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

[Silvanus]

So, you're saying that freedom of association only applies in regards to things you don't like?

That seems a very selfish way to go about dealing with things.

If not based on this, where exactly is the line?

In the same way that every law and policy applies to "things we don't like", and not ones we do. If we couldn't apply different standards to different things, we simply couldn't legislate.

 

[DrWut]

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?

I should be surprised that people can't seem to tell the difference between getting rid of a subreddit for violating site rules and kicking a gay person out for being gay. I want to be surprised that people can't do this. But, of course, I'm not, because that would require me having some sort of expectation of people on the internet to be able to reason such simple distinctions out themselves.

Tell you what, if the restaurant or amusement park kicked out everyone for kissing, you know, kind of like how a certain site has rules against harassing that it recently enforced a little, then there's no real issue. Granted, it's a dumb rule to bar kissing, but then this is a poor analogy, where dumb things tend to thrive.

The reasons are the same. Completely arbitrary. Your claim that both are not comparable need some more meat to it. Either corporations are not bound to respect people and can deny entry to anybody or they are.

"Harassment" is a meaningless concept by now, half of the SRS network should be nuked by those guidelines. What were NeoFAG or NeogafInAction doing wrong? Those were banned too and what they did was mainly what the people in charge of Escapist.TXT do.

 

[Don Incognito]

The reasons are the same. Completely arbitrary. Your claim that both are not comparable need some more meat to it. Either corporations are not bound to respect people and can deny entry to anybody or they don't.

There are protected classes in regards to discrimination--race, religion, etc. Political beliefs, just being a general dick, enjoying making fun of fat people, being a cat person, being a dog person, liking the Chicago Blackhawks... these are NOT protected classes. So long as a business isn't denying service to someone on the basis of discrimination against said protected classes, they can deny service to anyone they damned please for any other reason, or for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

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.

Of course morality is subjective, if morality wasn't subjective different cultural norms would not exist. Our entirely path as a species is built upon our acceptance of certain morals over others and how that has changed over time. To not accept that is really rather daft.

Unless you believe in some notion of a divine morality and all others are the influence of some omnipresent evil, it's simply impossible not to accept that morality is subjective.

Who are you exactly to say that your morality is "Better" than any other? It just occurs more to be a sense of self-importance than anything else to assume that one's own value is higher than others based on the morals they hold.

That is what we call an if then statement. I disagree with the if-then statement that if morality is subjective you cannot support one moral position over another. I do not disagree that morality is subjective. You do notice the distinction, yes?

I'm no better than any other man, regardless of what his views are. I'm no more or less of a person than a person from the middle-east who believes in the Islamic way of life. Even if those beliefs are counter to a lot of the things I stand for.

That is simply your opinion. I think you're at least better than a full out Nazi, for example.

The thing is subjectivity does not mean sit on your hands and do nothing. I can still promote my subjective views over another. I can still want society to be one way over another.

Just like YOU are promoting your views over the opposite ones.

The key is acceptance. Now, I imagine you think yourself quite an accepting human being, after all, you're entirely happy to accept homosexuals, people who identify as transgendered, racial minority and so on and so forth. However, if you don't accept people of different views, different opinions and creeds, then I really don't see how you're any more accepting than those who you seem to despise so much.

Certainly, you don't have to like everyone. You can be vehemently opposed to people. But, to imply that they are lesser people because your views are more "Pure" is just a completely harmful opinion to ever hold, and is certainly one I hope to see the end of.

Well no, I do not care if I an accepting human being. You're wrong to make that assumption. I accept those people, yes, but not out of some ideal that says 'Acceptance is good!'. No, I do it because I judge those things to be things that are not harmful and are simply neutral. You seem to assume I do it out of somega kind of wishy washy kumbaya accept everything belief and that is just plain inaccurate.

Pure is your word. I'm honest about it, it is because I have a preference for how I want things to be. We all do. We all seek to set it that way.

Also you are the one who brought up ideas of lesser people. I did not. It isn't about lesser people. It is about not having to treat all ideas as if we believe they have the same worth. Is it subjective that I decide treating homosexuals as equal is worth more than treating a Nazi kindly? Sure. But doesn't mean I have an obligation to treat them the same.

 

[The Lunatic]

Well the hypothetical restaurant-amusement park is a business, they don't have complete and total freedom of association. They're subject to laws that forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation. Not that that actually matters, considering that the subreddits were removed for breaking site rules (I know I know, random internet rumor-spreaders say differently, and I should totally trust them over anyone else because SJW conspiracy, #RedditRevolt #Censorship #Cry) and not due to some issue with association.

So you believe that businesses should be forced against their will to operate in ways they don't agree with just to appease other people who may not represent their customers?

That doesn't seem very fair.

Certainly, I'd be against such policies, and I'd ask the owners of such an establishment to reconsider them, but, I don't see how my offence to such a thing would override their freedom to do it.

I mean, there's no harm to me, and, there are plenty of other places I could go, so... Could you explain how exactly a policy like this is fair?

In the same way that every law and policy applies to "things we don't like", and not ones we do. If we couldn't apply different standards to different things, we simply couldn't legislate.

Well, sure, most laws are based on morality, and morality insists that say for example, destroying a person's property isn't acceptable.

However, they're not really comparable to the freedom for a business to choose who it associates with. In such a case, there is no harm to the individual in question, there is no loss of property or anything like that.

There's simply a matter of hurt feelings. And It seems a bit daft to make laws upon hurt feelings. I mean, we teach children about sticks and stones.

The American constitution in fact enshrines this in the whole "Freedom of speech" thing.

 

[DrWut]

The reasons are the same. Completely arbitrary. Your claim that both are not comparable need some more meat to it. Either corporations are not bound to respect people and can deny entry to anybody or they are.

"Harassment" is a meaningless concept by now, half of the SRS network should be nuked by those guidelines. What were NeoFAG or NeogafInAction doing wrong? Those were banned too and what they did was mainly what the people in charge of Escapist.TXT do.

Well, if you want to call "following anti-discrimination laws" "completely arbitrary," sure, they're completely arbitrary and the reasons are totally the same no doubt about it. Not to mention that they're being kicked off for violating site rules and their mods doing nothing about it. As for harassment, I don't personally care about your personal opinion on it, nor will I take your evaluations of other subreddits with anything other than the massive amounts of salt necessary to force it down. Thankfully, certain people have been working tirelessly to produce more than enough to accomplish such a thing.

It's not my definition of harassment you have to care about. It's the corporation's definition of harassment. It's not my definition of terrorism you have to care about, it's the government's.

Of course you can always find the way to split hairs as long as the arbitrary rulings don't apply to you. Just don't expect us to take it as a cut-and-dry objective issue.

 

[The Lunatic]

Snip

You fail to answer the question however.

-Why- exactly, is one person better than another?

The only answer you seem to be hinting towards is "Because I agree with them" and that seems a very flimsy way of looking at things.

The question is not about if you treat them the same, the question is if you respect their rights as humans in the same way. And one of those rights is a freedom of expression.

 

[Kajin]

https://xkcd.com/1357/
/thread

I don't get why this is a big deal. Free speech doesn't cover your right to be an asshole on a privately owned forum. People should know that, and yet they don't.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

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

When you say it's cool to weed certain types of speech out of society, you either assume that whomever is doing the censoring is either perfect (which is impossible in any situation, much less a subjective one) or you're cool with some useful ideas getting dropped along the way. Unless you care to explain to me some miracle third option I"m not seeing?

Interesting, so you support the notion of jail or do you think that it's cool if innocent people are imprisoned? I can't possibly think of a miracle third option that isn't skewed and says it's something that is needed and it is unfortunate that innocents will be caught up too and should be avoided when possible. But that would force a more nuanced view of things than "You think it's perfect or you must not care if it hits the wrong target!"

There's also realism to talk about. Like that ideas *will* be weeded out of society whether you try to stick to some principle or not, and the more rational thing to do is try to defend the good ones and not fear a slippery slope not founded on a rational basis.

Speaking of reading comprehension...

And you somehow think taking a stand here is going to prevent people from ever moving forward on censoring something of value?

Well, I'd much prefer we not get to the point where they own everything but I don't see that happening. I'm just enjoying my ability to freely talk over the internet while I still can. There's no delusion I'm "fighting the good fight" here. Actually, I'm of the opinion that we're already boned. The system just hasn't fully collapsed yet. So I'm just shouting at the darkness as it engulfs the world around me.

I bolded the pertinent part to help you out.

It is almost as if I replied to you saying that the precedent will allow it to broaden more. That implies not allowing said precedent won't. Don't go backtracking and pretending you did not just suggest that. You are voicing the opinion that this allows for worse. I am asking how the hell it does and how it not happening helps any.

I am not asking how you personally doing anything helps. I am asking how your idea *would* help.

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.

No, I don't. Remember, I'm not trying to change anything-just voice my opinion. ANd I'm terribly sorry YOU can't see how it works. It's like the way the Republicans are essentially outlawing abortion. By slowly chipping away at it with useless regulations and by setting seemingly innocuous precedent that can be used for greater harm later. See, if you outlaw "harassing speech" now, and then the anti-gay movement takes charge again then pro-gay rhetoric is hate speech.

Your comparison sucks. Yes they are chipping away at it. But one chip is not what enables the next. The problem is the chips compound. In this case they do not. What would be a problem here is if this somehow made people think that further censorship is okay in a case where it censors good ideas.

You're going wildly off track with this nonsense about outlawing things. This is not about law. Reddit does not need some legal precedent here. They are no more able to ban later because they banned fph. What do you think they're gonna do, say "Well you can't be mad now because you weren't mad then!" and we'll all respond with "Oh damn they got us!"?

All that is needed here is the approval of enough of society. You need to understand the difference between law and social convention. In law, yes we need to consider how it can be used later. Socially approving and not rebuking reddit, on the other hand, does not give reddit free reign later.

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?

Who the fuck said I was afraid? Oh, YOU did. So clearly your assumptions are right, but mine are foolish. That about right?

Perhaps if you didn't come at me like an asshat assuming I'm some chickenshit based on not knowing me whatsoever, this could be an entertaining conversation. But this seems to be your style so bring it.

Well your reasoning seems to be that there will be some consequences later because... well some bad reasoning involving a legal situation that doesn't compare so far.

 

[The Lunatic]

Umm, yes? Because I don't think businesses should be allowed to deny services to people because they're hateful bigots?

So, you're entire motivation for forcing companies into acting ways they don't want to and infringing on their right of expression and association is based on "I don't like them".

Interesting.

And it's fair that someone can be denied service because of bigotry? How about if they're in a small town, and literally everyone denies them service?

Well, they own the land, and by entering their land, you don't get to tell them how to run things. I mean, it's their property. You're basically saying when you enter somebody else's land, your right to be served by them unwillingly overrules any rights they have. Which seems a bit faulty.

But, you are right, there are issues in regards to getting basic needs. I think companies that provide essentially services shouldn't be allowed to deny people access to those. However, in this instance we're talking about a non-essential service.

It's not your offense, it's your right to service. Sorry that customers actually have rights.

Uhhmm.. I don't think there's anything in the bill of rights that dictates I can enter a fast food place and demand to be served or have everyone arrested.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Snip

You fail to answer the question however.

-Why- exactly, is one person better than another?

The only answer you seem to be hinting towards is "Because I agree with them" and that seems a very flimsy way of looking at things.

The question is not about if you treat them the same, the question is if you respect their rights as humans in the same way. And one of those rights is a freedom of expression.

Did you cut out my post to avoid me pointing out that YOU are the one bringing up lesser people?

I'm not gonna answer loaded questions that imply I was arguing something I wasn't.

 

[The Lunatic]

Did you cut out my post to avoid me pointing out that YOU are the one bringing up lesser people?

I'm not gonna answer loaded questions that imply I was arguing something I wasn't.

So, we're in agreement then, even Nazis deserve the right to expression?

I mean, if you're not going to talk about how you regard people as lesser, than you're saying you don't regard people as lesser, thus?

 

[Silvanus]

Well, sure, most laws are based on morality, and morality insists that say for example, destroying a person's property isn't acceptable.

However, they're not really comparable to the freedom for a business to choose who it associates with. In such a case, there is no harm to the individual in question, there is no loss of property or anything like that.

There's simply a matter of hurt feelings. And It seems a bit daft to make laws upon hurt feelings. I mean, we teach children about sticks and stones.

The American constitution in fact enshrines this in the whole "Freedom of speech" thing.

Indeed it does, but that freedom is not absolute, and nor has it ever been.

A good number of legal precedents are set on "hurt feelings", if you wish to reduce them to that. Slander and libel; hate speech; anti-discrimination law.

Well, they own the land, and by entering their land, you don't get to tell them how to run things. I mean, it's their property. You're basically saying when you enter somebody else's land, your right to be served by them unwillingly overrules any rights they have. Which seems a bit faulty.

If they are operating a private business, they are in contract with the state and its regulatory bodies. Businesses require permits. So, running things is not entirely in their hands, no.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

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?

Again, you only bring up obvious examples of useless speech. So the fuck what if the media brings up the positives of slavery? See, the way free speech should work is: Let's say the media does tout the benefits of slavery. I'd rather have that out there and let the people decide for themselves (and yes, at this point it's not a tough decision) over and over ad nauseam rather than give some overlord the power to think for me.

By your standards the media can't judge it as useless and must give it equally positive coverage.

No in fact I don't think it should work that way. I do not think that useless ideas should be given a platform on principle.

And you seem to have an odd idea of how it works if they don't get a platform. That isn't an overlord thinking for you. That's unadulterated hyperbole.

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.

Well then, you're seeing it wrong. I'm ok if ideas such as racism fade from society completely. I welcome it. The point you're missing is that I'm against anyone other than the individual making the choice. If racism dwindles to the point where it's simply not mentioned any more because there aren't enough racists around any more to keep it alive, GREAT! I just don't want to give the government or corporations carte blanche to decide what's good or bad for us. Can you see that distinction between thinking all speech is valuable and not having others making an outright decision about what we can be exposed to?

What you seem to miss is there is always a level of choice made by the media in what they show. Too much news to show it all. They decide what is worth showing. You cannot possibly decide because you don't even know it until it's been broadcast.

Now why the hell did you go off about the media to me in the first place? I replied instantly but now I have no idea what it has to do with reddit, which holds an entirely different position in society than the news for instance.

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.

You mean like the social pressure to argue against corporations making choices for us? Like we're discussing? Not to mention the fact that this is what I've been arguing for the whole time. Let society make the choice: Not the government, not the media, not any other corporation. People can't make informed choices without any information so why would you allow a certain group to limit that information?

You seem to assume I care about society's choice. I don't. Method is not my primary concern. I talk about social pressure when it comes to ideas because I am being realistic about what protects ideas we find worthwhile, not because I like it.

But anyways I think we're safe if fph is banned. I somehow do not feel my choices are more limited that way. I'd object if I saw an actual limitation of important information. I do not knee-jerk respond and defend fph on principle for fear of important information being restricted.

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

I hope you see why this point has nothing to do with what I've been saying by now.

I'm not sure why you even brought up media in general.

 

[The Lunatic]

Indeed it does, but that freedom is not absolute, and nor has it ever been.

A good number of legal precedents are set on "hurt feelings", if you wish to reduce them to that. Slander and libel; hate speech; anti-discrimination law.

Well, Slander and Libel is based upon character damage, which may affect employment and thus potential monetary gain and so on. It's not really about hurt feelings. As you have to prove with such laws that those claims have affected something beyond feelings.

Hate Speech isn't really a law in the US, but, tends only to cover speech that encourages others to go about harming others and so on. Even then, it's kinda a grey area. But, it's not about feelings, it's about preventing the incitement of crime.

Finally, Anti-discrimination law is primarily about ensuring that people can't be denied human rights on the basis of things. Not feelings. It's seen adapted usage in the form of "This Christian establishment didn't want to be associated with homosexuals, and they should be forced to", which I disagree with, unless we're talking about essential services.

If they are operating a private business, they are in contract with the state and its regulatory bodies. Businesses require permits. So, running things is not entirely in their hands, no.

Sure, but, as a private business, you don't really get to argue if something is "Fair" or not. It's not your land. So... Yeah...

Kind in the same way a night club can refuse you entry if you "look a bit funny".