[argv_empty]

The subs I've heard about banning were echo chambers dedicated to the idea that "this group of people I don't like ought to be [starved|exiled|thrown from helicopters|raped|enslaved]" and such things. If that makes you think the policy is "right leaning = bad, left leaning = good," that says some pretty nasty things about the modern right, doesn't it?

[sctb]

Could you please put more thought and less provocation into comments on controversial topics like this? It's difficult, I know, but we have to try. The discussions that follow such comments tend to have a desperate attitude that puts thoughtful discussion further out of reach.

> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[sillysaurus3]

Ah, that's the crux: racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct.

For me personally, the echo chamber on both sides is enough to keep me far away from both /r/politics and /r/The_Donald.

For example, you cannot say anything positive about Trump on /r/politics. Nothing. There was a screenshot showing that there were 231 negative articles posted and zero positive articles. It's literally propaganda, but from the other direction.

Now, you can argue that you should fight the good fight and that it's immoral to say anything positive about him. Sure, I sort of buy that: If Trump was equivalent to nazis, then we should resist that from becoming a reality.

And yet he's not. From what I've studied of history, the climate today is similar-ish to 1920's Germany. But if you examine the details of how the Nazi party seized power, you'll find they held guns up to people's heads in order to get various statesmen to vote a certain way. The German political institutions were captured by popular vote, then by force. And as long as we avoid the latter, the former isn't necessarily an indication that fascism is on the rise.

But it's hard to make that argument in this climate. If you try, you're shouted down or misinterpreted or outright framed. And that's the central issue here: When you become a zealot, you lose the ability to take advantage of the opposition's good ideas. Are you sure it's true that Trump's entire political franchise has had zero good ideas?

I'm worried that in the process of fighting Trump, we'll lose reason and rationality.

[philipodonnell]

> Are you sure it's true that Trump's entire political franchise has had zero good ideas?

You're not wrong in that its important to hear both sides, but its also important to hear an appropriate amount from each side corresponding to the acceptableness of the ideas. Minority voices are important. When we find ourselves in the majority, we should be responsible for ensuring that those minority voices have a way to be heard. But not that they should automatically be heard equally to majority voices in all spaces.

Trump is a minority voice. The election results and polling are clear on that. So the question becomes more about how much weight we, as the majority, should give to those ideas. And like, I hate to be that guy, but... not much. He doesn't actually seem to have any substantive policies to debate, its just slogans and ideas. The substantive stuff either gets mentioned and then forgotten by the next news cycle (what happened to the national emergency on opioids?), changes on a whim, or is just him talking and other people in his administration (or party) ignoring him and doing whatever they wanted.

I just don't see the value in spending a lot of time/cognitive load considering that perspective on a regular basis, though I do venture into T_D sometimes to see what they are thinking. The current dichotomy of /r/politics vs /r/the_donald seems to have balanced itself out pretty well, I think.

[pjc50]

> Trump is a minority voice. The election results and polling are clear on that. So the question becomes more about how much weight we, as the majority, should give to those ideas.

I think this is actually irrelevant; it doesn't matter whether someone's ideas are in a minority, only whether they are good ideas, bad ideas, and the proponent is interested in constructive engagement.

[ThomPete]

And yet political parties around Europe are and have been popping up representing the same kind of voters. Who don't look to the future with optimism but with skepticism.

I always try to make sure I give a politician as much credit for their intent as possible not just those I agree with but everyone.

No one is just a bag of evil or only good. Yet when we discuss politics we always end up there as this thread is a good example of.

Whatever legacy Trump will end up leaving we don't know yet. It might lead to something amazing even if it wasn't on purpose (certainly happened to Reagan) or it might be that just the right kind of irrationality is actually quite rational in hindsight.

Political decisions often have decades of decay. It's impossible to say what Trumps (the few he has actually made) are going to mean.

It's never that simple.

[_fizz_buzz_]

I think the problem (e.g. for advertisers) isn't so much that it is one sided, but more about the quality of the content.

3 top post from /r/politics (right now):

* 17 women have accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct. It’s time to revisit those stories * South Carolina women’s hoops team decline invite to White House * Nobody knows where Trump's leftover inauguration funds went, causing outrage and change in Washington

One sided: yes. Something that is problematic for advertisers: probably not.

On r/the_donald:

* Raise your hand if you're the greatest shitposter of all time! GOD-EMPEROR * MRW I wake up to GEOTUS shitpostsGOD-EMPEROR * Stand, Never Kneel! They Deserve Our Respect #fucktheNFL#StandForOurAnthem

Now try to be impartial. Is that advertiser friendly? Is that quality content?

[sillysaurus3]

T_D is already banned from /r/all. During the election you'd see a T_D post bubble up to the top often enough that Command-F "The_Donald" would give at least 4 out of 200. Now there's not a single post in the top 300. And I don't think they necessarily ran afoul of vote manipulation rules and therefore got banned: the election demonstrates there are just a lot of vocal supporters.

It's something of a myth that T_D needs to be banned in order to appease advertisers. They keep to themselves.

Fortunately spez is smart. Bringing down the hammer on T_D could very well start a civil war. He seems to be wary of this.

[Ygg2]

> Is that advertiser friendly? Is that quality content?

If there's enough eyeballs. Probably.

[supercanuck]

The difference between /r/politics and /r/the_donald, is that positive comments about Trump on /r/politics get down voted into oblivion but still are capable of being read and seen, on /r/the_donald, they simply get removed and the user is banned.

To imply that those two are equal, is disingenuous.

[moojd]

Also, one is sub meant for general political discussion and the other is clearly meant to be an echo chamber for one side's ideas. /r/the_donald is awful but at least it doesn't pretend to be impartial.

[52-6F-62]

But it is impartial in that you won't be removed for discussion in good faith, though you may be disagreed right to the bottom.

Spiteful trolling usually gets down-voted to hell as well (thankfully).

A little too often I see hyperbolic vitriol and shitposting persist, and though I don't mind the odd gag, it's not warranted. It clogs the thread as much as anything else.

That subreddit is impartial in itself. It's consensus of the participants, not censorship, if unpopular ideas aren't promoted whichever way they lean.

[wolco]

It reflects the mods.

[52-6F-62]

How do vote tallies reflect the mods?

[dsfyu404ed]

>you won't be removed for discussion in good faith,

>though you may be disagreed right to the bottom.

Is there a difference?

Both actions basically say "this speech is not worthy of consideration around here". The difference between making it still available to serve as a warning or removing it entirely is not meaningful IMO.

[supercanuck]

Downvoting says your opinion is unpopular. Banning means your opinion is unwelcome.

There is a difference. You are being obtuse.

[enord]

>Ah, that's the crux: racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct.

As is required to maintain what I would call a "democracy" with "individual rights". We have to be vehemently intolerant of intolerance and marginalization (in general), and this is more important than free speech. Free speech is an artefact of-, not a requirement for democracy. Tolerance is required, however. Some people get this backwards, usually the kind of people who can't keep their foot out of their mouth.

[Danihan]

>Free speech is an artefact of-, not a requirement for democracy. Tolerance is required, however.

That seems like a pretty grand statement to make offhand and pretend like it's objective.

Free speech is in the very first amendment. #1. Yet you feel so comfortable hand-waving it away.

Freedom of Association implies just the opposite of your argument, that intolerence is specifically protected.

[Cryptid]

"Is the Second Amendment the Second Most Important?" - "The order of that list, however, still reflects Madison’s view: They come in the same order as the sections of the Constitution that they would have modified."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...

[tscs37]

The first amendment only exists in the US and only started existing well after democracy was invented.

[Danihan]

The colonists were from and used to monarchy.

Democracy was nearly a foreign concept to them and it very gradually evolved in the US after the Bill of Rights passed.

"The Founding Fathers rejected 'democracy' as defined by the Greeks, preferring instead 'a natural aristocracy', whereby only the landed gentry were entitled to a place in Congress."

[tscs37]

In what way does this respond to my comment? I asserted that America's amendment does not exist in other legislations and that democracy has been far older than america. None of which are relevant in your comment.

[ABCLAW]

The first amendment did not create democracy. It was enacted in one. That's the point being made.

[Danihan]

The colonists were from and used to monarchy.

Democracy was nearly a foreign concept to them and it very gradually evolved in the US after the Bill of Rights passed.

"The Founding Fathers rejected 'democracy' as defined by the Greeks, preferring instead 'a natural aristocracy', whereby only the landed gentry were entitled to a place in Congress."

[wolco]

Being intolerant of ideas makes you intolerant even if you classify those ideas as good or bad.

Being intolerant isn't always a bad thing either.

Everything is not black or white. Move the pieces around and the minority become the majority in different contexts.

[enord]

I don't have time to socratically convince you of it, so i'll just spell it out: you can't tolerate intolerance of groups, persons or behaviors (that don't infringe on other people's liberty) in a _democracy_ because it will undermine the legitimacy and thus participation of said group or person within the democracy itself.

I realize that "intolerance of intolerance" is paradoxical in nature, but common sense and a little charity in interpretation goes a long way.

[conanbatt]

And who defines who is intolerant in this democracy of yours.

[52-6F-62]

Consensus, or consensus of representatives.

[conanbatt]

Intolerants can't have consensus?

[52-6F-62]

They have before. The results have been noted. Germany was one place where intolerant groups rose to prominence through eventual consensus.

It just happens that on these little internet message boards, the consensus shifts in another favour, and the same seems to be [mainly] true in North American societies, amongst others.

[ohyes]

The viewpoint is slightly different.

> Racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct.

This isn't about correctness.

The viewpoint is:

Racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you support them, you must be evil and desire harm to others, at very least indirectly.

Even if the racists/misogynists of the world were 'correct' I wouldn't want to live in world where we legitimize that. And that's why a lot of us reject him and his policies wholesale.

Saying "well he's right about free trade" (I don't believe this, but as an example) undermines the rhetorical context of fighting something much worse than bad economic policy.

[ThomPete]

Shouldn't we first agree on what constitutes racism and misogyny? It's easy to say that others are and forgetting that most people are to some extent.

Also because someone in your view is misguided about race or gender does that mean you should treat them as I am assuming you believe they treat people of other race or gender?

Why is it a better world to live in where you ban one view rather than the other when the result is more less the same. Someone is getting oppressed.

[ohyes]

> Shouldn't we first agree on what constitutes racism and misogyny?

I think these are pretty well defined.

Racism: Prejudice against others based on race.

Misogyny: Prejudice against women.

> It's easy to say that others are and forgetting that most people are to some extent.

There's a difference between having a normal level of in-group selection bias and realizing it is wrong, and spouting racist/sexist rhetoric.

> Also because someone in your view is misguided about race or gender does that mean you should treat them as I am assuming you believe they treat people of other race or gender?

No. You still let them speak and vote but you don't listen, and if asked, you tell other people they shouldn't listen. You can refuse to let them use your company to spread their hate.

You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to someone else's bully pulpit.

The concern that racists are getting oppressed is laughable. I don't understand the mental gymnastics required to justify that thought process.

[ThomPete]

Lots of things are well defined only to completely fail when it comes to being used in a real context. There are many obvious examples and even more less obvious examples.

Trump is a good example of a person who has said some racist things but even more things that were interpreted as racist.

We are all racist even if we don't want to be, we cannot help ourselves the question then becomes how do we let that affect us and how we act on that.

And so if it only takes one example to show someone is racist then we all are.

It's much less well defined once you look at the entirety and doesn't just take a sentence out of its context.

Language is tricky and defining something well does not mean it's easy to put things into these boxes.

You are right there is a difference and to the extent, it easy to identify this racist/sexist rhetorics we should obviously object to it.

But it's not much different when liberals paint all Trump voters racist. Very often do we see comments that were not meant racist suddenly be attacked simply because of the person who said it.

You are not a better person just because you are against racism if you base your judgment of what constitutes a racist or a racist remark on who said it and we shouldn't listen to you more by your own definition.

You can very easily be a Trump voter and not a racist and you can eve be a Trump voter and against racism or misogyny as that exist on both sides. Yet listening to the public debate one should think it only happens on one side.

Two wrongs don't make a right and yet it seems like most liberals (and I count myself amongst the liberal crowd) basically justify the sentiment you seem to be supporting with something along the lines of "well he/she started".

There are (luckily) very few racist in the Hitler sense of racist.

[beager]

> For example, you cannot say anything positive about Trump on /r/politics. Nothing.

Not true. There was positive commentary about Trump's speech in South Korea. I think you just misestimate how often the thing he does is perceived by the general public as bad.

[supercanuck]

I challenge you to find an equivalent thread such as this one:

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/7bldfo/trump_mad...

on /r/the_donald accepting criticism of Donald Trump.

[jlos]

>> From what I've studied of history, the climate today is similar-ish to 1920's Germany.

In what respects? As far as I can recall, the US did not just move from a monarchy to a democratic republic 15 years ago as a result of a revolution after loosing a world war.

I think the populist discontent behind Trump is real and concerning, but Pre-WWII Germany and current day US are very, very, different places. I think its fair to request that if you wish to make a parallel with Nazi Germany, you substantiate the claim with specific historic evidence.

[abiox]

> Are you sure it's true that Trump's entire political franchise has had zero good ideas?

there was dropping the tpp... maybe. that's probably good, but i have mixed feelings. anything else?

[Spivak]

He/His administration negotiated a some positive trade deals with China that people who work in foreign trade seem to be happy with.

[52-6F-62]

I think that remains to be seen. I don't recall any word of him signing any deals with them. He claims they pledged to spend "billions" on weapons and other contracts — that seems to be all we've heard so far.

I'm contrasting that with (my) Canada who has been actively signing with China since the first rumblings of trade discord with the US.

Not saying it's impossible or not true, but I'm wary. That weird angry screaming he did at his bizarre presser the other day was not overly convincing. If it was anybody else, I would have sworn they were on uppers of some kind...

[pjc50]

> Are you sure it's true that Trump's entire political franchise has had zero good ideas

Some of the stuff he said on the campaign sounded great - in fact enough to get him elected. It appears he has no intention of implementing it. Does that make it worth discussing? No.

As we say about startups, ideas are cheap and execution is everything.

[te_chris]

It's not propaganda if he's actually THAT bad. I'm being deadly serious. He is not a normal candidate and claiming that it's biased because there are lots of true stories about a bad person is a feature of our media, not a bug!

It says more about Trump's fans that they're willing to overlook his egregious failings and attack and undermine quasi-impartial institutions just to point score than it does about bias.

[tomp]

So... what were the actually bad things that actually happened because of Trump (i.e. because of something he did)? In my view, much like with Brexit, the fearmongering is way exaggerated compared to reality.

[FrozenTuna]

Assuming you've been paying exactly zero attention to anything going on, here's a few major things that he is responsible for:

Travel ban targeting Islamic countries

Withdrawal of Paris Agreement

Fired head of FBI when Comey wouldn't declare personal loyalty

Issued a directive to the department of health agencies "waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay" portions of the ACA

Soon to be pretty closely tied to:

Tax bill making graduate school significantly more expensive

FCC votes to kill net neutrality next month

These are, in my opinion, the worst offenses. There are many other things that he is either responsible for or closely related to. A simple google search yields list after list of things he's done both large and small.

[fhood]

I think the major fear is the precedent he sets for divisive politics in the future. He also may cause the US to loose ground to China as far as foreign influence goes, but the first point is what worries me.

[tomp]

I think the politics were divisive before. In fact, I'd claim that Trump's election is the result of divisive politics.

[beepboopbeep]

The purposeful gutting/disorganization of major federal agencies and operations, the discrediting of the white house's statements, the undermining of existing federal law (see: explicitly sabotaging the ACA), then there's, of course, aiding and abetting enemies in order to win an election.

[ThomPete]

What exactly is it you mean these things show? Sounds mostly like you are complaining about his form than anything he has actually done.

Is it worse than Bush administration who started a war?

[beepboopbeep]

I just don't know how else to tell you that these things are all very bad. They, to me, should appear bad at face value. We clearly differ in the perception of the world at a fundamental level.

[tomp]

So... typical politics or unproven allegations. Got it. Not like... starting wars (like 4 previous presidents have done) (although he's still got time, I'll give you that).

[beepboopbeep]

I know 2 data points do not make a pattern, but it's really weird that both replies to my comment are in a similar vein from usernames that appear to be variants of "Tom P"

[pjc50]

Unconstitutional religious discrimination by executive order: https://theintercept.com/2017/10/21/donald-trump-muslim-ban-...

Simple failure to do the job: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics...

[ThomPete]

And yet isn't all you have to show for that his tweets.?

Which of his actions shows that he is that bad.

You don't have to be a Trump supporter to see that you are proving the parents' point.

[te_chris]

I don't understand how you can even argue that, unless you're trolling?

[bluGill]

Your reply says a lot about you.

[masterrex]

No, it's baseless propaganda and character defamation cranked to 11.

Your hypocritical hivemind tends to overlook that your queen bee accepted tens of millions from the KSA/Qatar in campaign contributions with the knowledge that, in her OWN words, they provide clandestine and logistic support to ISIL. It's OK to be white, it's OK to be American, and it's OK to love your country.

[sctb]

We ban accounts that abuse Hacker News by posting only political or ideological comments. This isn't a place to wage such wars.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[artursapek]

I got banned from T_D for saying that the reason Obama spent more $ on new regulations in his first 100 days than Trump did was because Obama inherited the financial crisis and Trump inherited an 8 year bull market. It was a simple fact that got me perma-banned. Both of the communities are terrible circle jerks.

[dingo_bat]

You actually expect that from a sub called "the donald". You don't expect that kind of bias from a sub called "politics".

[philipodonnell]

You're probably placing too much emphasis on the name.

Subreddits are reflective of the moderators and readers. There is no objectively higher criteria to determine whether a subreddit is or should be "free from bias", only that they should reflect the makeup their membership, which they do.

[abiox]

it's a reddit sub so i don't have any expectation, but fwiw, "balance" implies neither "unbiased" nor "objective".

[dingo_bat]

> "balance" implies neither "unbiased" nor "objective".

I think it absolutely does.

[abiox]

as i see it:

"unbiased" is, if hearing is given to a position, it is either not represented with favor or disfavor, or any expressions of favor and disfavor are combined in such quantity that there is no obvious position with respect to (un)favor.

"objective" is, if hearing is given to a position, it is discussed in terms of empirical data that persists regardless of subjective views or interpretations.

"balance" coverage is giving hearing to all positions, no matter how idiotic or inane. "balance" is giving nazis and jews equal airtime to argue their views on whether the holocaust is a good idea. "balance" is rapists and rape victims debating the merits of rape.

[coldtea]

>And as long as we avoid the latter, the former isn't necessarily an indication that fascism is on the rise.

Especially since in most accounts, Trump is more alike with Obama than not. Obama send home hundreds of thousands of immigrants, both back a shameless war machine (in fact Trump was more reluctant about that and more isolationist until the republican establishment forced his hand -- and then press found him instantly, if temporarily, more "presidential"), both have advanced the interests of corporatists, etc. If you didn't have the Obamacare repeal (which I'd call bad) they'd be 99% alike in their results.

One had better table manners and is a better (still ho-hum and totally fake) actor (in the kind of low quality populist soft-PR video like "the President interviewed by Zach Galifianakis" and "Another day at the office", etc that presidents feels obliged to put out post Clinton who popularized that BS to show us how funny and/or everyday people they are) compared to the vulgar billionaire, but that's more or less it.

[daxorid]

The larger point is that TPTB tend to ban groups that want communists thrown from helicopters, but are absolutely fine with groups that want fascists thrown from helicopters.

There's a fundamental imbalance in how the standard is applied, and it's clearly ideological.

[ghostbrainalpha]

I understand your point. I lean conservative myself, but go with me on this.

If the people that liberals want thrown from helicopters ( fascists ), are only in that group because they want to throw people from helicopters....

Isn't that the same logic as "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun"? The liberal subs HATE, HATE groups. They aren't calling for random white people, religious people, or fiscally responsible people to be thrown from helicopters.

[aaron-lebo]

I've had one too many brushes with r/politics where "liberals" hated people because they were the wrong gender and race. The liberal and conservative subs alike have plenty of people who hate the other side for no good reason.

[traverseda]

Sure. Of course the communists tend to be very "you'll be first up against the wall when the revolution comes".

Both sides of that fight seem to have legitimate cause to claim self-defense.

>They aren't calling for random white people, religious people, or fiscally responsible people to be thrown from helicopters.

No, but they do seem to be a hair away from actively endorsing subjugation. A lot of them seem to have already taken steps to make sure that that demographic can't have a voice in their movement. They also seem to have set the precedent that any criticism of their activism from outside their movement makes you an enemy. I get the feeling that a lot of them would do all those terrible things, if they could. There are fundamental tenets of the movement that give people an excellent excuse to do horrible things.

Instead, we could just, not? I liked the "judge people by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin" thing we had going on. That's an easy rule to enforce, but less so when you start carving out special exceptions that mostly benefit your voter base.

[jackmott]

You are supposed to throw fascists from helicopters.

[sctb]

This account has a history of uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments, and since you've ignored our requests to stop we've banned the account.

[aaron-lebo]

abstaining from jokes about murdering people is usually a good rule. It is a joke, right?

[Veelox]

I'm not sure if you are serious or joking...

[briholt]

Any HN mods want to jump in here and suggest maybe HN is a tech forum and not the appropriate place to promote political violence? Or perhaps this brand of hate and hysteria has completely infected this community as well.

[sctb]

You're right, it's not OK. But adding your own flavor of inflammation doesn't help. The way we can improve threads here is to 1) flag and downvotes comments that violate the guidelines, 2) comment civilly and substantively. Add information and insight. The way to do that is patiently and thoughtfully. Slow down and resist responding reflexively—it almost always makes things worse instead of better. If you notice something egregious, feel free to email us at [e-mail] so you can be sure we'll see it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[briholt]

This is cute, but I now see comments endorsing this brand of hate and hysteria (albeit with a less violent flair) on HN everyday. If you're going to suggest that you haven't noticed this trend over the past year or two then frankly your request for reporting is disingenuous.

In line with the original top comment, why don't you publicly declare that you you'll treat discrimination/slander of whites/men/conservatives/scientists/free-speech-advocates on this platform just as harshly as you would any other group instead of asking me to send you a dozen emails per day.

[dijit]

I disagree, I think you can tell them they're wrong and list the reasons why $proposed_ideology is better, but talking down to people and considering murder for believing something is absolutely abhorrent behaviour.

FWIW, I hate the left and the right movements in equal strides, the left want me to feel terrible for being born a straight white male in a western post-colonial society, the right want the poor and under-priviliged to suffer and horde things like medical care.

Understanding that there is a grey-scale and that ideologies are not absolute is the only way to proceed in my opinion. Being polarised only turns into fighting because nobodies view gets represented properly instead both sides put up strawmen.

[vidarh]

I agree strongly with your first paragraph, and disagree strongly with your second.

Ironically to me, your second paragraph illustrates why your first paragraph matters: As someone belonging firmly on "the left" your description does not fit me at all, at least not in my view.

The problem, then, when someone wants to go to extremes in treating anyone over their perceived ideology is defining what it means to belong to or support said ideology sufficiently strongly to warrant that extreme action.

And hence I do agree with your last paragraph.

[dijit]

It's incredibly unpopular today not to buy into even the most extreme left. You can tell by the fact my comment, which was entirely neutral is being downvoted.

Twitter is rife with absolute venom if you even suggest a term such as "mansplaining" is sexist.

[mtgx]

One could argue /r/politics is an echo-chamber, too. I mean, it has been anti-Republican for a while, but at this point it's beyond absurd. All I see is Trump news. Like they hardly even talk about bad laws Republicans pass anymore. If it's not Trump-related, it's typically not upvoted/is downvoted.

I think it may be time for Reddit to experiment with removing the downvote button, or maybe give it 25% of the power it has now, or something along those lines.

[tzs]

> All I see is Trump news

13 out of 25 of the front page of /r/politics right now (sorted by hot) are Trump news. 16 out of 25 if sorting by top.

That doesn't seem excessive, considering how vocal Trump is.

[foolfoolz]

so /r/politics will be banned?

[randomerr]

No, /r/politics_destroy_democrats and /r/politics_destroy_republicans would be

[goodfight]

No, it means that Reddit has a left leaning bias.

[NaliSauce]

Maybe to give a concrete example:

When /r/anarchism (left leaning sub about anarchism, antifa, communism, ...) mods refused to enforce reddit's rules relating to the incitement to violence, reddit only removed the mods in question instead of closing the sub.

When /r/physical_removal (right leaning sub about pinochet 'memes') mods refused to enforce reddit's rules relating to the incitement to violence, the sub was removed.

When /r/nazi (third position leaning sub about national socialism) - well, I don't actually know whether the mods there refused to enforce reddit's rules. It's been removed.

[s73ver_]

/r/nazi was removed because it promoted Nazism.

[H99189]

I think left "leaning" is a bit understated.

[dsfyu404ed]

Is there an upper bound on "leaning"?

[H99189]

Leaning just implies that they aren't completely fallen over to one side, which I think is very much the case.

[ksk]

>The subs I've heard about banning were echo chambers dedicated to the idea

How does your speculation or the fact that you simply have heard these things make your argument any persuasive? What is the actual ground reality?

[coffeevradar]

There are plenty of left-wing subreddits with equal measures of vitriol. Somehow they avoid earning the same opprobrium that the right-wing ones do. This apparent double standard creates the appearance of bias.

[mrgoldenbrown]

If there are plenty, and you are familiar with them, please name a few. It's not possible for us to "investigate on our own" if we don't know what you are considering "equal measures of vitriol".

[charcoal23]

/r/anarchism and /r/socialism are two that often advocate violence. The latter is dominated by "tankies", which is a term for communists who love Stalin, gulags, and tanks. They frequently take a "kill 'em all" approach. They are also often mocked by other lefties on Reddit, so please don't assume their opinions are popular.

/r/anarchism is a slightly more complicated case. They do advocate violence in a "bash the fash" way. But their intended victims are often those who advocate for genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other racist or misogynistic methods. Their violent earnestness is also often mocked by the rest of political Reddit.

/r/LeftWithoutEdge was a sub formed for serious discussion for lefties without resorting to violent speech. It doesn't get enough traffic so I urge any leftists / anarchists here to visit it occasionally.

Edit: I should add that one reason /r/anarchism and /r/socialism are still on Reddit is because they took the warnings of the admins seriously. /r/anarchism dialed their rhetoric back after being told they were on the verge of being banned. Most of the banned right wing subs ignored the warnings, and often doubled-down.

[busterarm]

/r/anarchism

/r/strikeaction

/r/militant

are some of the more obvious choices.

[coffeevradar]

I was responding to a comment that conflated the worst excesses of admittedly terrible communities on Reddit with the whole of the 'modern right.' My goal was to explain the thinking of those who are accusing Reddit of systemic bias against the right. Their assertion is that subreddits advocating violence against right-wing activists are tolerated, while right-wing subreddits are condemned for similar infractions. Whether this is objectively true I do not know. In fact, my interest in politics is minimal and I should probably leave these discussions alone in future. I hope Hacker News does not devolve into another online community overrun with political arguments and petty antagonism.

[reefoctopus]

Feel free to provide examples of the double standard.

[coffeevradar]

You'll note that I said that there was an 'apparent' double standard. If may not be apparent to you, but it certainly is to some. You seem like you spend more time on the political parts of Reddit than I, so I'm sure you're well equipped to investigate this yourself.

[emodendroket]

Well, who cares. There will be an "apparent" bias to some of these guys unless they delete everything but the red pill and The_Donald.

[eduren]

Feel free to name subreddits

[akerro]

>that says some pretty nasty things about the modern right, doesn't it?

Of modern left is too sensitive and too unable to accept that other have different opinions. Point of view depends on point of sitting...

[zeveb]

You're ignoring the subs which are the same thing, from a leftward slant. It does say some pretty nasty things about mankind, that so many of us love to hate.

[emodendroket]

Which ones do you have in mind? What left-wing sub is there advocating racism or misogyny?

[zeveb]

/r/srs advocates misandry, which is just as hateful as misogyny. /r/atheism can be viciously anti-theist. /r/politics is full of anti-conservative hatred & bile.

I'm not going to blame those nasty subreddits on the left; I'm going to blame those & all other nasty subreddits on the general nastiness of people, no matter what their philosophy or politics.

[emodendroket]

I am Christian and dislike /r/atheism as much as the next guy (especially when you consider how little they actually seem to understand about what they're condemning), but I think it's one hell of a stretch to equate that with hate speech. And considering there is no shortage of libertarian guys there the qualification as left-wing is dubious in the first place.

"Anti-conservative hatred" as equivalent is ridiculous on its face and whatever "misandry" the SRS guys promote should probably be understood in a context where there is no country on Earth where men are oppressed in comparison to women.

I'm not even saying any of those subs are good, but nobody in their right mind is going to equate them with people advocating genocide or "incels" advocating rape.

[dragonwriter]

> And considering there is no shortage of libertarian guys there the qualification as left-wing is dubious in the first place.

Libertarians can be left-wing, so the premise seems irrelevant to the conclusion.

[emodendroket]

Are you really confused about what I meant (the type of extreme free-market politics advocated by figures like Ron Paul or Penn Jillette -- incidentally the latter is a prominent atheist) or are you just being a pedant for the sake of it?

[zeth__]

Sanders for President if we are to believe the wall street journal from 2015/2016.

[PeachPlum]

try posting "It's OKAY to be white" in a popular subreddit

[emodendroket]

Wow, people react negatively to a catchphrase of avowed racists? You can't really expect people to completely ignore context.

[dingo_bat]

How can you post such a racist comment?

[s73ver_]

Because that statement has a pretty big white nationalist connotation.