communication. The internet protocol allows for complete freedom in human expression. There is no "hate" in bits of information. Every bit is equal to every other bit. The hate is only in our minds that perceive hatred. You can't eradicate hatred by censuring speech but only by changing human perception. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 minutes ago, JosephKnecht said:

Now take a more enlightened perspective. Every statue in a million years will be perceived as a deluded idiot who fought for something that was already perfect in the eyes of God. It was only his Ego that saw imperfections and tried to make it perfect. In the end, we should bring down every statue, not just the confederate ones. Or maybe, we should let them stand as a symbol of human stupidity. 

how bout you consider taking the perspective of a black person who is still living within the confines of systemic racism(a persistent shadow of slavery), struggling to get by, and you see a statue venerating someone whose primary accolade was to fight to preserve the enslavement of you ancestors(which you are still feeling the repercussions of)? 

15 minutes ago, JosephKnecht said:

If you can't decide who draws the line, then don't draw the line. 

Sites like Reddit, Youtube, Amazon have gained monopoly power over the way we communicate. If they gain the power to censor communication, eventually they might seek power to control what, how, and when we communicate. 

One of the reasons why the Internet is so successful and prevalent is because it doesn't censure any communication. The internet protocol allows for complete freedom in human expression. There is no "hate" in bits of information. Every bit is equal to every other bit. The hate is only in our minds that perceive hatred. You can't eradicate hatred by censuring speech but only by changing human perception. 

youtube and reddit are private companies,  they decide the rules of their sites. They decide the line. Nazis are free to make their own websites. 

Also, you can't eradicate hatred, but you can denormalize racist and homophobic world views for example by not allowing them to run unrestrictedly on your platform

Edited by louhad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

Jordan Peterson introduces him to his audience.

 

lmao


"Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it" -Rumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now