Reddit bans Nazi boards in crackdown on ‘violent’ content

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

isekai said:

Drunk_Samurai said:

That's not how it works at all.

pure/total freedom is lawless

so killing is acceptable in a lawless situation

Which doesn't matter. There is absolutely any evidence that everybody would kill just because they could.

Oct 27, 2017 12:42 AM

#103

removed-user

Offline

Jul 2018

564516

Valaskjalf said:

AA5x4 said:
I don't care if they ban nazi subreddits

I don't use reddit often

Are you implying you're a Nazi who uses other forums ?

Not a Nazi...it's just that I don't care

Oct 27, 2017 12:46 AM

#104

Bobby2Hands

Offline

Dec 2015

7388

AvaG said:

Clebardman said:

Are you talking about le evil jews? You forgot the ((( ))) meme BS

lol now were that come from, to give you an idea theyre calling Ben Shapiro a nazi and a white supremacist, now how does that sound

By "they" you mean the evil Jews right?

Oct 27, 2017 1:03 AM

#105

konkelo

Offline

Apr 2015

3110

I'm honestly caring only about bestiality subreddits getting banned finally. No one will miss you dogfuckers.

Oct 27, 2017 1:45 AM

#106

deg

Offline

Jan 2009

93159

Drunk_Samurai said:

isekai said:

pure/total freedom is lawless

so killing is acceptable in a lawless situation

Which doesn't matter. There is absolutely any evidence that everybody would kill just because they could.

it can happen is the point im getting there

and besides anarchy happens in real life too anyway like when protests turn into riots

degOct 27, 2017 2:19 AM

Oct 27, 2017 7:14 AM

#107

Seer123

Offline

Dec 2015

42

its the Paradox of tolerance. If we dont limit who we are tolerant towards we will be destroyed by the intolerant. Therefore it is possible that being tolerant towards the Nazi ideology is inherently bad because it is rooted in intolerant ideas.

Oct 27, 2017 9:12 AM

#108

Syrup-

Offline

Jan 2013

6307

isekai said:
pure/total freedom is lawless

so killing is acceptable in a lawless situation

Oh boy! Better lock everyone up, sew a zipper onto their mouth and tie their hands behind their back. People might kill each other if they have too much freedom on the internet!

Oct 27, 2017 9:24 AM

#109

CrustyRolls

Offline

May 2014

932

But can I still get dank memes?

Oct 27, 2017 3:07 PM

#110

DrGeroCreation

Offline

Aug 2013

14394

Syrup- said:

isekai said:
pure/total freedom is lawless

so killing is acceptable in a lawless situation

Oh boy! Better lock everyone up, sew a zipper onto their mouth and tie their hands behind their back. People might kill each other if they have too much freedom on the internet!

So sending death threats on the internet should be acceptable since freedom of speech is to be respected and upheld at every level?

Oct 27, 2017 8:42 PM

#111

Kyokisama

Offline

Mar 2017

3260

Is Reddit government funded?

Oct 28, 2017 5:23 AM

#112

Ivich

Offline

Mar 2013

642

neoliberals will always support corporate censorship as long as it benefits their agenda. once they make it impossible to discuss online though, it will have to come into the real world

Oct 28, 2017 8:40 AM

#113

Syrup-

Offline

Jan 2013

6307

DrGeroCreation said:

Syrup- said:

Oh boy! Better lock everyone up, sew a zipper onto their mouth and tie their hands behind their back. People might kill each other if they have too much freedom on the internet!

So sending death threats on the internet should be acceptable since freedom of speech is to be respected and upheld at every level?

Just close your eyes, nigga. Walk away from the screen, nigga. If you truly believe someone has the ability to come to your place and kill you, call the police. Words on the internet are literally harmless and liberalism is a mental disorder that gives too much power to words.

If I tell you to go fuck yourself, are you going to be offended? Are you going to do it?
If I tell you to go watch a certain anime, are you going to take my word for it? Are you going to watch it?

Why is it suddenly different if someone says "kill yourself"? No matter how much I mean it, you're not going to do it. It's up to the person reading the words to be a filter, not everyone else.

Syrup-Oct 28, 2017 8:45 AM

Oct 28, 2017 12:01 PM

#114

Offline

Jul 2016

852

razor39999 said:
There's nothing wrong about shutting up an ideology entirely based on hate and very little else.

Oh? And what makes this ideology "based on hate and very little else" so objectively inferior to your own ideology? Who appointed you and your kind the arbiters of what makes an ideology acceptable/unacceptable?

Don't get me wrong: I despise Nazism and want to see its vestiges erased, but the whole "I/we get to decide that this ideology is objectively wrong and anyone who dares question me/us on that will be punished" creed is something I will fight to my dying day.

Neo-Nazis believe they're in the right and you're in the wrong, just as you believe you're in the right and they're in the wrong. What makes you the one who gets to decide whose ideology is "allowed" to propagate?

Important Note: I no longer - in any way, shape, or form - consider myself a moral nihilist (even in my old, convoluted definition of the term). I very much do believe there is such a thing as objective good and evil. In addition, I apologize for any of the posts I've made that are rude, aggressive, or otherwise unbecoming.

I've always striven to walk a path befitting a follower of Christ, and now recognize some of my old comments here as misguided if not outright wrong. If you happen upon them, pray do not let them darken your view of the God I serve. He is kind, even if I, at times, have not been.

Oct 28, 2017 12:28 PM

#115

Offline

Jul 2016

852

razor39999 said:
First of all, it's not just me, it's a multitude of very dissimilar political ideologies across Europe coming to the same conclusion when it comes to outlawing Nazi and fascist public gatherings and political parties.

So majority rule dictates right and wrong. Got it. Can I infer, then, that if the Nazis were to convert/kill off enough of their opposition, they would be the ones in the right?

razor39999 said:
And you don't need more than looking at the multiple historic accounts of their actions and Hitler's little book to see it as one of the greatest evils of the 20th century (matched only by Stalinist Russia and Maoist China).

While I too see Nazism as abominably evil, that's a subjective viewpoint. Good and evil are not laws of nature. They are merely subjective definitions of what one sees as "right" or "wrong." Your definition is no "better" than theirs. If you want to justify silencing their ideology, you're going to need a better reason than the subjective "They're evil."

Edit: That also raises the question: Where does the "too evil" mark lie? Are there ideologies you see as evil, yet not so evil as to ban them? Where is the line that separates Nazism from other ideologies you disagree with?

Important Note: I no longer - in any way, shape, or form - consider myself a moral nihilist (even in my old, convoluted definition of the term). I very much do believe there is such a thing as objective good and evil. In addition, I apologize for any of the posts I've made that are rude, aggressive, or otherwise unbecoming.

I've always striven to walk a path befitting a follower of Christ, and now recognize some of my old comments here as misguided if not outright wrong. If you happen upon them, pray do not let them darken your view of the God I serve. He is kind, even if I, at times, have not been.

Oct 28, 2017 12:40 PM

#116

Offline

Jul 2016

852

razor39999 said:
@Phendrus I'm not in the mind of every lawmaker ever, but personally I'd go by a simple pragmatic approach and compare the amount of lives lost and check the official ideological documents to see if the genocides were always the plan. Both of which get a + in the case of fascism, Nazism, Japanese militarism, etc.

You're not answering any of the questions or points I raised.

Additionally, your new position again relies on the idea that the "evil" of genocide is somehow an objective truth and law of nature, rather than simply a subjective viewpoint.

Edit: If you're wondering why I'm so adamant about this, it's because I realized a while back that if someone is able to outlaw one ideology for such an arbitrary reason as "I/we say it's evil," they could eventually outlaw my ideology. Alternatively, they could outlaw an ideology I may have otherwise discovered at a later date and chosen over my current one.

There are things that I consider "evil" that mainstream society loves, and society has made no secret of the fact that they consider it "evil" to call them "evil." I don't intend to be silenced, prosecuted, or imprisoned just because some strangers decide their views are somehow objectively better than mine.

PhendrusOct 28, 2017 12:45 PM

Important Note: I no longer - in any way, shape, or form - consider myself a moral nihilist (even in my old, convoluted definition of the term). I very much do believe there is such a thing as objective good and evil. In addition, I apologize for any of the posts I've made that are rude, aggressive, or otherwise unbecoming.

I've always striven to walk a path befitting a follower of Christ, and now recognize some of my old comments here as misguided if not outright wrong. If you happen upon them, pray do not let them darken your view of the God I serve. He is kind, even if I, at times, have not been.

Oct 28, 2017 12:51 PM

#117

Offline

Jul 2016

852

razor39999 said:

Phendrus said:

You're not answering any of the questions or points I raised.

Additionally, your new position again relies on the idea that the "evil" of genocide is somehow an objective truth and law of nature, rather than simply a subjective viewpoint.

You're focusing too much on evil v good. I'm more interested in the amount of lives lost and the political intention behind it, regardless if you label it as evil or not.

You desire to ban an ideology that, when put into practice, results in loss of life/deals with certain political intentions. What possible reason could you have to do so other than some idea that loss of life/said political intentions are "bad?"

Also, you still haven't answered my question from the top of the page. May I assume, then, that you've abandoned the "majority rule makes right" sentiment you conveyed earlier?

Edit:

razor39999 said:
EDIT: And yes, I do understand why you're going about this discussion, I mostly agree with it too, but in order for free speech and tolerance to prosper I'm more than willing to throw inherently intolerant ideas under the bus and only talk about them as examples of what not to do.

You're aware, of course, that "throwing inherently intolerant ideas under the bus" is an inherently intolerant idea, yes?

I speak out against that which I see as evil, regardless of whether people label me "intolerant" for it. However, my method of speaking out involves trying to convince people to abandon that which I see as evil, not trying to force them to abandon it. They're free to ignore me if they wish: I respect their free will. Alas, these paragons of "tolerance" seem unwilling to do the same for me.

Edit 2: @razor39999 Grabbing lunch. I'll be back to continue this very stimulating discussion later, assuming I don't get distracted.

This is proving to be a very enjoyable exchange.

PhendrusOct 28, 2017 1:07 PM

Important Note: I no longer - in any way, shape, or form - consider myself a moral nihilist (even in my old, convoluted definition of the term). I very much do believe there is such a thing as objective good and evil. In addition, I apologize for any of the posts I've made that are rude, aggressive, or otherwise unbecoming.

I've always striven to walk a path befitting a follower of Christ, and now recognize some of my old comments here as misguided if not outright wrong. If you happen upon them, pray do not let them darken your view of the God I serve. He is kind, even if I, at times, have not been.

Oct 28, 2017 3:20 PM

#118

bacchi

Offline

May 2009

1569

Ratohnhaketon said:
I can go on Reddit right now and make a board titled:

Barbary Slavery: Why White People Need Chains

And I will be celebrated as a hero by the CEO.

r/whitesarecriminals was banned too. Bunch of entitled and whiny little brats with a victim complex here. God forbid a private company doesn't want your racist shit on their platform.

Oct 28, 2017 4:34 PM

#119

Valaskjalf

Offline

Apr 2011

4658

Wasn't there a Bioware employee posting racist comment about white people on facebook and he never got banned ?

ValaskjalfOct 28, 2017 4:50 PM

Oct 29, 2017 2:25 PM

#120

Online

Mar 2008

47320

Syrup- said:

DrGeroCreation said:

So sending death threats on the internet should be acceptable since freedom of speech is to be respected and upheld at every level?

Just close your eyes, nigga. Walk away from the screen, nigga. If you truly believe someone has the ability to come to your place and kill you, call the police. Words on the internet are literally harmless and liberalism is a mental disorder that gives too much power to words.

If I tell you to go fuck yourself, are you going to be offended? Are you going to do it?
If I tell you to go watch a certain anime, are you going to take my word for it? Are you going to watch it?

Why is it suddenly different if someone says "kill yourself"? No matter how much I mean it, you're not going to do it. It's up to the person reading the words to be a filter, not everyone else.

ISIS gained much of it's recruits with nothing but words on the internet. Yeah... harmless.

Oct 29, 2017 2:34 PM

#121

Syrup-

Offline

Jan 2013

6307

traed said:

Syrup- said:

Just close your eyes, nigga. Walk away from the screen, nigga. If you truly believe someone has the ability to come to your place and kill you, call the police. Words on the internet are literally harmless and liberalism is a mental disorder that gives too much power to words.

If I tell you to go fuck yourself, are you going to be offended? Are you going to do it?
If I tell you to go watch a certain anime, are you going to take my word for it? Are you going to watch it?

Why is it suddenly different if someone says "kill yourself"? No matter how much I mean it, you're not going to do it. It's up to the person reading the words to be a filter, not everyone else.

ISIS gained much of it's recruits with nothing but words on the internet. Yeah... harmless.

Yup! Totally harmless. That's why everyone can write words. It's up to the person who reads it to deal with what they have read. There are many things in this world that would be deemed harmful if people like you had your way.

p.s.
Antifa is also gaining power with nothing but words on the internet.
Clinton was gaining votes with nothing but words on the internet
Trump too.
People can use the internet any way they please. Reddit can remove what they want off their site. If the users don't like it, wow!, time to make a new site with hookers and blackjack! It's happened many times before to other social hubs.

Oct 29, 2017 2:35 PM

#122

the decline of architecture and arts

Online

Mar 2008

47320

Immahnoob said:
@traed

Censorship is when the government does things.

No, censorship does not only involve the government, Traed. Don't be one of those.

They can do what they want.

They sure can, it doesn't mean it's also correct.

hazarddex said:
i did but if every thing supported the idea of freedom of speech we wouldn't be able to kick people off our property for putting up signs on it that we disagree with.

i did

You didn't, you're still going hard and light.

So by your logic websites should be totally unmoderated because moderation is censorship. Removing spam and malicious links is even censorship.

They had this too widesweeping it sounds like though as I've said before.

Syrup- said:
[Yup! Totally harmless. That's why everyone can write words. It's up to the person who reads it to deal with what they have read. There are many things in this world that would be deemed harmful if people like you had your way.

p.s.
Antifa is also gaining power with nothing but words on the internet.
Clinton was gaining votes with nothing but words on the internet
Trump too.
People can use the internet any way they please. Reddit can remove what they want off their site. If the users don't like it, wow!, time to make a new site with hookers and blackjack! It's happened many times before to other social hubs.

I'm not talking about just displaying opinions but actually doing something illegal and illegal for good reason. So no not allowing Islamists to plot terror attacks isnt exactly censorship just as not allowing them to walk around with explosives isnt really what you could logically call suppression of freedom of expression.

traedOct 29, 2017 3:00 PM

Oct 29, 2017 2:44 PM

#123

removed-user

Offline

Jul 2018

564516

Here’s a nice sentiment I wrote in the margin of my history notes about “MUH FREE SPEECH”

Oct 29, 2017 3:21 PM

#124

Noboru

Offline

Jan 2009

14309

spuukiebuugi said:
Here’s a nice sentiment I wrote in the margin of my history notes about “MUH FREE SPEECH”

Free Speech ≠ Hate Speech

That being said, I'm not surprised. It's to be expected that at one Point or other, the Freedom to say or write whatever you want gets restricted. It might be more painful for your fellow Countrymen, since they tend to have less Restrictions with Regards to what they can say or write on the Internet.

Imagine MAL was hosted in Europe or more specifically: in Germany instead of the USA. We would have certainly seen way more Thread- Postings- and Comment-Deletions and other Forms of Censorship than under American Jurisdiction.

♗

old German songs

image source Z28.310

Oct 29, 2017 3:26 PM

#125

removed-user

Offline

Jul 2018

564516

Noboru said:

spuukiebuugi said:
Here’s a nice sentiment I wrote in the margin of my history notes about “MUH FREE SPEECH”

Free Speech ≠ Hate Speech

That being said, I'm not surprised. It's to be expected that at one Point or other, the Freedom to say or write whatever you want gets restricted. It might be more painful for your fellow Countrymen, since they tend to have less Restrictions with Regards to what they can say or write on the Internet.

Imagine MAL was hosted in Europe or more specifically: in Germany instead of the USA. We would have certainly seen way more Thread- Postings- and Comment-Deletions and other Forms of Censorship than under American Jurisdiction.

I more or less said that the racists don’t necessarily have to have their shit removed, but that they need to stop acting like petulant babies whenever their racist, antisemetic or otherwise wrongful and hateful opinions are criticized. They put hateful groupthought out there, they should expect to be criticized. I’m tired of the alt rights obsession with childish self victimization. No, they are not, and never will be victims. I don’t really care whether their thoughts, whether overtly disgusting or borderline- trying to bypass site moderation in order to avoid removal- but still clearly hateful, are taken down or not, I care that they keep acting as self absorbed that their opinions “should not” be criticized by others. If they put their wrong opinions out there, they’ll be subject to criticism. They have to accept that, and not shirk their personal responsibility because they decided to blame an entire race of people for a socioeconomic problem that’s got nothing to do with race, and they’re getting flack for what’s essentially racism.

Oct 29, 2017 4:36 PM

#126

Online

Mar 2008

47320

If words are harmless and the ultimate end all be all is completely unlimited free speech then the logical conclusion is we should legalize theft and rape under coercion. It is just words and they do comply to the threats so that's on them, right? Oh and don't forget legalize entrapment when officers trick you into agreeing to a crime you don't want any part of. Then you could legalize officers coercing false confessions to make you take fall for a crime you didn't do. It's just words...

traedOct 29, 2017 8:16 PM

Oct 29, 2017 5:22 PM

#127

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

Hate speech is actually legal unless it's used to incite violence. There are only a few things you are not allowed to do. Such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Oct 29, 2017 5:27 PM

#128

GrimAtrament

Offline

Feb 2010

11939

Drunk_Samurai said:
Hate speech is actually legal unless it's used to incite violence. There are only a few things you are not allowed to do. Such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

or saying "they have a gun!"

or saying shit about one of the amoral corporation (since they will sue the shit out of you)

also since when hasn't hate speech been used to incite violence?

"among monsters and humans, there are only two types.
Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice
“Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume
“Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus

Oct 30, 2017 1:53 PM

#129

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

hazarddex said:

Drunk_Samurai said:
Hate speech is actually legal unless it's used to incite violence. There are only a few things you are not allowed to do. Such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

or saying "they have a gun!"

or saying shit about one of the amoral corporation (since they will sue the shit out of you)

also since when hasn't hate speech been used to incite violence?

Incite violence more refers to a riot. Of course the person would still be arrested if they got in a fight with somebody over hate speech.

Oct 30, 2017 8:34 PM

#130

Online

Mar 2008

47320

Drunk_Samurai said:

hazarddex said:

or saying "they have a gun!"

or saying shit about one of the amoral corporation (since they will sue the shit out of you)

also since when hasn't hate speech been used to incite violence?

Incite violence more refers to a riot. Of course the person would still be arrested if they got in a fight with somebody over hate speech.

No that's inciting a riot. Inciting violence is more against a specific group. I'm not sure what term is used for inciting violence against a specific person.

Oct 31, 2017 11:21 AM

#131

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

traed said:

Drunk_Samurai said:

Incite violence more refers to a riot. Of course the person would still be arrested if they got in a fight with somebody over hate speech.

No that's inciting a riot. Inciting violence is more against a specific group. I'm not sure what term is used for inciting violence against a specific person.

Assault is the term.

Oct 31, 2017 2:48 PM

#132

Online

Mar 2008

47320

Drunk_Samurai said:

traed said:

No that's inciting a riot. Inciting violence is more against a specific group. I'm not sure what term is used for inciting violence against a specific person.

Assault is the term.

Assault is when you yourself do it not when you get someone else to.

Oct 31, 2017 4:05 PM

#133