Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Hard to be at all sympathetic given that they banned any criticism of Trump. Hard to complain about being banned for 'contradicting woke orthodoxy' (which I don't think is a fair representation of what happened but nevertheless) when you don't allow any contradiction of Trumpian orthodoxy.
I hope you didn't interpret my comment as to imply that I support any and all subreddits which contradict woke orthodoxy. /r/itsafetish was banned, but so was /r/GasTheKikes. My point is that the common thread underpinning the banning of most political subreddits is that they were insufficiently woke, sometimes subtly, sometimes extravagantly. I have yet to hear of a subreddit which was banned by a conservative admin for being too woke.
I don't see anything intrinsically objectionable about a political community banning all criticism of a specific political figure. It's pretty weird to go into a subreddit for supporters of Donald Trump and start ranting about how much Donald Trump sucks, especially when there are thousands of other subreddits (most of which have nothing to do with politics) in which you can do that and get a warm reception. Which is more pluralistic: a website with numerous sub-communities each enforcing their own specific orthodoxy on their members, or a website in which the members of every community have to adhere to exactly one orthodoxy?
Well we can make this argument one stage removed no? Reddit is simply one of many websites enforcing certain values, if you don't like them you can go to another website - it is itself a 'sub-community' of all websites.
Ah yes, the old "if you don't like it, start your own website" argument.
Then someone does start their own website, and woke people don't like that, and immediately start hitting said website with DDoS attacks and putting pressure on their hosting providers and payment processors to drop them as clients.
You seem to be operating from the assumption that woke people, as a group, actually respect people's rights to hold and express political opinions they disagree with. I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at such a manifestly preposterous idea, when the last 10-15 years of Western politics have largely consisted of woke people loudly and explicitly announcing that they do not.
They could and they did! Patriots.win is still up and running. Where do you think you are now?
So you're not even going to acknowledge my point then, cool.
I was responding to you, specifically your smug mockery of 'start your own website', which was silly because that's exactly what they were able to do.
Kiwifarms, though I don't necessarily agree with Cloudflare's decision, was clearly not just banned just for its ideological proclivities.
I'd never heard of patriots.win prior to this conversation, but it's still a terrible example to illustrate your point that "if you're not woke, you can just start your own website and woke people will leave you alone":
If woke people are happy for conservatives to express pro-Trump opinions (as long as they do it in their own space) - why is patriots.win being labelled a hate website, and facing constant threats of being unhosted ever since its inception?
In a vacuous sense, it's true that the mods of /r/The_Donald were "able" to start their own website, but they faced an uphill battle to do so in a manner that I'm sure even you'll concede no woke website would ever have faced.
Hard disagree. People wanted to ban KiwiFarms for the ideological leanings of its userbase and for their unabashed mockery of woke people, so they went looking for something other than "not being woke" they could pin on it as a reason for banning it, even though you'll find woke people doing exactly the same things (or worse) without comment. "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime".
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling. 26 signatures. 26. Change.com. You definitely are.
I'd say that description is pretty indisputable. Which bit do you think is inaccurate?
Paywalled.
I don't think you've demonstrated that. The only potential evidence here is the paywalled WSJ article which I can't read, can you quote the relevant sections? I would note though that it is still here.
This is more or less unfalsifiable reasoning, because whatever evidence I give of other justifications for their ban you will dismiss as motivated reasoning/manufactured. So not sure what I can say here. Also, FWIW Kiwifarms is still up and active.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link