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

[Secondhand Revenant]

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?

Loaded questions again.

For example assuming I have the same idea of 'right to expression' you do. Mine isn't some absurd thing beyond the law. They are protected from government and no more.

For half a second I thought I could actually discuss things with you then you start pulling this shit where you cut out what I say then make replies not relevant to it

 

[Redryhno]

Can anyone please just answer each other's questions without going into analogies and snark that the Escapist has become known for? Can we just honestly talk without talking about one another's political leanings being the forefront of the discussion and not the event itself? Do you think it deserves to be banned? Why? Also do you think that the wording should match the reasoning behind it? Or does the wording not need to match the reasoning behind it?

 

[Silvanus]

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.

Outside of monetary gain, of course, 'character damage' is pretty abstract and vague, and in practice, defamation laws are frequently invoked to protect the image of an institution. As for hate speech, it simply isn't limited solely to actions which may incite bodily harm; it covers harassment as well.

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.

And refusal of service has already been considered just such a breach of rights [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/27/christian-guesthouse-owners-appeal-gay-couples].

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".

And private businesses do not get to argue this point, either. Their contract with the state forbids discrimination.

 

[The Lunatic]

Well, that certainly would be interesting if that's was both what I actually said and the extent of my post. Though, since we (hopefully) both know that's not the case, I'm not sure what's so interesting about it.

Your response to "Why should they be forced to" is "Because they're bigots". That's literally a "I don't like them, therefore they should be forced to" argument. So, yes, it quite clearly is the case, based on what you've said. If you'd like correct your previous typing, you may do.

We're not talking about "land," we're talking about a business, something that's purpose is to provide goods and services to people. And they're only allowed to operate a legitimate business through a license provided by the government, which requires them to abide by certain laws, including those that forbid discrimination of protected classes.

We are talking about land though. We're referring to, in this instance, an amusement park, the service of which takes place on land that a company owns. Yes, there are laws they're required to follow, the argument is "Should those laws be in place". Not that fact they exist. Everyone is aware they exist. The question is "should they".

So, in your opinion, so long as it's not an "essential" service, people should just be forced to suck it up and deal with it if they're denied service everywhere?

There are plenty of other places they could move. Nobody is required to stay in one place. Why would anyone even want to stay in a place where a bunch of people hated them?

So, yeah.

People will dislike you regardless of if they're "Allowed" to or not, and there are plenty of legal ways to make you feel unwelcome.

It sucks, but, as a gay person myself, I realise it's a fact of life. There's a reason I don't go on holiday to Dubai with my boyfriend, for example.

I wasn't aware that the extent of people's rights was limited to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Here I though we were a country of case laws and statutes as well as Constitutional laws, but that must of just been my imagination. Or are you just being facetious over the word "rights"?

So, your claim is "This is totally a right the exists... Somewhere..."

Prove it, please.

Loaded questions again.

For example assuming I have the same idea of 'right to expression' you do. Mine isn't some absurd thing beyond the law.

For half a second I thought I could actually discuss things with you then you start pulling this shit where you cut out what I say then make replies not relevant to it

Ooh. Okay, so, you believe in "Right to expression" in kinda a Soviet Era "You have the right to expression, just not Free expression" way?

Interesting.

 

[The Lunatic]

Snip

The argument is "We shouldn't make laws based on "My feels"." Whilst I will accept they've come to be used for such things, that's not why they were made in the first place.


In regards to the whole thing that went down in the UK, as a homosexual, the idea that I have an inalienable right to use any BnB in the country regardless of the owner's desire to expression of their religion is a little troubling, honestly.

 

[Alterego-X]

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.

Yes, it was a Dark Souls joke, except that Dark Souls was brought up nowhere in the thread, that was about a girl's Planetside themed photo, and her gender getting repeatedly questioned by posters until she deleted her account.

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.

Ok, so it's not transpobic, because it's a joke about transvestites.

So, what's the joke? Explain please, what's the source of humor in calling people of ambigous gender identity, "traps"?

 

[Alterego-X]

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.

But the precedent has ALWAYS been set.

Back when Fatpeoplehate has been running, it's moderators censored any post that wasn't properly hating fat people. There has never existed some mythical status of everyone-can-say-whatever-they-want-on-the-internet.

Sites, sub-sites, threads, and comments everywhere on the Internet always had their themes, and there were always people with the ability to edit or delete them.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

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!"

So we're going to argue that neither of us understands nuance? OK. Let me retort with the idea that comparing protecting people from violent crime to shutting down speech is a poor analogy at best.

Well *I* understand it. I'll leave it for you to speak for yourself.

And you seem to miss the point. The other options are obvious. In this case, I am fine with what social pressure weeding out some ideas. That does not mean I like it all the time.

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.

You still don't seem to get that I don't want all ideas to stay alive forever. I just don't want any one entity to decide that for all of a society. See?

Well amazingly enough you haven't shown any evidence that one entity decided it for all of society. Unless I'm missing something big that happened besides a subreddit being removed.

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.

When you said helping "here" I assumed it was referring to here as the Escapist. My apologies on this point. My idea of not allowing censorship? Do I really have to spell out why I think that's a good idea?

No, I am asking how not allowing it for fph protects us later.

Your comparison sucks.

Forgive me if I don't take the comparision criticism of jail=media censorship guy as a serious one.

I'd take that a bit more to heart if you seemed to get the point about the obvious option besides "I think the system is perfect" and "I dislike the imperfections of a system that exists".

It also wasn't media censorship that I mentioned there.

Yes they are chipping away at it. But one chip is not what enables the next.

Uh, yeah it does. Have you heard of erosion?

Comparisons to erosion don't prove an actual point. It is rhetoric at best as the systems differ. In this case they do not enable the next. The passing of one law doesn't make the next one possible in these stupid abortion restrictions. For example, requiring ultrasounds does not enable a law that requires the doctor to have residency at a nearby hospital. They compound but do not enable one another.

I don't feel you are looking at the details here.

The problem is the chips compound.

Oh, you have! So the difference between linear causation and general accumulation makes it okay how?

Would you kindly point out where I said this made anything okay? I am pointing out how your reasoning is faulty. How these things do not compare.

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.

Again, so what single entity do you agree can make the decision for what speech is good and what is bad? THe government? Comcast Cable? HBO? Or should we let society decide like I want?

*yawn* Said nothing of the sort.

Try addressing what I said maybe? I am talking about how it one thing is supposed to lead to another. I never said this nonsense about them determining what is good or bad and having absolute power.

You're going wildly off track with this nonsense about outlawing things. This is not about law.

If you think the word outlaw can only relate to the government...you're wrong.

Did you already forget that I was talking about you referring to republicans trying to ban abortion with death by a thousand cuts? I am saying it is not comparable.

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!"?

This sounds like you're only upset at where I decided to chime in on the argument. This of course assumes that I've never complained about such things in the past of course. And god forbid people complain about an ideal they disagree with. Or is that one of those bad ideas you think should just disappear? And besides, do you understand how precedent works? If something is accepted the first time, then it's more likely the second and third and so on.

It sounds like you are very off track.

Like... did you read what I said closely or just skimmed?

I am arguing that we aren't setting a precedent for reddit. Just try reading that bit again with that in mind maybe?

All that is needed here is the approval of enough of society. You need to understand the difference between law and social convention.

No, YOU need to understand that that is exactly what I'm speaking about. Leave it to social convention, not government or corporations.

You seem to have jumped the gun and have some odd idea that reddit banned fph from society? Calm down, nothing was banned from society.

You also don't seem to get what I was arguing. It is not that social convention is good. It is that it still rules in this case.

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.

Reddit can already do as they like. Socially disapproving of something may cause it to change. Y'know, kinda like that bad speech you want to go away?

Missing the point. I am talking about the actual consequences of banning fph on furthet free speech. There are none and this is why.

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.

Not legal. Why don't you get that? And using "so far" is great. So we should wait until disaster is directly on top of us before we care? Are you a climate change denier also because the whole planet hasn't caught on fire yet?

So you don't think the Republicans are using the law to try to ban abortion? Because that is the legal situation that does not compare.

So far as in I was trying to be generous and wait to see if you ever provided anything of substance to defend the comparison.

 

[The Lunatic]

So, to you, "Because I don't think businesses should be allowed to deny services to people because they're hateful bigots?" is the same as "because they're bigots"? Because you seem to be missing a pretty important part of the sentence that kind of changes the meaning.

Well, I mean, hateful is entirely your opinion of them, some of them might be quite respectful.

Oh, so they should just move. Because that's not a particularly large expense and inconvenience to force on people rather than simply have businesses do actual fucking business.

The entire history of some countries is people "Just moving". I mean, one has to consider, that a lot of America wouldn't have been founded if it wasn't for those escaping religious persecution. To get angry about it now seems a little extreme.

Often moving leads to better things, and in doing so all the expense and inconvenience is made worthwhile.

Not that I think it's something people should have to do at all. I would love for us live in a society in which nobody discriminates over anything. But, We don't. And I don't think laws are helpful on the matter.

Do you think an anti-discrimination law against homosexuals would overnight cause Iran to accept homosexuals entirely?

Do you think removing anti-discrimination laws from the UK and US would overnight cause entire multi-national companies to outright ban homosexuals from entering their stores?

I very much doubt it. As such, I don't see the point of these laws, as beyond bothering religious cake shops, or pizza places, it seems to achieve very little.

I have to say, having to google incredibly simple things that people no doubt are already aware exist because they want to pretend they don't is getting old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Major_features

That's great! But, to start with, if you're not using a service, you're not a customer, so, customer protection doesn't apply, as you're not using their service, you've been denied for it.

And the second one you provided states that a business does have the right to refuse access to these people, as long as they're a "Private" business.

So... Yeah...

 

[Silvanus]

In regards to the whole thing that went down in the UK, as a homosexual, the idea that I have an inalienable right to use any BnB in the country regardless of the owner's desire to expression of their religion is a little troubling, honestly.

Well, I do respect your empathy, for what it's worth.

On a side-note, the freedom of religious expression could be characterised as "my feels", too. This is an instance of one person's "feels" coming up against another's.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

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

Well, I disagree. Not that every idea should be brought up every time, but if something pertinent comes up, don't cover it up. If there's a large enough movement in the country that says to do 'X', we should talk about it, if only to dismiss it and we can't rightly do that without information, can we?

Cover it up? Uh sure right. Because that is totally why some ideas don't get shown. They cannot possibly decide they aren't worth showing, gotta be conspiratorial motives.

They don't need to do it with positive spin on both sides. If it is big enough to be newsworthy that is something to report.

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.

Again-so who decides which ideas are useless?

Individuals? Or is that too worrying an idea?

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.

And what is your version of how things work without a platform? Because I'd love to see your version of my ideals. I'm guessing they're not quite accurate.

What do you even mean how things work? They just don't get one?

What you seem to miss is there is always a level of choice made by the media in what they show.

I'm not missing it, but again thanks for assuming I'm an idiot. So you think the Fox news model of media is a good one?

What is shown is always going to be based on certain values over others. Like in this case, your values. You do realize they aren't neutral yes?

Too much news to show it all.

And that's different than omitting something for ideological reasons, isn't it?

What gets cut depends on what people decide is important. You think there isn't something ideological going on there? Whether it be money is most important or your own values. You do realize your own ideas are just as ideological?

They decide what is worth showing. You cannot possibly decide because you don't even know it until it's been broadcast.

Yeah, exactly my problem. That I can't decide because I don't know. Again, why do you think that because this is the first place YOU saw me voice this opinion that I haven't been doing so prior to this? I did exist before I entered your bubble of awareness, you know.

Lol, you can knock that off. Reminding me you didn't read that properly before doesn't really help anything.

It would be impossible for you to decide is the point.

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 don't see how Reddit is social MEDIA? Ok then....

You may notice that media is far broader than social media. And unlike the news, it is not meant to inform.

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.

And you could never be wrong, could you? Nope, no mistakes have ever been made. If things are going to get fucked up, I'd rather it be by my own hand than from decisions made for me. It's nice to know that you don't give a shit about your fellow man's opinions though. I'll be sure to listen to your ideals for us all.

I just don't let some fear of being wrong stop me from ever acting. Much less in an inconsistent manner.

You do your best to stop them from being mistakes. But somehow I feel safe in our future without fph. I'll take responsibility if their removal causes society to collapse.

And why should I give a shit about opinions unless they are well supported? Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. It works better than say, a monarchy. But that doesn't mean I should throw away any gains made just because they weren't made the way people like. Why spite oneself?

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.

I would care much less if Reddit didn't still claim to be a bastion of free speech. It's part of why I think things deteriorate so quickly-misdirection. Say one thing, do another. One of those accumulating chips we talked about. Bluff the people long enough and they won't realize until it's too late.

And if people don't believe it is then voila problem solved. Though I'd be interested to hear the consequences if people do continue to believe it is. What exactly will befall them?

 

[The Lunatic]

Well, I do respect your empathy, for what it's worth.

On a side-note, the freedom of religious expression could be characterised as "my feels", too. This is an instance of one person's "feels" coming up against another's.

Certainly, The church is pretty much the original manufacturer of "Muh feels" and killed many people in the defence of them.

If people want to be religious though, it's usually a whole lifestyle, especially if they're religious to the extent of still being iffy about homosexuals in this day and age.

It just seems very crass for me to have a right to disrespect that in order to stay in a Bed and breakfast of all things.

The whole thing is basically just an elderly couple who own a BnB getting the full fury of the LGB community, called various awful things and all because of beliefs they'd held for their entire lives. And then everyone cheering it on like it was some triumph of civil rights. The whole situation makes me pretty uneasy with what the LGB community has become in regards to engaging with those who want distance.

 

[The White Hunter]

Is chairman pao by any chance really really fat?

 

[Redryhno]

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.

Yes, it was a Dark Souls joke, except that Dark Souls was brought up nowhere in the thread, that was about a girl's Planetside themed photo, and her gender getting repeatedly questioned by posters until she deleted her account.

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.

Ok, so it's not transpobic, because it's a joke about transvestites.

So, what's the joke? Explain please, what's the source of humor in calling people of ambigous gender identity, "traps"?

Ah, so everyone that was involved in it was banned from the subreddit and told to write a 500 word paper on the rapes and murder(or something along those lines) of transfolk in the U.S.? Or was it just that one poster? Because everything I'm getting is it was one person doing the joke, and then being talked down to by a guy that barely involves himself with modship unless he decides he has a moral obligation to do so. And even then has a reborn believer "I went to college therefore I am better than you" attitude about him.

The joke is hard to explain if you have no knowledge of the tropes in action. Which you seem to not have. Otherwise you'd actually know the basic stuff I've already outlined.

But I'll try my best then, it's a play on preconceptions and someone getting the unexpected and has a bit of a thing with Japan anime schools being infamously(whether it's true or not I don't know) anti-mingling in regards to the opposite sexes beyond basic classwork and groups. That's the basis of the "joke", it's more a humorous situation probably though. Anymore and it delves into other things that I'm going to have to assume you don't know enough about it to explain it without examples that you won't understand.

Also, last I understood and was told by transfolk here, transvestite is an outdated term and crossdresser has a better connotation or something since it denotes hobbyist as opposed to "true" trans and drag queen is more than just hobbyist while still being non-trans or something.