The Fattening
-
VICTIM BLAMING!
<descriptive!>
-
I'm not blaming someone who does that, I'm saying they are unwise.
At some point there were a bunch of idiots that said "[S]he deserved it." and now we're stuck with "victim blaming" being an excuse to preclude any form of personal wisdom.
-
"But what if...?" discussions are usually bloody useless because such hypothetical scenarios can contain anything.
QFT.
If people start running up lots of ever-less-likely hypotheticals, I stop listening to them.
-
@Rhywden said:
this doesn't make it an automatism.
No, but it adds legitimacy to the concern.
I'm supposing you frolic down dark alleys holding wads of cash all the time.
Which concern? Here's a real precedent: If people don't like a website anymore they'll go somewhere else. Nobody forces me to go there - this "but you can ignore it if you want" is also true for the opposite side.
It's a website for chrissakes! Not a government, not a multi-billion multinational corporation, not an influential thinktank.
-
It's a website for chrissakes!
It's just a website.
It's just national news.
It's just an open forum.
It's just a school yard.
It's just the sidewalk.
It's just some unprofessionally advertised games.It's just a cake store.
Go to another one.
-
@Rhywden said:
It's a website for chrissakes!
It's just a website.
It's just national news.
It's just an open forum.
It's just a school yard.
It's just the sidewalk.
It's just some unprofessionally advertised games.It's just a cake store.
Go to another one.
We did talk about the slippery slope fallacy, didn't we? I distinctly remember doing so.
-
I believe these are all cases that have been represented by people saying "just go somewhere else".
You can keep saying slippery slope all you want, except that the slope has already been traversed.
I can understand saying slippery slope, for say cloning is bad because eventually we will clone humans, because that hasn't happened yet.
But censorship is happening in all those places listed.
At what point are you going to say censorship is bad?
-
I believe these are all cases that have been represented by people saying "just go somewhere else".
Well, I certainly can list things too:
- A nuthouse
- A crater on the moon
- My local Cthulu altar
- The pony on a field nearby
- Last weeks soccer practice
I don't quite see the sense behind such a list but, well, you seemed to have fun doing so I tried it as well.
-
Ok, I'm tiring of this.
If you don't see censorship as a bad thing, well, then, ok.... whatever.
-
If you don't see censorship as a bad thing
Reddit exercising their right to free speech isn't censorship
-
Naw, the people running Reddit don't have rights. They have to run their site the way the Internet wants it.
-
Don't have the energy left to process how banning communities = exercising free speech.
-
It's easy: They only accept Jeffist Civilized Discourse. No other speech can be free, because it would also be toxic.
-
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
Reddit is none of those things, ergo it's not censorship.
-
But toxic is free.
I go to any processing plant, and I can get barrels of toxic material for free.
-
You can't use logic like that! That's toxic and unJeffist!
-
Reddit is none of those things
other groups or institutions.
Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship
I don't think your quote supports your statement.
To self: please, just stop replying... so tired of it.
-
Reddit, facebook, twitter, et al are similar to media outlets in this regard.
-
OK, how about this:
A fat-shamer is on my front lawn, spouting anti-fat sentiment; it is my right to demand he vacate my property.
Compare to:
A fat-shamer is on Reddit, spouting anti-fat sentiment; it is Reddit's right to demand he vacate Reddit's property.
That is basically what Reddit is doing. These fat-shamers are on Reddit's lawn, and Reddit is telling them to fuck off, as is their right.
-
Reddit, facebook, twitter, et al are similar to media outlets in this regard.
Given their content is exclusively created by their users, I'm calling bullshit on that
-
Reddit is telling them to fuck off, as is their right.
Yes, Reddit has the right to censor.
-
Yes, Reddit has the right to censor.
Yet you keep saying they shouldn't, because raisins.
-
For a minute I thought I was going color blind when I looked at:
That includes surveillance, not just censorship so some of those...fuscia(?)-colored countries make more sense.
-
rights != ethics.
-
Now I like pink (obviously), but seeing the UK pink on that map is… concerning
-
I assume because GCHQ is NSA spelled with four letters.
-
rights != ethics.
OK, so let's strip Reddit of its rights (as granted by US law no less), all so fat-shamers can keep on harassing innocent people.Seriously, if you think that that is somehow more ethical, then your moral compass is broken.
-
so fat-shamers can keep on harassing innocent people.
That's not what I'm saying.
I made it clear that harassment is violate one's right to not listen, as it is pervasive following and pushing material in front of specific individuals.
But if you want to censor fat-shaming as a topic, then that's a different story, because any number of things could be classified as fat-shaming.
This store doesn't sell my size, fat-shaming.
This plane wants to charge me for two seats, fat-shaming.OK, so let's strip Reddit of its rights
I never said that either.
-
-
I said earlier
Reddit is telling me that they are only banning for behavior like harassment, at which point they agree with my philosophy and all is good. But is that what they actually did?
Seriously, if you think that that is somehow more ethical, then your moral compass is broken.
I'm not saying either is more ethical.
I'm saying both are unethical.
And it's better to let individuals choose what they want to ignore.
I said repeatedly, it would be better if the site supported individuals being able to ignore other individuals, topics, etc, than banning individuals.
-
Then you need to be better at making and then maintaining a point
-
That's true.
-
Because banning the communities is, in fact, itself an act of speech. Saying "we don't accept this here"
-
Yes, and so we all move out and let Jeff wallow in his Civilized Discourse alone and unwanted.
-
And it's better to let individuals choose what they want to ignore.
Nope. That's another fallacy. It's what leads to the tragedy of the commons.
I'm not saying that individuals can't choose rationally or shouldn't be allowed to. It's just that individuals choosing won't always lead to the best outcome.
That's one of the reasons why we have representative governments and not direct votes for every single issue.
-
Yes, and so we all move out and let Jeff wallow in his Civilized Discourse alone and unwanted.
I'm not saying it's good or bad. But it is an act of free speech.
-
Nope. That's another fallacy. It's what leads to the tragedy of the commons.
Maybe if they were choosing who to let speak.
But they're choosing something that only affects themselves, like what color shirt to wear.
Choosing who to ignore for yourself isn't tragedy of the commons, but choosing who to censor as a democratic vote would be.
It's only when you choose as a democratic vote, something that affects everyone, does this effect take place.
The tragedy of the commons is a term,
originally used by Garrett Hardin, to denote a situation where
individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's
self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group
by depleting some common resource.Global censorship based on vote would be depleting the resource of open forum.
Individuals ignoring for themselves doesn't prevent someone from posting for some other individual who isn't ignoring, to see.
-
But it is an act of free speech.
I think you're making a big leap here.
Simply saying "We don't like this" is free speech, but as soon as you take an action against someone based on that speech, it's not speech anymore.
-
You don't really understand what free speech is, do you?
-
Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas.
Once you act on that speech, like banning someone from a forum, it isn't speech anymore.
the right to seek information and ideas;
the right to receive information and ideas;
the right to impart information and ideasI don't see anywhere in that list
"The right to limit other people's speech"
Even if it is a private forum.
That's not to say someone can't limit speech in a private forum, but that the right to limit is not included in the right to speech, but rather the rights of a private property ownership.
-
And where's the part about forcing others to accept what garbage you may or may not say? As I thought: there isn't one.
Reddit has to allow its users to say what they like in the same way I have to dance the Bolero in Tiananmen Square.
-
And where's the part about forcing others to accept what garbage you may or may not say?
You're confusing right to speak with right to not listen.
I am allowed to stand on a sidewalk and say anything I like, no matter who I offend as long as it isn't libel or such. No where is there a restriction that says I have to stop if someone is in the vicinity of hearing me, and they are offended.
I have not forced others to accept what I say. They can ignore me.
Why do people think that if they've heard something, that they've been forced to accept it? That's a dangerous line of thought when it comes to free speech.
dance the Bolero in Tiananmen Square.
That's not comparable.
Standing on the sidewalk and saying offensive things is not obstructing traffic.
-
Reddit isn't public property
-
That's not to say someone can't limit speech in a private forum, but that the right to limit is not included in the right to speech, but rather the rights of a private property ownership.
I covered that.
The rights to control private property trumps free speech.
Just like the rights of consumers to not be discriminated against trumps the rights to control private property of a business.
But this, is a very dangerous line of thought.
And where's the part about forcing others to accept what garbage you may or may not say?
Because that can be used to silence anyone for any reason.
-
And again we're back to you wanting to strip Reddit of their rights
-
I never said that.
They can do what they want.
But that doesn't change the fact that they are censoring people.
IFF they are banning accounts because someone is offended, and not because people are being harassed....
I want to appeal to them to consider not censoring people, and instead opt for more personal user controls over what content they can ignore.I will not demand laws are changed to remove Reddit's rights.
I will appeal to Reddit to change their policy.
IF they are banning only people that engage in harassment, and not banning simply because someone has made an unreasonable attempt to paint a comment as harassment, then I won't appeal to Reddit, because I do not have a complaint.
-
And again we're back to you wanting to strip Reddit of their rights
Saying "I wish you didn't do this thing you have a right to do" is not a call to strip you of the right to do it. It is observing that there's a difference between having a right, and being right to exercise that right.
People are free to do what other people consider to be wrong, and those other people are free to say it is wrong to do it, without anyone restricting anyone's rights.
-
Enemies of the internet
Holy shit, I wasn't aware Milwaukee PC was the entire country's internet service provider.
-
They aren't. The message hasn't got through to them yet though, due to bandwidth limits…
-
Don't have the energy left to process how banning communities = exercising free speech.
There's also the freedom to assemble, which I would argue reddit helps people do in a virtual manner. And part of that is choosing whom not to assemble with.
NB: This isn't really an argument about the situation at reddit since I don't really
knowcare enough about the actual details, etc.
Censorship - Wikipedia
