Leddit is waking up

Hold elections for moderator positions

would play

From anecdotal evidence, I've seen more buff fashies than I've met ultraliftists.

How many subscribers do you have right now?

It's reddit, all the good names are taken

Elections are easily manipulated by the most active members of the community, and nobody is more active than the kind of people you don't really want running the place.

The way this works at the moment is that we make most active community members mods, and we also have an elected "top mod" who regulates the moderators.

wat

We've got 23, should be more but a couple of the mods haven't subscribed for some reason. That 23 is very active, however. Usually two posts a day with 10-20 comments, and we've got a weekly thread currently at 59 comments.

Here's a few of the more unflattering exemplars. From what I've seen from pictures of people holding anime signs at Trump rallies, most alt-righters just look like ordinary 20-something dudes. Not too flashy, you probably wouldn't notice them walking the streets.

/r/anarchism and /r/metanarchism clearly demonstrated the fact that moderating doesn't work when votes are involved.

I'll just copy-paste some highlights from earlier discussions we've had:

"Voting doesn't work. Because half a dozen people can stack things out as we've seen. Moderators should be more hands off- commitment to free speech, but not hate speech (so nazis and overt racists/sexists/homophobes can still be dealt with)… but not in a way that allows people to eliminate legitimate debate or remove any voices they just don't like."

"I absolutely think we must avoid attitudes like "So-and-so is our hardest working mod; we must protect their authority at all cost, and how dare anyone criticize anything they've done." I'm thinking the existing attitude toward Emma and Enkara in met@, here. It's an incredibly poisonous mentality. Removing someone as mod should not be seen as "punishment.""

By spreading the responsibility any power is mitigated, which means the chances for abuse are limited. Any use of moderator power is immediately answerable to the community.

In /r/anarchism the power is consolidated into the hands of a small group that all share similiar ideals (they can all be found at /r/leftwithsharpedge). They hold secret trials in the /r/metanarchism sub, where they divide and conquer all dissenting voices, leaving an almost homogeneous group to co-opt every vote.

It's actually kinda old

...

Can you post a screenshot of the thread?

Seems like the most obvious thing to do would be have a live-updated publicly accessible mirror of the moderation log, and then just regularly schedule a thread where people can ask questions about moderation actions made since the last thread (Maybe with a promise that moderation actions won't be done in the thread except to remove comments breaking site rules).

I have trouble recognizing that lot as anarchists and have done for a long while. We're supposed to deal with disputes with discussion, respect and tolerance of dissent. That lot, to all intents and purposes, execute anyone who seriously questions anything they hold important. That's explicitly NOT how we're supposed to behave.

Also: thanks for the recent invite. This pleb was pleasantly surprised. :)

come to bungholechan freddit for the hottest pockets ever, my fellow kids!

They're not. The most active participants in r/anarchism are tankies disguised as anarchists.

I'd love to do that if any of us knew how.

Hahah, no worries
That's exactly what the rest of us thought about the mods, leading to us creating the sub

Which thread?

Any of you just slightly proficient with python scripting?
Read through and fuck around with the reddit API, pretty sure it has some API hooks for moderation actions. It's pretty easy to understand just by looking at example code.
Rent a cheap webhost running debian (won't be seeing insane amounts of traffic).
Buy a domain and point it to your webserver.
Install nginx (example configs and tutorials should do).
Make a python script that generates a simple html document of the moderation log every minute.
Point index.html to that document.
Done.

All of this can be done by somebody with some computer experience in

The thread linked in the OP.

Thanks. There is a guy who might know how, I'll ask them about it.

Here is the first one

Second part

Third

This thread came directly as a reaction to /r/anarchism stickying a thread deriding a post that criticises the overuse of identity politics in the left, suggesting that it alienates the white working class who are instead welcomed by fascism.

wew, it's the same memey obsession with """idpol""" on /leftypolio/ now in reddit form, with even longer pretentious shitposts from illiterates.

Dunno what you're reading.

To be fair it's probably the worst thread in the sub, still better than most of reddit though.

reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/5893qj/check_your_fucking_privilege/

It's this thread right? I can't believe they fucking stickied it. What a joke.

The whole genesis of that thread here: reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/5834mz/weve_lost_the_privilege_argument/

is essentially a response against more of the same cancerous New Old Left-tier reactionary bullshit that has apparently spread from this alt-left echo chamber shithole to reddit.

and the response to that on /r/Anarchism: reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/5893qj/check_your_fucking_privilege/

is pretty much saying that it not only goes against anarchist principles to favor some hierarchies over others (racist and sexist feelings aren't that big a deal cuz they're poor!). Albeit, stated in a somewhat shrill, liberalish tone.

Most of you faggots probably don't even realize this because none of you are involved in any anarchist anything IRL, but in my experience white males are by far the most common anarchists. We don't need to be concerning ourselves with attracting more of this demographic, let alone potentially-fascist sympathetic types who are going to be swayed by their rhetoric.

There's nothing inherently wrong with there being a lot of white males involved with anarchism, but we should be reevaluating our positions if we're clearly not engaging with issues that affect female/PoC comrades and not attracting them. Because this is a strong indicator that we're doing something wrong and not giving identity-based hierarchies a strong anarchist critique.

Of course, as usual, Holla Forums is too ready to have the same fascist-tier knee jerk response at being offended by "reverse-racism" and "reverse-sexism".

That doesn't mean much to me considering that reddit is shit. But then again, so are imageboards.

Oh look it's that filthy "nihilist" faggot scum that got hooked up in leftism not because he cares about the conditions of the working class but just because he's a huge faggot and "leftism is the side that supports the struggle of faggots ami rite?"
Why haven't you killed yourself already your piece of trash? this fucking world doesn't need scum like you.

This is the guy calling himself a nihilist while going around and making the most spooked posts on this forum i've ever seen. What a fucking idiot.

not gonna lie, I am legit lol'ing. Like fucking clockwork.

Just another day of fascist astroturfing on Holla Forums

Nothing fascist about not believing in the spooked liberal bullshit you seem to believe in.

yea man, utterly ludicrous. It's at 0 with only 47% of people upvoting it. The mod, Enkara, is also being downvoted and ridiculed. They've taken to opening mocking people who've sent messages to the modmail. It's gotten so bad that even another mod, hamjam5, is calling out the poor practises. Just goes to show how out of touch the ruling oligarchy is.

Yea that's basically how it went down.

It's true that white males are the most common anarchists, but I'd be surprised if they weren't mostly middle class. Regardless, it is fair to raise the issue of how fascism is more attractive than anarchism to most people.

I agree and you'll find that sentiment echoed on the sub.

One of the funniest things that happened on /r/anarchism lately is that they've banned the word "spook" because of racist connotations.

yea……

While the OP of that thread is pretty bad, it's too easy to just reject the criticism of identity politics in the left as crying about muh "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism".
While those faggots sure do exist on leftypol, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a significant portion of them are falseflags, nazbols (aka falseflags), or Holla Forums-converts who have a very weak relation to the real world.

Okay that is legit hilarious.

Yeah, racism and sexism aren't even a big deal right??? Fuck those spooked women and black folks xDDD

I'm not gonna act like there isn't bullshit on both sides of the debate (I mean, it's fucking reddit), but the the post on /r/DebateAnarchism basically is trying to assert one hierarchy over others. I don't see how that in any way is congruent with anarchist goals.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue goes beyond questioning why fascism is more attractive than radicalism to people because it's posing a set of action items for the anarchist milieu that amount to trying to get as many people onboard as possible by downplaying the importance of identity-based hierarchy.

Again, it's reddit. Nevertheless, Holla Forums has so thoroughly ruined Stirner's reputation that I can see why they would do that.

The problem is that, on Holla Forums and on other similarly illiterate internet communities, the issue isn't even about identity politics.

Identity politics is a specific theoretical term denoting a tendency among liberals to create in and out groups by reifying identities. Identity politics creates self-marginalizing safe spaces that box individuals into the identities that have formerly been used to make them feel inferior. The issue is then reversed, and the identities are superficially held up as something to be proud of, because the aim is to right the wrong of being marginalized by trying to claim pride in one's identities like white cishet males already are allowed to have by default insofar as they are a subject rather than object-identity.

The issue however is that this is still boxing individuals into social constructs - identity categories. And these are not only necessarily the creations of a ruling class (the new friendly capitalism with a human face over reactionary bigots capitalists), but also deny individuals their uniqueness which transcends any identity category. And these two things are pretty much the core underlying issues with racism, sexism, etc.; the only difference is that identity politics is nicer than explicit bigotry.

No, i'm talking about stuff like believing virgin neckbeards not being able to get women because of their ideology or beliefs.

also I think that emma's post addressing the same points I'm making pretty well:

reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/5893qj/check_your_fucking_privilege/d8yqn3q/

*addresses

As far as I'm concerned, the issue goes beyond questioning why fascism is more attractive than radicalism to people because it's posing a set of action items for the anarchist milieu that amount to trying to get as many people onboard as possible by downplaying the importance of identity-based hierarchy.
You display a fundamental misunderstanding of how oppression occurs. All oppression is ultimately economically based. If everyone had equal access to the means of production, it would not be possible for one group of people to dominate another.

Spoken like a true e-leftist, "comrade".

How can one group of people oppress another if both have equal access to economic resources? Explain the mechanism, please.

Let's give you a historical example:

kekalonia: the CNT is building anarcho-syndicalism n shit. Worker ownership of the means of production and all the other meme-tier truncations of anarchist theory that Holla Forums spouts ad nauseum. Officially, everyone has equal access to resources.

The latent sexism in kekalonia nevertheless persists into the revolution. Women are allowed equal access to the means of production, insofar as they are defined and categorized by men and can do they things that women are supposed to do. Women have the freedom to do whatever they want, but only within the sphere of the identity that has been foisted on them by chauvinistic men in kekalonia. They're denied being able to work "real" jobs because they are treated as an identity category and not as a free, unique subject.

The Mujeres Libres is formed to give Spanish anarchist women representation and combat sexist attitudes so that the "material" conditions wherein no one is denied equal access to resources meets up with the cultural conditions of latent sexism.

get fukt faggot

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujeres_Libres

Are you aware that they did not consider themselves feminists?

>B-BUT THEY DIDN'T CALL THEMSELVES FEMINISTS
WELP, I GUESS THAT JUST DEFEATS THE WHOLE POINT I WAS MAKING RIGHT?

Your example is flawed because one part didn't have equal access to the economic resources, fucking dumbass.

I don't understand your argument.
What you're presenting appears to me like regular economical oppression, which all anarchists (anti-idpol or not) should oppose out of principle?

They literally did have equal access to economic resources. The issue is that they were discouraged by their male comrades from participating in the workplace or the council and were just not taken seriously, and in the home were still treated as housewives. The issue wasn't a black and white, "Women and men aren't equals t. CNT/FAI" type thing. The official doctrine was equality among the sexes, but this wasn't the case in practice because of the latent sexist attitudes in Spain.

ffs read the fucking wikipedia page

This, this right here is the dumbest fucking garbage I've ever heard someone speak. You're acting as if we've somehow already won and the leftist movement is anything more than a fucking irrelevant fringe ideology. We don't need to be attracting more white males? We should be taking everyone we can fucking get, and the people who are going to be swayed by fascist arguments are the people we should be making the most effort to bring over to our cause precisely so that doesn't happen.

Shit, do you think that state and capital are going to be overcome by your little perfectly intersectional directly democratic knitting circle? Leftism needs to get bigger period. Proletarian women aren't going to flock to leftist groups because they're committed to amplifying voices and checking muh privilege, but because they're effective in serving the material interests of proletarian women.

And you go here saying that it's OK to alienate poorly-educated males of the local ethnic majority because they're the ones that fascism attracts? No shit, they also happen to be in the fucking majority. How the fuck is that in ANYONE's fucking interest?

Alright, thanks for that.
But that guy you're debating aside, I don't think that this
view is a very strongly represented. It's a pretty weak argument anyhow, as you demonstrated.
My personal view - that I'll be painfully honest and say that I picked up from here - is that most forms of oppression arise as a result of economic oppression, and that while eliminating economic oppression does not eliminate all other forms of oppression, attempting to eliminate non-economical oppression without - at the same time - combating economical oppression is counterproductive.

I can't even believe I'm bothering to address your post, but it's just so choc full of butthurt and e-leftist party lines.

No, we shouldn't. I for one have no interest in having fascist-sympathizers becoming anarchists and poisoning any groups they join from within. Y'know, kinda like what we see every fucking day on Holla Forums with ex-Holla Forumsyps who keep reproducing the same prejudices and spooky narratives they believe in.

No, because not only is that a small demographic to begin with (most people are moderates in the real world), but also because the types of people who get attracted to fascism are already shitty people to begin with. Better to insulate ourselves from these influences than open ourselves up to being astroturfed by them.

Although, look where I am: The fucking headquarters of, "anyone and everyone for the United Front New Old Left lmfaooo free speech for fascists xDDDD"

Hm, somehow I doubt that first-world women are going to be more concerned with being workers - precariat or petit-bourg middle class types usually, no less, since almost no one in the first world works in factories anymore - when they've been indoctrinated since birth that capitalism is a universal and absolute economic system, as opposed to being exposed to sexism.

It's really interesting how on the one hand you think that we need to appeal to these fascist-sympathizers who are flocking to fascism because it appeals to identity, but this doesn't apply when communists try to give a communist analysis of identity-based hierarchies. Nah, there's no way that we can use these issues as a jumping off point for demonstrating the oppressive nature of capitalism, that otherwise people flock to when it's liberals and reactionaries giving a superficial analysis of them.

kek, holy shit you're dense

I'm gonna wrap this up by saying that you need to get out more and actually participate in some real socialist group, and stop getting all your theory and understanding of the world from Holla Forums

And yet, I keep saying that and no one listens.

I fully agree, otherwise I wouldn't be an anarchist. It's my opinion that all hierarchies need to be abolished in parallel, as separate issues with their own unique histories and logics but that are nonetheless all strongly connected.

Ted Kaczynski wrote a pretty good article on this, actually. The danger of liberalism is that it is able to make it seem like capitalism can be nice and humane, and in fact it actually wants therefore to get rid of latent bigotry:

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-system-s-neatest-trick

However, the problem I have with his analysis is that he doesn't have the egoist/individualist critique of identity politics to rely on. So he misses the point that identity politics is still nonetheless a bad thing that we need to combat by destroying categories of identity entirely, because whether they're mean or nice they are always necessarily oppressive insofar as they level out individuals to being merely a blob of social constructs. Which this article also spells out very well:

anarchistnews.org/content/against-identity-politics-0

Now you have some stuff to read that isn't Holla Forums's ideology ;^)

So the proper way to deal with this is to exclude people based on demographic factors outside their control instead of addressing excellent ideas in discourse. Right, this certainly won't lead to leftism becoming a bunch of isolated sectarian bubbles, oh whoops it's already happened.

I'm not talking about internet reactionaries, I'm talking about white, working class males. This is not a small demographic.

They are fleeing to fascism and reactionary thought because it offers a simple, easily-digestible narrative that gives a good gut feeling and explains why their lives suck.

Nobody said you can't do this, numbnuts. Critique away. Proper leftist feminism is good shit and ought to be spread around especially as a counter to bourgeois/liberal feminism, but that's not we're talking about. We are talking about toxic identitarianism.

On the other hand, the ability to actually put some material force behind these arguments is being increasingly hindered by the fact that the people most involved in this shit use politics as a source of personal catharsis and a platform to feed their egos instead of a means to improve the material conditions of workers. Acting like white male proletarians are the problem when they've been used, manipulated and lied to by opportunist reactionary demagogues is the fucking nadir of political strategy. People who go that route are basically Holla Forumsyps themselves, except instead of Jews they've got white males.

And finally the anarcho-nihilist shitposter reveals his or her complete illiteracy in matters of theory. You don't need to work in a factory to be a prole. Anyone who lives by selling labour is a prole, and everyone who is a prole ought to be interested in being able to continue to satisfy their basic needs and personal aspirations, which will become progressively more difficult if capitalism is allowed to run its course.

How about you get out more and stop getting all your ideas from people who think and behave exactly like you do?

LEL.
It's never going to happen. Humans like all primates are hierarchical by nature.

A lot of "social constructs" aren't just social creations they are rooted in biology.
I don't even know why I'm wasting my time. I know a sick faggot like you is totally unable to understand this kind of thing.

How long have you lurked here? It isn't really my experience that people here are on the "free speech" train. People here pretty much universally agree that the human rights are - aside from being pretty spooky - usually just an imperialist tool of the liberal democracy.

For every one of those, we have another guy who is thankful that he is no longer the person he was.

Fascism is a mode of thought, not an identity. You can keep a mode of thought out, while inviting people who used to have this mode of thought. At least that's what I think.
But I agree with you that it's a pretty useless endeavor overall.

Okay dude that's pretty naïve. When speaking with people who don't belong to the traditional 'working class' about the capital-worker relations, they don't have any problem understanding what wage labor is and the necessary relations that follow. Which is what being a worker entails, nothing about fucking factories.
When saying that, you sound like some Holla Forums-tard who doesn't understand what 'proletariat' means lol.
I think it's a pretty tough argument to make that the reason we should embrace struggles of identity is to convert liberals to leftism, which seems to be the argument you're making.

A lot of people here are here because with regards to "real world" leftism it either:
1. Doesn't appeal to their political thought. (How many places in the world where the only socialist organization around is some trotskyist LARPing group? Or some ML stalinist fanatics?)
2. Simply doesn't exist.
You're pretty lucky to have organization locally that appeals to your strand of political thought, if you're a leftist.

Dude, what you're saying is not very controversial here on leftypol.
Your characterization of leftypol feels like you've only been here for a week, and only looked at the page 1 bait threads.

It's hilarious that people actually believe this type of stuff. No, of course people do not fucking get attracted to certain ideologies because they're inherently shitty people. That view point shows such a lack of knowledge that it's incredible.

k, and you do realize that the core issue here is the conflation between identity politics and all forms of feminism, right?

Not exactly, but if you aren't working in a site of production that is necessary for the functioning of capital (a factory), then you're either a petit-bourg middle class type, or you're a minimum wage worker in the service industry.

And my point about factories is that being in either of the aforementioned positions is nowhere near as visceral as being a factory worker, which is why class struggle was so huge in the 19th/early 20th centuries (before neoliberalism outsourced everything). Today, sexism will seem like a bigger precedent in a woman's life than being a minimum wage worker, because she's not being forced to work 12 hour shifts, not being paid enough to eat or have a decent living space (unless you live in an expensive area, granted), and not running the daily risk of bodily injury. However, being catcalled, being afraid to wear certain clothes at night or be in certain areas at night, not being taken seriously or listened to by her coworkers, not being respected by her partner - these are all things that seem a lot more visceral than having a boring, dead-end job like everyone else.

And my point about white males before is that the bottom line is that most anarchists are white males. There's clearly something wrong with how well these issues are being represented by radicals if this is the case, and appealing to a broader demographic - one that isn't a pretty small minority of fascists - is the objectively important thing at stake.

You can appeal to as many white male fascist-sympathizers as you fucking want, but they're not the majority population-wise. And doing this is only going to alienate female and PoC comrades who aren't going to feel safe around these types of people.

I've been here for over a year m8. I'm rehashing the same issues that I've had to rehash over and over again, because this board is filled with idiots who equate all forms of identity-based struggle with liberal identity politics.

Anyways, I've said my piece over and over again in this thread and I'm getting tired of it. You can read my other posts if you actually want to get a grip on what I'm trying to say and aren't just arguing for the sake of arguing.

The central point of socialism is liberation from wage slavery. An of course, wage slavery still is the defining oppression faced by all of the working class (including the so called middle class). What you're saying shows pretty clearly that you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's nothing unique about anarchism or the far left in that regard. White people (and often white males) are overrepresented in most niche activities. See this:
slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/11/black-people-less-likely/

Read Kant.

Are you the guy who also posted a response to that silly "manarchist" test the other day?

That's a massive over classification of the petite-bourgeoisie.
Tons of people in America and Europe work dead-end office jobs that they educated themselves to. Like, literally millions upon millions of people. If you don't think that these people suffer from class exploitation as "visceral" as third-worlders, then why are you not a fucking maoist? Sure their standards of living is a lot better, but they stand to gain from socialism just the same.

The user you're replying to just clarified that's he's talking about the "white males" in general, who he feels have been unjustly vilified by the identitarian movement. Not internet fascists.

Oh wow, thank you so much for this two-sentence assertion of shit I already know about socialism. Thank you so much, "comrade", for your superior knowledge of theory that you so clearly demonstrated in this two-sentence statement of the most basic socialist tenet, while ignoring everything else I said or deliberately filtering it down to the stuff that your tiny, narrow mind could form a half-baked ideological retort to! :)

fucking kys

That's a fair point, but what this thread is about it basically reinforcing that issue even more.

You're missing the point and seem to pretty much be intentionally trying to read me as someone who is against communism. Unsurprisingly. Far be it from me to be critical of Holla Forums's whiteness and maleness without it putting on the blinders.

anyways, the point isn't that first worlders don't have just as much to gain from socialism. The point I'm making is that they wouldn't likely make the class struggle a precedent in their lives, because the brutality of capitalism isn't as apparently to them. Which is why communists should be willing to engage with identity-based hierarchy from a communist perspective, even if only to seem more attractive to people.

Yeah, and I very much believe that liberal identity politics often exacerbates the issue by alienating white males from taking part in those struggles and being allies. It's hard to be an ally to those types of people when they literally don't care about anything other than having their own safe space where they can feel powerful despite not doing anything to fight sexism or racism or heteronormativity.

Nonetheless, my point is still that fascists are a minority no matter how you spin it. Most people IRL are moderates. Trying to appeal to fascist types or potential fascist-sympathizers by disavowing a critique of identity-based hierarchies is not only antithetical to anarchist goals, but also is counter-productive because as I said this will only attract a toxic minority that will alienate much larger demographics.

The question isn't exactly a simple one though. As I already said long ago, both sides of the debate have problems.

I'm not, I generally agree with you - even though from my posts I can see why you would think otherwise - I just happen to think that you're pretty bad at arriving at your points / arguing. The reason I was asking about whether you were the one who made that post the other day is because I agreed with that post.
This - more like - makes it feel like you've got some sort of victim complex with regards to leftypol. Maybe the reason you're always on the back foot isn't because leftypol is some reactionary den of stupid poopoo-heads, maybe it's because you're consistently just not very good at explaining or arguing? I'm just messing with you, but telling me that I've put on my 'white blinders' and belong to a group which you're earlier associated with some pretty negative qualities (That I don't seem to have displayed) isn't very conducting for good discussion.

In that case, I didn't miss the point at all, you just didn't respond when I pointed out that this seemed to be what you were arguing.
And, just the same as in that post, I just don't think it's a very convincing argument.

In that case you're not disagreeing with the user who made the original post, in this regard. I repeated his point because you made it seem like you were disagreeing with him, without making an argument in disagreement.

I already responded to this in

Yes, i felt it necessary to reiterate basic socialist theory, because you made such an obviously ignorant statement.
The effects of capitalism and wage labor are pretty plainly apparent. Most workers hate their jobs. Every weekday they can't wait for the weekend. It is the job of socialists to rid them of the ideologies that have made workers rationalize their predicament.

*yawn*
Oh here we go, the liberal nihilist reading club is going to pull out their irrelevant eccentric and pretend they're not considered a laughing stock by other feminists, then claim this means everyone else needs to let him bugger them,

AN's are worse than NazBols at this point.

be wary of /u/rebelsdarklaughter. put a note by their name in RES, and observe them. they have exceedingly poor judgement, and they should never become a mod.

Got some history?

Stop using the term reverse sexism and reverse racism, it doesn't exist.
Racism and sexim can be applied against both blacks and whites and women and men.

Just a quick heads-up - by engaging in this doublethink, you've already lost. There's no free speech without "hate" speech. Once you've agreed that some speech needs not be heard, you've set up a system where you can't know what it is that you're not hearing.

I don't think that's true.
It might be true in a system where moderation action is invisible and free from critique, but in a system where people are free to discuss moderation action (and able to hold moderators accountable) there is a reasonable way to distinguish between that which the community thinks is inappropriate and that which the community thinks is appropriate for the platform in question.
This of course means that there should be some way of reviewing comments removed by moderator action.

It boils down to the fact that "free speech" isn't very practical, nor very wanted in the end, in my opinion. What is wanted is constructive, useful speech, and hate speech is antithetical to that. The problem is that saying you're for "constructive, useful speech" and leaving out the phrasing "free speech" signals to the world that you're an authoritarian controlling shithole that won't tolerate discussion. Somebody should write a think-piece about free speech and online communities, so that people can link to that shit instead of taking this discussion every time.

I also think that there is a distinction to be made between speech that is made in a 'public sphere,' and speech made in a sphere that is more culturally defined. Where speech made in the former warrants greater civility than speech made in the latter. I also happen to think that reddit belongs closer to the former, where Holla Forums belongs firmly in the latter. Which is why I personally don't think that the presence of 'hate speech' or words typically seen as slurs (like faggot or nigger) is that big a deal on Holla Forums.

I do not think that there's a meaningful distinction between self-imposed and mod-imposed echo chamber.

The most useful and constructive thing you can get is a new perspective. The criterium for useful moderation is not inherently subjective quality or appropriateness, but volume. Moderation is simply not necessary when ignoring is an option. Its potential, and often realized, harm vastly outweights any benefits avoiding "hate" speech might have.

Well, of course not. But that's not what was being discussed.
This is what I was disputing.
Meaning that I am saying that when moderation action is held accountable, you very definitely know and see what it is that you're not hearing.
Either raise a new claim or argue against the argument I raised. You could, for example, say "I do not think that simply holding moderation action accountable and reviewing removed comments is enough to avoid the community becoming an echo chamber, because X". Rather than just weakly implying that it's the case.

I think you've got a point. But the fact of the matter is that the opposite approach does come with some crippling disadvantages.
For example could one look at the state of Holla Forums, where that picture of Patrick from spongebob grabbing a bunch of fish hooks is our unofficial mascot.
I wrote out a bunch of shit but realized that it didn't really relate to what you were saying.
I think my view boils down to two core things:
1. Ignoring only goes so far, at the very least you need moderation action to make sure you don't get astroturfed.
2. I think that the risk of realizing the potential harm that comes with giving people moderation power can be effectively controlled and minimized.

Also, I realize this is pretty close to the ultimate concession one can make on Holla Forums, but I think that for some communities it makes sense trying to create a place that is appealing to be - with regards to people that would regularly be the target of hate speech.
I don't think it's completely unreasonable for some places to prioritize that.

Yeah, because it's working wonders. Since the left dropped the class based discourse and adopted the identity bullshit, support for leftism has never been so high. People fucking love it. Only fascists would prioritize something silly like how much it sucks to work on an dead end job over something extremely important in the lives of everybody like knowing 9999 pronouns to make whinny faggots feel more comfortable or learn the correct way to look at a woman to avoid raping her with your eyes.

Oh my days. It's absolutely futile, isn't it?

He's being silly, and his argument is pretty weak. But you're being completely uncharitable by assuming that by 'identity-based hierarchy' he means useless bourgeois 'feminism'. Especially when he's been explicitly criticizing it throughout the thread.

I'm not sure I understand you?
If you're laughing at my attempts to convince people that filtering hate speech isn't useless, I don't think he's being completely unreasonable. His argument that people that want to prioritize the free discussion, should choose to ignore, rather than physically remove, to avoid what he sees as inevitable abuse does bear some merit, compared to most "free speech" enthusiasts.

So I guess from what I've seen it seems alright, it's not "SJW" but it's not "anti-SJW"… I just hope it won't devolve into brocialist "class comes first everything else is secondary" shit. It's important that anarchists remember they're fighting for everyone's liberation.

Class liberation is everyone's liberation you fucking idiot

Yeah but systems of oppression like racism, sexism, queerphobia etc. contribute to class desperation and you can't get rid of class if you don't get rid of those.

It's the other way around you fucking idiot.
Systems of oppression are only possible because class exists and you can't get rid of it without first getting rid of classes.

I feel like I've seen this before.

You would have had the full deja vu experience if you had waited for me to tell to fuck off back to reddit.

...

(You)
Now fuck off back to reddit.

I think its more like in the process of getting rid of class, you are also getting rid of the others. Within the class struggle you gain solidarity with your fellow proles, and as class consciousness grows and the true enemy of Capital is identified and suppressed, spooks like race and gender will cease to matter. Any possible remnants will most likely fade away with no economic system to perpetuate them. I think this would only happen through a successful revolution that establishes communism. While it may be possible for some disadvantaged groups struggles to be "resolved", or rather fully incorporated so as they only have the class struggle left to face, attempting to raise each disadvantaged group to some sort of "normal" or "equal" status of exploitation, as some liberals try to do, is an endless endeavor as capitalism will create new divisions to suit its needs. The point is to end exploitation, and that can only happen with the self-abolishment of the proletariat and the establishment of communism.

[citation needed]

I got banned for denouncing white privelege and identity politics.

What a shit lord I am.

You have to go back

was in response to

whereas

was in response to

Once you've distanced yourself from commitment to free speech, there was no point in pursuing that line of discussion. But if you want me to follow up on it, I can concede that you can, in fact, set up a system where people know what they're not hearing, e.g. by setting up a deleted comment graveyard. I didn't initially think of that option because I don't think it can be done easily or convincingly on reddit.

I nevertheless don't think that merely removing from discussion avoids the problems of removing from sight, which was what my second post was about.

I consider this an advantage. I know that it looks like a time-consuming distraction at first glance, and I know I will get somewhat rambling and incoherent trying to explain, but hear me out. Allow me to start with…

Oh, certainly. Vulnerable people need protection and safe environment. The key word is some. The question is which.

The answer relevant to this thread: NOT THE FUCKING POLITICS. If you're trying to organize to fight the harsh reality head-on, as you should, the last thing you want to do is run away from it. It's simple, you don't win wars by admitting the crippled and shellshocked into your army then planning your military training and activities around their special needs.

Free speech is not some empty ideal, it has tangible benefits. You do not want to be unable to argue your point. You do not want to not even know what the opposition's points are. You do not want to be made fool of in by rhetorical tricks you weren't aware of. You do not want to lose your composure, ever. You do not want to keep making arguments that only you find convincing. You do not want to be stuck with some flawed idea because there's nobody around to challenge it.

Sometime in the last decade the left has completely abandoned the boons of free speech to the right (alt-right, to be exact, traditional right loves their etiquettes and taboos as much as the new left) and they've seized on the opportunity full-force. One small but telling anecdote is the rise of the word cuck. You know where it came from, right? The constant ridiculing of white supremacists with interracial cuckold porn on Holla Forums. First they turned it around into an insult against their opponents, then they somehow, for 15 minutes, made it into a mainstream political term. Laugh all you want, claim to be above petty insults and prefer to tackle important problems from your high ground - it's honestly impressive and I want the capability to do the same. So I say, let the Holla Forumsyps at us, let them astroturf all they want, we'll take all the free (as in beer) practice we can. We have a century of liberal capitalist propaganda to undo.

This. OP has allowed wiggle room for SRS infiltration from the get-go and has already lost the battle.

Reddit is pretty good to be perfectly honest.

Anything you're interested in and sick communist memes all in one place.

I agree tbh. The whole "reddit = liberal identity politics" meme is leftover from Holla Forums influence over chan culture.

t. redditors that don't belong here

reddit isn't rejected because "liberal identity politics" although it certainly has those, which you can see for yourself by one look at r/anarchism et al

/r/anarchism is not only shit, but is pretty much universally reviled by any leftist subreddit with less than 10,000 subscribers. Likewise for /r/socialism.

Still subscribed to /r/@ for my daily dose of cop killing videos and gifs tho. Though /r/leftwithsharpedge is quickly filling that niche.

seriously, fuck off

Two reasons I hate reddit.

1. The inescapable consequences of le upboat / karma system.

2. This meme that all large reddits are shit, and small rare reddits are utopic. And not naming them because le sekrit club.

Fuck the whole thing.

abloo bloo bloo.

Get real, their entire job is being a thug for the ruling class. Not even an anarchist but every dead cop is a victory for leftists everywhere.

Nice black and white view you got there. While they may be defenders of the system, not all of them knowingly do it and lots of them actually want to defend the people. Now in ameriga the gradiant may be more in favour of cowboy wannabes, but still

Knowingly or otherwise they are still the front line for the bourgeoisie in the class war and need to be annihilated if we're to get anywhere.

If you want to sing kumbayah and try to convince these class-traitors then go ahead, you fucking liberal.

elitist faggot

I'm not defending cops, I'm calling you a leftist-in-meme-only for being subscribed to a subreddit specifically so you can masturbate over something so asinine and imagine yourself as a revolutionary for doing so. It's fucking juvenile.

Wew, touchy.

We need a "You must be at least THIS class-conscious to post" banner.

Back to SRS, please.

Don't worry, I'm subscribed to SRS as well.

the one on the left is the admin of a facebook page called "stop being a pleb"

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

Why are ledditors always this cancerous?

You need to stop.
Just be gay, stop making these shit up. What the fuck is "queer"?

Queer is an umbrella term for people who aren't cishet that's generally used to denote more radical politics than the term "LGBT+".

Can you guys stop making identiteis up? There is nothing wrong with just being gay or lesbian. Queer was always a slur for gay people, lol.

Queer isn't exactly an identity in itself, as I said it's an umbrella term.

A few things.
1. Queer applies to more than just homosexuals.
2. Obviously, that's the point. I'd be surprised if you live in the western world and haven't heard of some marginalized demographic reclaiming a slur before.

How about we too call you by your country name too right and judge you on that :::^^)

Dis.
These fellow attack helicopters get it.

So wait, will mentally disabled people start calling themselves retarded too?

Maybe. Probably not but maybe.

Awww.
And edgy anarchist child still thinks their violent autism will bring about a revolution.
Police are people too, I don't care how much BLM whines about them.

1) Idiots say "Socialism means the workers own and control the means of production." So the party seizes the means of production from whoever owned them before.
2) Eventually at some point they need to appoint some person who actually makes the decision and is the leader.
3) The people who owned the means of production are going to be mad that they got their shit taken from them. Also, at least some of the "workers" are going to disagree and not be happy with the decisions the leader is making. But because dummies think that the "workers" are in control, they justify violence against the dissenters.
4) Bam you're living in an authoritarian dictatorship.

...

Ted-San does provide an individualist (Humanist conception of the individual) criticism around indentity politics in his manifesto.

His criticism of indentity politics is almost the exact same as marxists. That IDPOL distracts the working class of their alienation within the current economic system and that for it to be solved we need to abolish the economic system and take the means of production. (MoP=Technology)

For Kaczynski we too are alienated (He calls Alienation the disruption of the Power Process so our alienation of autonomous controle over your own life in your natural state of being) but this is by technology itself (Oppossed to its ownership) wich he doesnt consider neutral as marxists. Because our current technology is based on the inovations made to fix problems in our current society and economy making them fully based on our economy so on capitalism. Technology or the Means of Production is the muscle of our current civilisation its ultimate utilisation of humans. Humans are utilized by and for society to act as productive units while depending too on technology while life is heavily regulated by society to be at your most productive possible. Like you need to use a car and you need to use this machine and you need to depend on others in the economy to get your basic goods and all your safety isnt in your own power as you can not know if you get killed by a car or will get cancer by the food produced by society. What Kaczynski desires is that we become autonomous and cease to be utilized and systemized for the sake of the market and society. Thus he sees not the ownership of technology the root of the problem but Techno Industrial Society itself.

Its actually verry complicated and hard to explain so i dont know if i explained this well.

Which is exactly what I said in the post you're replying to here
and which has been discussed earlier in the thread here

That's a reasonable critique.

Don't you think it's a problem that you think actual combat is a fitting comparison to intellectual debate? In an military situation combat is inevitable and wanted.
I am yet to be convinced that there are any worthwhile intellectual pursuits that can't be had in a civil manner.
In analyzing the purpose of the platform (which is key to figuring out what those 'some' communities are), I don't think it's unreasonable to say that challenging people's emotional strength, identity issues &c. is not the purpose.

It might be that I'm the weird one here, and I can see that this might be a place where I'd disagree with users of the platform in question, but I'm of the view that any such idea can be presented in such a way that it doesn't present unwarranted offense.
For a fitting example. Lets say you're a reactionary who comes bringing IQ graphs. I think there's a difference between going
Which I think is much different from going
While both are obviously supportive of the same view reactionary bullshit, the second one raises the same intellectual questions as the first one, without hate speech.

That's really not my experience. Youtube comment sections of prominent 'alt-righters', /r/the_donald, Holla Forums &c. all have ridiculous 'censorship' practices.

The issues don't have to be important, and the high-ground isn't necessarily an intellectual high ground. It's just a question of being a decent human being, which I think even the fucking most fucking rancid nazi stormnigger should be capable of if they truly believe in their politics.

I think that's laudable, I just don't think a place has to be that to be a useful and open place of discussion.

I contest points 1, 2 and 3.
1, you assume that socialism = vanguard party socialism. Read a book faggot.
2. No? Why the fuck would they? You provide absolutely no line of argumentation here. "Just because mane" doesn't suffice. Why can't a workplace be democratically controlled? Wait, I don't need your answer, because democratically controlled workplaces already exist and work.
3. Under no definition of socialism would this be called "worker control".

It's straight girls in their lipstick lesbian phase want to play militant dyke.

So… right-wing trumpshit?

youtube.com/watch?v=v-XS4aueDUg

slightly kinda-sorta-but-not-really related

how do you reclaim a slur

See: black people reclaiming 'nigger'.

Triggered liberal detected.

Go Back
>>>/Reddit/