A trivial number of bacteria are meaningless. Similarly, a trivial number of hateful posts can be ignored. It is only when the colony grows and metastasizes that we need to prevent.
And note, I am not advocating every poster must always identify themselves. I suggest only that the moderators use that power when a post is deemed sufficiently (un)worthy.
Never used Reddit, donât care.
(scroll)
General Clark?
Actually, a lot of the rhetoric coming from those on Reddit use the pretext of âfree speechâ violations, etc. without any understanding of what that actually means. @Berkyjay used the same language by invoking a phrase like âstifling dissent and foul speechâ.
Well, thatâs Redditâs decision to make, but they should be ready to accept the consequences of such in-action. Consequences like a public decrying them not only hosting such speech, but also profiting off of it.
Iâve never really bought this line. Iâd be really curious to know what level of income Reddit receives from such forums versus the rest of their entire site. If itâs a disproportionately high level of income then I think theyâll need to re-evaluate their business model. If Redditâs position is âwell if we donât make money from hate speech, some other site willâ then at least own up to the fact that youâre tacitly supporting it and definitely profiting from it.
While most of them hide behind the auspices of âfree speech,â itâs increasingly clear that these trolls are motivated mainly by a deep desire to silence: to use harassment as a tool to run off anyone who values meaningful discourse or wants an environment that is inclusive to all sorts of people.
Where do I see that kind of an environmentâŚhmmmmâŚ!!!
Anyway, Kirsten Powers ainât no right wing by any stretch of the imagination:
Based on the Generalâs recent stupid comments, meta, I assume you mean something like âWho gets to decide? Who watches the watchmen?â
Well, I can finally go full libertarianâthe site owner gets to set the rules, including a warning that assholey posts will be identified with the posterâs name, and then the owner risks market forces as to who will or wonât come by.
Thereâs no way to truly and verifiably force someoneâs real name to post or interact though, short of draconian measures like required drivers licenses.
And lacking that, anyone requiring me to ID myself to interact will find that my name is John Smith. Honestly. I pinky-swear.
I agree with the post that the libertarian notion that bigoted businesses will fade away is nonsense. Communities create cultural feedback loops where notions (memes, even) circulate and are either boosted on their way or attenuated out of existence. If you opened a âmy-race-onlyâ restaurant in a hostile environment, it may well go out of business. But if you opened it in a traditionally racist area it would thrive.
If it is found to be in the national interest (a deeply non-libertarian notion) that bigoted meme feedback loops be attenuated, then it makes sense to regulate racist individuals who benefit from government license and sanction - namely, businesses. Individuals and churches, of course, canât be touched in this way. They are only affected by their cultural matrix. Note that there is a lot of resentment to even that - those who wail that their (for instance) homophobic rants used to be perfectly okay, but now theyâre called bigots! Or people who routinely sexually harassed employees and were considered rascals and scamps, and now are considered oppressors, hurting womenâs advancement and authority. This the the basis of the complaints about âpolitical correctnessâ - that behavior that once was okay is now considered (at best) rude.
libertarianism is permissivism cleverly disguised as anarchy.
Much as Iâm a die-hard fan of Marcotte, I found this a bit unfair an incognizant of the issue â as another commenter points out, Reddit is a vast wilderness where anyone can set up a sub. Better to let the trolls congregate where they can be avoided by the rest of us. If they decide to go on brigades, well, so can we.
Having said that, despite my on dyed-in-the-wool civil libertarianism, the insipid new atheist economic bullying libertarianism of IT culture deserves all the drubbings it can get. The other day at my high tech day job I had to hear someone touting the virtues of Donald Trump. Theyâre a dangerous pack of unexamined naive idiots, a gang of louts that would do well to submit to accumulated wisdom (cf for instance the Bibleâs Book of Proverbs), like young male rogue elephants needing to be taught not to tip rhinos by the old matriarch of the herd. Iâm no more pachydermal than I am Judeo-Christian, but the point being, the problem with Reddit IT libertarianism is one of the oldest problems in the world, predating the existence of humanity itself, and Iâm grateful to Marcotte for giving it the near-ritualistic intellectual spanking it deserves.
Perhaps ânot entirely,â but I think itâs pretty safe to say that the overwhelming majority are âangry white dudes.â
As a casual Reddit user, I think Pao is using âtrollsâ as an excuse to explain her ouster. For a long time Reddit had comments about the sudden departure of a Reddit employee who managed the AMA (ask me anything) threads. This employee was popular and was fired unexpectedly and without any reasoning given to users. Suddenly Pao became the face of âthe manâ firing good people. Most comments there about her were about her management style and her numbers-only approach to the site. I never read one comment racist, bigoted, etc. about her.
I never said anything even close to saying a business would sponsor them. I did ask if they should return the advertising to them and donate the profit from the advertising to charity.
Well, you have been hearing from some who argue with that.
Arguments against include:
Before I compose any comment I ask myself âwhat would @puppies say?â
with rice 10/10
Quite possibly the four truest words ever written about libertarians.
And Puppies, like clockworkâŚ
Huh?
When it comes to Libertarians, Iâm always reminded of this: