You're talking as if hate is a good thing. Here's a wakeup call... HATE IS BAD!!!
Reddit bans r/The_Donald as Twitch suspends Trump's account
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
Except that, for people like you, "hate" = anything you disagree with.
To display weaponry to a crowd that had already broken down a gate to get to that private street? Yes, they were within their rights. Once destruction of property happens, it is no longer a peaceful protest. Doesn't matter if they didn't bring guns themselves. The propensity for violence has already been established.
Now if the gate had been open from the start, it gets a bit muddier. But it wasn't.
If there was no gate to be broken down in the first place, then it's a lot better case that the couple overstepped. But there was a gate.
The group, by definition, could not be peaceful and still destroy property so they could stand in front of that house and be threatened.
Last edited:
This. Jesus, this. The president is not owed a damn account. Ban it. Re-enable it when an incendiary loud mouth isn't sitting in the chair.
Taken from the reddit thread:
"r/Struggle****ing
"Struggle****ing: We were r/rapingwomen but they took it without consent... Rape fantasy videos for the **discerning** consenting non-consensual *connoisseur*. Classy as ****!"
Top stickied post:
"NO, REALLY! this is not the place for consensual BSDM videos"
Posted by a mod with the flair "rape-y rapist"
Rule #2: **** this WEAK POST! this isn't RAPEY!: ... If she's drugged unconscious throughout the entire rape, Use r/Necrophilia_Lite. No horny "slaves" consenting to BDSM play.
Rule #4: ... "asking mods to censor other people, is banned."
Rule #5: Use the flair "BLACKJACK" on murder fantasies.
Rule #10: Posting off-topic... that isn't a 'rape scenario' will get you banned.
There are currently 268 thousand members with close to 1k active users at the time of this posting."
That sub-reddit wasn't banned. But a reddit full of Trump supporters? That has to go!
How about these posts from r/politics?
"r/politics on the London attack: "I just hope the people who were on that bridge were redneck Republicans like you so the slaughter was justified." [+63] https://I.redd.it/1latls7dqeny.jpg
/r/politics "Let's put arsenic in drinks and slip it to Trump supporters" "All gun owners should have their guns taken away from them and then be executed"
"I'm going to say something unpopular here. When I heard that someone had shot Republicans, my first immediate hope was that someone finally did something about McConnel."
"That is correct. The shooter is a true patriot". "Hunting Season for the Despicable Republicans on The Hill is now OPEN!!!! No Licenses required, no Minimums ... so Hunters, Bag All You Want!!!!!"
There's about 30 more quotes, nearly all the same. None of those posts or posters were banned. r/Politics wasn't banned. Why not? Oh that's right, because none of that is hate speech to leftists since it's directed towards republicans.
Remember kids, the people that posted those comments are the exact same people that complain about Trump promoting hate speech and inciting violence...
"r/Struggle****ing
"Struggle****ing: We were r/rapingwomen but they took it without consent... Rape fantasy videos for the **discerning** consenting non-consensual *connoisseur*. Classy as ****!"
Top stickied post:
"NO, REALLY! this is not the place for consensual BSDM videos"
Posted by a mod with the flair "rape-y rapist"
Rule #2: **** this WEAK POST! this isn't RAPEY!: ... If she's drugged unconscious throughout the entire rape, Use r/Necrophilia_Lite. No horny "slaves" consenting to BDSM play.
Rule #4: ... "asking mods to censor other people, is banned."
Rule #5: Use the flair "BLACKJACK" on murder fantasies.
Rule #10: Posting off-topic... that isn't a 'rape scenario' will get you banned.
There are currently 268 thousand members with close to 1k active users at the time of this posting."
That sub-reddit wasn't banned. But a reddit full of Trump supporters? That has to go!
How about these posts from r/politics?
"r/politics on the London attack: "I just hope the people who were on that bridge were redneck Republicans like you so the slaughter was justified." [+63] https://I.redd.it/1latls7dqeny.jpg
/r/politics "Let's put arsenic in drinks and slip it to Trump supporters" "All gun owners should have their guns taken away from them and then be executed"
"I'm going to say something unpopular here. When I heard that someone had shot Republicans, my first immediate hope was that someone finally did something about McConnel."
"That is correct. The shooter is a true patriot". "Hunting Season for the Despicable Republicans on The Hill is now OPEN!!!! No Licenses required, no Minimums ... so Hunters, Bag All You Want!!!!!"
There's about 30 more quotes, nearly all the same. None of those posts or posters were banned. r/Politics wasn't banned. Why not? Oh that's right, because none of that is hate speech to leftists since it's directed towards republicans.
Remember kids, the people that posted those comments are the exact same people that complain about Trump promoting hate speech and inciting violence...
Last edited:
Also taken from reddit:
https://www.mic.com/articles/38635/...warned-corporations-could-censor-the-internet
"While the Internet is generally seen as a beacon for information and openness, Swartz expresses concern that private companies have less restrictions on censoring the Internet than government...
Interview with former reddit CEO Yishan Wong
"We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it. Not because that's the law in the United States – because as many people have pointed out, privately-owned forums are under no obligation to uphold it – but because we believe in that ideal independently, and that's what we want to promote on our platform."
-Former reddit general manager:
"We're a free speech site with very few exceptions (mostly personal info) and having to stomach occasional troll reddit like picsofdeadkids or morally quesitonable reddits like jailbait are part of the price of free speech on a site like this."
https://www.mic.com/articles/38635/...warned-corporations-could-censor-the-internet
"While the Internet is generally seen as a beacon for information and openness, Swartz expresses concern that private companies have less restrictions on censoring the Internet than government...
He says that while proponents against censorship in the private sphere have been successful, advocates of a free Internet should be concerned about both private and public censorship efforts in the future."
Interview with former reddit CEO Yishan Wong
"We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it. Not because that's the law in the United States – because as many people have pointed out, privately-owned forums are under no obligation to uphold it – but because we believe in that ideal independently, and that's what we want to promote on our platform."
-Former reddit general manager:
"We're a free speech site with very few exceptions (mostly personal info) and having to stomach occasional troll reddit like picsofdeadkids or morally quesitonable reddits like jailbait are part of the price of free speech on a site like this."
Funny, I thought that people came to Techspot because they were science-based thinkers...
If you believe Trump and his followers aren't about hate and violence, then the very definitions of those words have eluded you.
If you think you can accurately address any block of millions of individuals with those adjectives (regardless of political ideology), you aren't a science-based thinker.
WRONG! I don't necessarily hate people who are wrong, and I don't necessarily hate what I don't agree with. I'm an open-minded person, however... when you have people spouting off BS like "WHITE POWER!" and other such far-right drivel I'm going to label that as hate speech.
Rayneofpayne
Posts: 502 +415
Uhm well former president's used Radio and television...in the same mannerism but ok
Rayneofpayne
Posts: 502 +415
Are people wrong? Most of the problem is people pawning information as fact and truth when in fact it's opinion and and second rate information that is in no way representative of reality.
Left, right, meh extremists and terrorists that have ruined this country, you can't say white power is hate speech unless you call black power as hate speech as well, you can't uphold a double standard. I mean you can but in the end you look like a ***** for doing it.
You either have freedom of speech or none at all. A ***** is a ***** regardless of stance and opinion.
What people fail to realize is a long learned lesson of the more you try suppressing something the less easier it is to track and watch, as well as driving people to any cause, it's stupidity, as it's less easier to debate against in a cordial mannerism.........
Modern society...
Ah, I see what you did there, oh burly protector of tacobravo!
If you staunchly support someone who's been indisputably proven to act with hatred and violence (remember him ordering the peaceful protesters in front of the White House to be gassed, shot with rubber bullets, and beaten by the cops so he could take a quick walk?) - then those are your ideals as well, whether you are one out of ten or ten million.
You can't have it both ways. Sorry.
Beerfloat
Posts: 848 +1,573
Freedom of speech means the government - and ONLY the government - can not restrict your right to express yourself. But by extension it also makes it real hard for the government to restrict the right of organizations like Reddit or Twitter to decide for themselves what content they will accept.
What this is really about is free markets. More and more mainstream platforms are distancing themselves from controversial content because it is just bad business. It drives away general audiences and advertisers alike. And let’s face it, globally speaking the Trump brand is pretty much the definition of controversial. Most people seem to consider him and his followers somewhere between hilarious and terrifying.
What this is really about is free markets. More and more mainstream platforms are distancing themselves from controversial content because it is just bad business. It drives away general audiences and advertisers alike. And let’s face it, globally speaking the Trump brand is pretty much the definition of controversial. Most people seem to consider him and his followers somewhere between hilarious and terrifying.
Uncle Al
Posts: 10,185 +9,657
The Government can impost standards much like they do on broadcast TV (and some cable TV). It isn't really restricting the rights BUT it does hold them legally responsible for the content so a different flavor of the same spoiled fruit .....
Not a staunch supporter of taco or the president. I think a lot of people are begging for a viable alternative, but frankly, the blue team (not Intel) ran off all the somewhat appealing candidates they had and now we're left with a man who makes 2nd term Reagan appear lucid by comparison.
I'll probably do the same thing I did last time. Write-in the candidate I wanted but no one backed, because I couldn't stand either party's offering.
And my point still stands...anyone that makes the types of statement you did is not doing it from a "science-minded" perspective. Not all republicans are like Trump and Trump is not like all republicans. To pretend that the bad actions of one stain everyone associated is a sadly simplistic view of the world.
Last edited:
Very true. The Left accuses Trump of 'hate'. But watch CNN, NPR, ABC, MSNBC, NY Times, WA Post, etc. It's a monolithic, relentless scream of tortured, vitriolic rage directed at Trump. When Trump posts a single tweet, they go absolutely ballistic.
They act as though they're oppressed, their very lives are in danger. But Trump is just one guy up against literally thousands of powerful people, and Trump is not the real target of their ire anyway. They really fear traditional Americans, the 'deplorables'.
Axiarus
Posts: 631 +427
Republicans love to tout the free market then get pissed when companies control their companies.
You're "not like Trump", but part of the Party.
What the difference??
Leaving you with the last word. I like Techspot too much. Let's see what November brings...
Please rebutt and I will let it stand, unabated. Time will fix all... and soon!
What the difference??
Leaving you with the last word. I like Techspot too much. Let's see what November brings...
Please rebutt and I will let it stand, unabated. Time will fix all... and soon!
Last edited:
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,764 +9,650
NPR has all their stories online, for free, at http://www.npr.org Please post a link to a story that supports your assertion.
dotnon
Posts: 41 +53
Ignoring your purposely ridiculous definitions, your use of the phrase "leftist cesspool" to describe a site which strives to be neutral (and has, in most people's eyes, been tolerant of hate for far too long), is revealing. It equates people with leftwing views to faeces, and thus demonstrates a stunning intolerance of ideas to the left of your own.
Ironically, this is exactly what you are accusing reddit of, so some introspection is clearly required here. Perhaps you might consider counseling? Or getting some exposure to more points of view from people in your daily life? Getting out from behind the screen and meeting some people that aren't the same as you would be a good start.
Hate speech is broad negative generalisations applied to a group of people, based on characteristics fundamental to their being, that undermines their basic humanity and ignores their individuality.
Opposing such speech is not "leftist", it's common decency. And unless you're an advocate for genocide, intolerance of hate speech is pretty fundamental for our ability to cooperate and peacefully coexist as a nation.
Some reading I'd encourage for non-a**holes is Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies, where he discusses the paradox of tolerance:
So even if there is hate directed at trump supporters, I would argue that being intolerant of people that spew hateful intolerance is simply a function of a decent society defending itself.
And of course, in support of Reddit's decision (as if it needed any more), there is the obligatory XKCD:
dotnon
Posts: 41 +53
All those examples are reprehensible, but this is simple whataboutism. That content is also objectionable, but its existence doesn't support or refute the argument about whether /r/thedonald should have been banned. It simply means reddit is not being as effective as it should be in applying its policies.
(side note - genuinely stunned that /r/Struggle****ng actually exists and has since 2012 - that **** is disgusting)
And rightfully so. Every single one of his tweets lack any sort of tact and serve only to enflame the fires that is America.
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,764 +9,650
Thanks for the level-headed post.What I have quoted I bet is the fundamental reasoning behind SCOTUS decisions on first amendment rights, specifically, their ruling that first amendment rights do not include inciting violence.
Similar threads
