The Fattening


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    The most prominent removal — or, as the admins say, the only subreddit with more than 5,000 subscribers — is r/fatpeoplehate, a forum devoted to posting (among other things) pictures of overweight people for ridicule.

    Discuss.... :popcorn:


  • BINNED

    People claiming censorship are pretty funny. I'm pretty sure there wasn't any outrage when the paedophilia subreddit was banned



  • Reddit's just full of whiny idiots.

    I find it hard to believe there were only 5 subreddits with mulitple harassment complaints, but I don't see what the issue is with admins doing their job and banning subreddits with mutliple complaints.



  • Yet, /r/rapingwomen still exists (NSFW... well duh).


  • BINNED

    also /r/cutefemalecorpses



  • 4chan's 'special' little brother sure is a great place.



  • EDIT: Sarcasm tags attached

    That's because it is illegal. If, of course, they were doing anything illegal.

    I said it on the other thread.

    Give users tools to hide threads, topics, or other users. And done.

    \I'd even say, hide a certain rating, and then let people uncheck the hide.\

    \Hell, make a sensitivity slider, and hide stuff based on the user's level of sensitivity. If they are a lily, you can censor people making fun of other people. If they are a mature adult, you don't have to censor that for them.\



  • @loopback0 said:

    with mutliple complaints.

    You could have an extra sensitive group come in that wants sensodyne for the forum, and files complaints against anything not fitting their world view.


    Don't look now, it's someone trying to hide an upside down cross. Censor it!



  • @xaade said:

    That's because it is illegal. If, of course, they were doing anything illegal.

    I said it on the other thread.

    Give users tools to hide threads, topics, or other users. And done.

    I'd even say, hide a certain rating, and then let people uncheck the hide.

    Hell, make a sensitivity slider, and hide stuff based on the user's level of sensitivity. If they are a lily, you can censor people making fun of other people. If they are a mature adult, you don't have to censor that for them.

    And that's supposed to accomplish exactly what? Plus, you're yourself not very "mature", making fun of people who don't exactly like such stuff. Splinter, plank, eye and all that stuff.



  • I'm not making fun of people for not liking stuff.

    I'm saying that it doesn't make sense for people to want to censor stuff, when the complaint has been against a certain other group for having censored stuff.

    For example, it seems silly that the Roman Catholics went and chopped off the exposed private parts of so many statues and replaced them with leaves, right?

    And yet, here's a group that is perfectly happy shutting down a forum where people were mocking people for being fat.

    Acceptable censorship is a moving subjective target. So I don't understand why different groups become social norm, then start censoring stuff, after they spent years combating censorship.

    I'm not the one being hypocritical here.



  • @xaade said:

    And yet, here's a group that is perfectly happy shutting down a forum where people were mocking people for being fat.

    Well...it seems to be a bit more complicated than that. It usually is.



  • You're not making any sense and you're also conflating vastly different groups of people in order to support your argument.

    I'm also not quite sure what Roman Catholics of the Dark Ages have anything to do with people who think that ridicule towards fat people is not such a nice thing to do on an organized level.

    And that here:

    If they are a lily, you can censor people making fun of other people.

    This is quite certainly "making fun of other people for not liking stuff".



  • @Rhywden said:

    I'm also not quite sure what Roman Catholics of the Dark Ages have anything to do with people who think that ridicule towards fat people is not such a nice thing to do on an organized level.

    No, you are conflating not liking something with censorship.

    I'm calling censorship a hypocrisy, and you're saying I'm a hypocrite, because in your argument, telling people not to censor is being intolerant of them not liking something. I don't know why you keep confusing the two.

    People can like or not like whatever they want, but can you not see that a censorship war only results in the majority winning, and leaving the minority censored. Shift those two groups around and all of the sudden, the "progressives" are calling it unfair.

    Since censorship is so subjective, it is just not a mature way to handle the situation.

    Age ratings, warnings, anything else other than censorship is a better solution.

    I've said it 15 different ways, the alternative is to let individual users block or ignore other users / posts / threads to their hearts content.

    But if someone is so lily sensitive as to want to censor, and permanently block content for EVERYONE else against a significant population's will (if they are not satisfied with blocking it only from their own view), then, yes, I will make fun of them.



  • No, I'm telling you that you're one to talk about someone being "mature" when you're a perfect example of immaturity yourself. That was the hypocrite part.

    Regarding the rest: Yeah, that's the usual "freedom of speech" tripe. Doesn't work, as with all the other "freedoms" or "rights", at least not in the literal sense. Anything has its restrictions, we humans simply don't work too well without rules and borders ("not too well" as in: Not at all, never have and never will).

    A more intelligent argument would be one where the borders begin - but fighting for unrestricted anything, well, that's a stillbirth right from the start.



  • @Rhywden said:

    perfect example of immaturity yourself

    ???

    @Rhywden said:

    but fighting for unrestricted anything

    I didn't make it unrestricted.

    A person has freedom of speech up until another person's right not to listen. (Right to swing their arm stops at my nose).

    Not to hear is not a right, but not to listen is a right.

    And so I give people the ability to ignore users/content as they wish, but not the right to delete/block content.



  • @xaade said:

    @Rhywden said:
    perfect example of immaturity yourself

    ???


    Okay, in short, easy to understand words: You label people as "lilies". And label the complementing group as "mature".

    Such broad strokes are a sign of immaturity because it's very rarely this easy.



  • @Rhywden said:

    You label people as "lilies". And label the complementing group as "mature".

    In the context of whether or not they want to censor content.

    Not in the context of what content they are participating in.

    Making fun of fat people is immature, censoring that from EVERYONE because you can't stand to see it yourself is also immature.

    Maturity is being able to see something you don't like and ignore it, without forcing everyone else to not look at it.

    People can be both immature and mature depending on the context.



  • I guess it's now cool to find subreddits you don't like and don't visit anyway and get them shut down, instead of ignoring it like rational people.



  • @xaade said:

    @Rhywden said:
    You label people as "lilies". And label the complementing group as "mature".

    In the context of whether or not they want to censor content.

    Not in the context of what content they are participating in.

    Making fun of fat people is immature, censoring that from EVERYONE because you can't stand to see it yourself is also immature.

    Maturity is being able to see something you don't like and ignore it, without forcing everyone else to not look at it.

    People can be both immature and mature depending on the context.

    You have a very weird way of defining "maturity". Your "ignoring" shtick breaks down completely and utterly when it comes to things like bullying.

    One of the most inane advices usually given there by people who don't have a clue: "Ignore them, they'll become bored and go away."

    I also don't have a iota of compassion for those guys because unlike you I also regard the intent behind their statements. And that intent leaves them wanting.



  • @Rhywden said:

    when it comes to things like bullying

    bullying is harassment, that's completely different.

    There's a difference between mocking fatness as a general topic, which can be ignored VERY EASILY, and trying to ignore someone that's purposefully following you.

    Bullying crosses into the, violating my right not to listen.

    I'm very aggressively anti-bullying.



  • @xaade said:

    bullying is harassment, that's completely different.

    There's a difference between mocking fatness as a general topic, which can be ignored VERY EASILY, and trying to ignore someone that's purposefully following you.

    Bullying crosses into the, violating my right not to listen.

    I'm very aggressively anti-bullying.

    Doesn't look like that to me. You're ignoring the little problem that doing stuff like this is usually not contained in its little corner of the web where no one will ever see it.

    Also, they were not mocking "fatness as a general topic". They were mocking specific persons. And it did spill over:

    Reached for comment, a Reddit spokesperson elaborated slightly. "All five [subreddits] had numerous complaints that they were harassing people both on and off Reddit," she said.



  • although in r/fatpeoplehate's case, "more than 5,000" is a bit of an understatement; the last Reddit metrics (and a Google cached page) put
    it at around 151,000 subscribers.

    And this is where it's hard to determine which it actually is.

    When they spoke of banning the subreddit, what they say they've done is banned all the subscribers. How do we know which subscribers were participating in mocking specific persons and which were just mocking the general problem.

    I mean, if it is just a forum with pictures of fat people as a group, then the same argument could be made to ban news articles citing obesity as a growing problem.

    But for individuals that were actively participating in harassing specific persons, yes those needed to be banned.

    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?



  • I need a citation for "banning a topic bans all subscribers".



  • typo



  • I stil fail to see the problem. It's not as if the supposedly "innocent" rest were little white lambs - your definition of "right to ignore" also yields a counterpart: You're responsible for what you're actively listening to.

    Bullying doesn't consist solely of the bully and bullied. It also requires a silent, accepting majority.



  • @Rhywden said:

    You're responsible for what you're actively listening to

    Yes, you are.

    @Rhywden said:

    It also requires a silent, accepting majority.

    Again, you're taking a personal harassment and applying it to general discourse.

    Personal harassment should be stopped, but it doesn't give people the right to censor topics they don't want to see.



  • @xaade said:

    @Rhywden said:
    You're responsible for what you're actively listening to

    Yes, you are.

    Again, you're taking a personal harassment and applying it to general discourse.

    Personal harassment should be stopped, but it doesn't give people the right to censor topics they don't want to see.


    I'm actually applying it specifically to this case. You are the one who wants to make a general stand for freedom, stuff and all this shit out of it.

    "But what if...?" discussions are usually bloody useless because such hypothetical scenarios can contain anything. As such, they make for lively discussions but have little to no impact on the real world because they tend to be filled with ideology ("But free speech!"), a lot of idealism and stubborn refusal to see humans for what they are:

    Mostly imperfect, bigoted and ignorant

    And one thing that's guaranteed not to fix that: Letting idiots run their mouths.



  • I think this is yet again, two people arguing different contexts to each other.

    Seems like we might actually agree, if the context were the same.

    The article you cited appeared to agree in rhetoric, IFF what reddit did matched what they say they did.

    But that's what makes it hard to determine just from the articles about it.

    They say they banned all subscribers to a topic, that seems overboard if the goal was to only ban people actively engaged in harassment. But, then again, I don't know.



  • I still need a citation for

    they banned all subscribers to a topic



  • Reddit is banning a handful of its worst communities.

    The most prominent removal — or, as the admins say, the only ubreddit with more than 5,000 subscribers — is r/fatpeoplehate

    We will ban subreddits that allow their communities to use the subreddit as a platform to harass individuals when moderators don’t take action

    The wording is ambiguous.



  • Which means that you shouldn't state it so boldly as if it were fact.



  • @xaade said:

    Hell, make a sensitivity slider,

    Doesn't work. "He" enjoys the rape topic and is sensitive about white male privilege topic. "She" follows white male privilege topic religiously and hates the rape topic.

    You'd need approximately a slider for every topic...and then what's the point?



  • Well, it looks like I'm not the only one worried about this possible interpretation.

    Several redditors also accused the company of heading down a slippery slope. “This is a hole with no bottom,” wrote user ExplodingJesus.
    “Admins will now be fielding non-stop requests from person ‘x’ because sub ‘y’ offended them somehow and they will try to spin it as harassment.”



  • I still don't see anything regarding a mass ban of people.

    Plus, it's the slippery slope fallacy. Of course you're not the only one. That one usually gets trotted out anytime something is related to any of the "freedoms" or "rights".


  • sockdevs

    ExplodingJesus

    Now that's a username! :laughing:



  • @xaade said:

    “This is a hole with no bottom,” wrote user ExplodingJesus.

    Can God make a hole so deep even He can't fill it?



  • The answer is probably Quantum.



  • @Rhywden said:

    it's the slippery slope fallacy

    IMO the slippery slope isn't a fallacy when we have precedence.


  • sockdevs

    @boomzilla said:

    Can God make a hole so deep even He can't fill it?

    Surely it's more relevant to ask if Chuck Norris can fill it?



  • @xaade said:

    precedence.

    Citation needed.



  • No, but he can make one so deep he can't fill it, and fill it simultaneously.

    He just uses superposition.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Can God make a hole so deep even He can't fill it?

    Surely it's more relevant to ask if ExplodingChuck Norris can fill it?

    EJTFY



  • @xaade said:

    He just uses superposition.

    So in other words, Magus is right, now and always?





  • LOL:



  • @Rhywden said:

    @xaade said:
    precedence.

    Citation needed.

    @cartman82 said:

    This is hilarious:

    Reddit bans r/whalewatching thinking its a clone of r/fatpeoplehate. It was actually a real attempt at a whale watching community and has existed for +2 years

    Brianna Wu is a self proclaimed "target" of GamerGate. She spent months trying to instigate GamerGate on Twitter by posting trolling comments and images. Then, in October, she finally got GamerGate to take the bait. She used a meme generator to poke fun at GamerGate, and several users on 8chan's /gg/ board did what they do best. Shitpost. They flooded the meme generator with trolling comments, much in the vein of Wu's originals. Some went too far, but most of them were shit posts. /gg/ was talking about this on their board.
    Then, right in the middle of discussing her reactions to the memes, someone, without being asked, posts personal information about Brianna Wu. They board instantly reported the post, as it is against that board's rules to dox or harass anyone, and it was removed quickly.

    Don't like something? Want it censored? Harass it until it "harasses" you back, and then use that as leverage to censor the whole group.

    Hell, sockpuppet and post the harassment targeting yourself. Then report the post.

    There's your precedence.



  • I'm not seeing how the first one is "precedence" unless it has been retconned to not mean: "preceeding something" anymore.

    For the second one: What has this got to do with Reddit? Unless "precedence" now means: "Something happened somewhere else at some time on this planet and shares a single attribute with this incident".



  • @Rhywden said:

    I'm not seeing how the first one is "precedence" unless it has been retconned to not mean: "preceeding something" anymore.

    You're right. It's not precedence, it's evidence that the quote was already fulfilled.

    @Rhywden said:

    For the second one: What has this got to do with Reddit? Unless "precedence" now means: "Something happened somewhere else at some time on this planet and shares a single attribute with this incident".

    It's precedence of the slope that censoring harassment can be a tool to censor things you don't like in general. You just have to shift the definition of harassment, and you can censor anything.

    This isn't just "a single attribute", this is the effect we are discussing, in action.

    Which means the idea is not a slippery slope because it has happened, and continues to happen. People will abuse claims of harassment to censor other people. Like the various SJWs have used claims of harassment to censor GG.



  • No, precedence doesn't work that way - otherwise it's just part of the slippery slope fallacy I mentioned. Just because something happened as a result of something else somewhere else at another time, this doesn't make it an automatism.

    It may result in something of this sort. It may also not result in something of this sort. If it were that easy we'd already have an established Psychohistory branch of science.

    Just because A lead to B at point C, doesn't mean that D which looks similar to A will also result in B. Plus, using terms like SJW doesn't exactly strengthen your arguments.



  • @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.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.