LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+222 241 19
Published 3 years ago with 144 Comments

MRW fatpeoplehate users try and make a tribe on snapzu

 

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
Conversation 46 comments by 27 users
  • massani
    +32

    I never thought I would be agreeing with possessed Théoden.

    • vulpixwithdix
      +45

      Same here. I am totally ok living without hateful tribes like that. It may sound selfish and censorship-ish, but I'm kinda hoping the admins of snapzu won't allow hate tribes like that.

      I'm sure there are some who will disagree with me on that, but I'm ok not hating on groups of people for no reason.

      • bogdan (edited 3 years ago)
        +30

        I feel like the admins need to take a more clear stance on this. I've heard them saying that racism and hate speech is something they "don't support", but I've also heard things such as that the people promoting those "won't get banned".

        Now that means that fatpeoplehate can technically still function just fine, doesn't it?

        How are we supposed to react when a group of people comes and starts upvoting fatpeoplehate content up to the front page? Do I downvote them because I don't like their content?

        Edit: I've thought this through and have come to the conclusion that the admins might be busy with more poignant issues at the moment - such as keeping the site running, or their actual work (from what I understand this is a hobby-like project of theirs).

        We should take into consideration that for the moment the situation is unclear and it is up to us to only support the things that are good for us and that we want to see in this site.

        • 0x536e61707a75
          +13

          If something you don't like(I'm assuming something like the promotion of ISIS.) is upvoted to the front page, a large user base would have to upvote it. Would you downvote that content? If fatpeoplehate content is appreciated by many users on snapzu, should it not reach the front page?

          • bogdan (edited 3 years ago)
            +16

            That's my question exactly. If fatpeoplehate content naturally gets upvoted to the top, then that means that they've earned their right to be here?

            Because then the message of this thread is false, and fatpeoplehate has just as much power here as it does on reddit, provided it is supported by the people.

            • 0x536e61707a75
              +11

              My questions were rather rhetorical ones. If the upvotes that fatpeoplehate posts receive is high enough that it reaches the front page, it should be there. As the access to Snapzu is rather limited, these type of posts will never reach the front page as long as other content is upvoted and the hateful posts do not appeal to a large amount of users in the Snapzu community.

            • LacquerCritic
              +15

              I believe /u/BlueOracle messaged the admins and they said that if hate speech/racism wasn't automatically removed by the community via downvotes, they would step in and remove it. See her comment here.

            • cmagnificent
              +17
              @0x536e61707a75 -

              The problem I see is that hate speech is explicitly forbidden in the etiquette guidelines for the site. I really don't care how popular it is or becomes, I would absolutely support any admin intervention to remove hateful content.

              As I've said elsewhere, disagreement or disapproval is one thing, hate is another altogether. It's not like your only two options are full support or hate and an entire tribe dedicated solely to the hatred of a specific group of people, regardless of what it is, is fundamentally against the values that Snapzu has outlined for themselves. That isn't the kind of community the people running the servers want to foster and ultimately the decision should stay with them. They are in no size, way shape and/or form beholden to the popular opinions of their users.

              Regardless of any of that, if I see any hateful content coming up, I will be downvoting it and specifying the reason for that downvote as hateful content. It violates the etiquette of the site and does not contribute to any meaningful conversation.

            • drunkenninja (edited 3 years ago)
              +24

              If the content posted falls under any of these items, the content will be removed. If a tribe exists ONLY to create and propagate racist, hateful and abusive content it will also be subject to closure. This needs to be a case by case sort of enforcement, it's impossible otherwise to imagine every scenario of abuse.

            • PrismDragon
              +8
              @drunkenninja -

              Case by case then? Thank you for stating that. There will be a time in the future where certain topics fall in a gray area.

            • smokedhuman
              +11

              To over simplify, freedom of speech/public opinion does not equal tolerance/acceptance. If I were to build a website to attract like minded people, why should I allow them to espouse the vitriol I am trying to get away from? I do understand what you are saying. If I were to build a site that relied on most popular vote, then yes, I would have to let them stay, but it seems snapzu is not that type of forum for which I am glad.

            • 0x536e61707a75
              +6
              @cmagnificent -

              As the admins should control how they want people to perceive their site and the content that the community is exposed to, I concur. The only reason I argued for popular opinion is due to the lack of admin action(other users' speculation only, no proof), although I do realize this may not be the admins' most prominent issue.

            • kvn
              +2
              @drunkenninja -

              I have a suggestion. I think there should be no censorship on anything, until it hits legal issues. However, any tribe deemed "bad" would not have any posts going onto the frontpage and will be filtered out. The people who participate in the tribe are happy, and the people who browse the frontpage and do not like hatetribes like that don't need to see them.

            • Swanee
              +5
              @smokedhuman -

              Yeah I look forward to a friendly place not full of snark for the sake of it and this goes for all the more extreme sides of every viewpoint.

            • double2
              +3
              @0x536e61707a75 -

              Well, that's misunderstanding snapzu to be a democracy rather than a benevolent dictatorship that encourages autonomy. At the end of the day, democracy is less favourable. All hail our mighty overlords.

            • hallucigenia
              +3
              @double2 -

              a benevolent dictatorship that encourages autonomy.

              That sounds like an oxymoron. You either encourage autonomy or you're a dictatorship. You can't do both.

            • double2
              +5
              @hallucigenia -

              Of course you can. You can be a dictator who permits certain freedoms and autonomy - see Singapore for example.

            • hallucigenia
              +4
              @double2 -

              Certain freedoms, yes, but we're specifically talking about speech here. What other freedoms are relevant to a website? If free speech is only free as long as you don't offend somebody, that is an oxymoron.

            • blue2501
              +3
              @hallucigenia -

              Most open-source projects are a "benevolent dictatorship". For example, Linux with Linus as the dictator.

            • hallucigenia
              +3
              @blue2501 -

              Would you argue that everybody working on the Linux kernel is "autonomous", though?

          • vulpixwithdix
            +11

            The fatpeoplehate group has the word hate in it. It was a sub devoted to the hatred of a specific group of people. I'm pretty sure the admins here have been pretty vocal in their dislike of hate groups in general. A policy that I agree with. There are other places to go if you're looking for that kind of free speech. This isn't a democracy, it's a website that is free to have it's own rules about what content is posted.

        • mithrandir
          +12

          I wish the admins would just go ahead and take a stance on it, one way or another.

          IMO there are websites out there for that FREE SPEECH™ bullshitery, so I say let those sites be the quarantine zone, and ban it here.

          Better make it clear now than wait years to ban it, thus pissing off the community. Like what happened at "that other site."

          • RobAlter (edited 3 years ago)
            +6

            Yeah, let's ban anything we don't agree with personally. I disagree with feminism and violet sports. Let's ban all sports tribes and all women from Snapzu.

            • CrazyDiamond
              +4

              That's a slippery slope argument and it just doesn't make sense. You can always draw lines. Like at hate speech where it is now. Just ban hate speech and racism. That seems fair enough.

            • mithrandir
              +5

              I disagree with and we disagree with are two entirely different things, though, aren't they?

            • musiKk (edited 3 years ago)
              +5
              @CrazyDiamond -

              How about making fun of disabled people, of poor people? Misogyny? Child hate? Homophobia? Religious extremism? I'd be in favor of banning it all. But I've got to say: While Reddit may have tons of this content and probably much worse, I never encountered it because the communities worked pretty well and subreddit admins have an incentive to keep it that way.

              I think the problem with banning stuff is that it is extremely difficult to get it right without a) going too far in either direction or b) have inconsistent rules. By saying anything goes except for things that are illegal in most parts of the modern world (wich is difficult enough mind you) you avoid that at the cost of hosting that content.

              edit: interesting how snapzu deals with deep comment nesting...

            • CrazyDiamond
              +4
              @musiKk -

              "I never encountered it because the communities worked pretty well and subreddit admins have an incentive to keep it that way."

              On Snapzu though, everything is cross-posted to the front page. So that could be a pretty big issue. Also, I feel like a lot of people think that "what is illegal and what is not" is the only acceptable line to draw, when even as you said, that is a grey area too anyhow. Tons of subreddits have had success drawing the line around hate speech so there's no reason to assume it's too much of an issue for a website to handle.

            • musiKk
              +2
              @CrazyDiamond -

              I don't know enough to tell the difference between /r/all and the Snapzu front page but my guess is they are similar. /r/all is just something one doesn't go to for all the reasons mentioned so far.

              I agree that it's easy to draw lines on a subreddit/tribe level. My comment was more geared towards the requests for a general stance from the site's administrators which is much more difficult imo.

        • Pantera
          +2

          I think the big thing is when does censorship stifle ideas? For instance feminism, if you reversed the genders, would be considered by the standards of today, hate.

      • Katherine
        +20

        It honestly bugs me that people cry "censorship" anytime hate speech is shut down/removed. Even if its removal could technically be described as such, I don't want to see it and nobody else wants to see it – the only people who want hate speech around are those propagating it – there's no reason to allow it.

        "Treat one another with basic respect" is a good rule.

        • smokedhuman
          +10

          I totally agree. I am all for free speech since it lets me know where the folks I want to avoid are. If, however, I set up a website for a specific reason, do not expect me to tolerate things I don't like on it. If you want to espouse your hatred, build your own shit for that and don't ride on my coattails.

          • Snikt
            +4

            If you set up a website for the specific purpose of hosting many different communities you can't only allow content you "like". Aiming for too much homogeneity will limit your audience too people who think pretty much like yourself. Sure, you have to draw the line somewhere, but Reddit was popular because it allowed many, many very diverse/different/niche subreddits with very different cultures.

            • CrazyDiamond
              +8

              Yeah but that doesn't even really work for this format anyway since everything gets cross posted to the front page. You can't welcome hate because if a community like that migrates at a high enough rate, then snapzu would just become a hate website.

            • Swanee
              +2

              I think you can still have differing views so as not to be a echo chamber while trying to maintain a environment of civil discussion across the user base.

            • gabe2068
              +5

              But hate and trolling, is not part of a subculture or anything like that. It's just being a dick. There isn't really any reason to allow it. You can say whatever you want on here as long as you are not blatantly insulting someone else.

            • CrazyDiamond
              +1
              @gabe2068 -

              This is a really good point too. Just hating things and trolling is not a "point of view" or "idea". At least not one that needs to be respected and preserved.

        • hallucigenia
          +2

          It's a flaw in the platform, IMO. Your posts should not automatically get sent to the Front Page. I agree that you shouldn't have to see posts that you don't want to, but there are alternatives to censorship.

      • myrden
        +17

        The way I see it is this is not a publically funded site, so the admins have no damn reason to let people like that on here even. This is not the US Government, and while I am against censorship, a privately funded site/business has no reason to allow people they don't want in.

        • autofac

          This comment has been removed

        • gabe2068
          +4

          Exactly, this is NOT a democracy. This is someones personal website. They make the rules. We must respect them.

        • hallucigenia
          +4

          I think this is really missing the point. Yes, of course you can censor anything you want on your own website. Why would I want to contribute to a site like that, though? All it amounts to is "Hey, find us some funny cat GIFs to attract more viewers to our site. Keep your icky opinions to yourself, though."

      • ottermatic
        +6

        I'm pretty okay without that content on here, as well. I think there are places for totally free speech, and then there are places where the content is a little slower and more controlled, but higher quality overall. I haven't been here long, but Snapzu seems to fall a bit more in the second category. Some clarification by the admin's, saying which way they'd like it to be, would be nice.

      • BretsFan4Ever
        +3

        I never visited or cared for the mindset of the hateful subreddits and would hold the same attitude towards hateful tribes if they were to pop up. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think that they should have a right to exist and express their opinions.

    • RoastedRareByte
      +7

      There's something Tolkien-esque to be said about standing beside a civilized democratic network that Snapzu emphasizes and refusing anarchy for the sake of anarchy.

Conversation 12 comments by 6 users
  • theaceoface
    +10

    So this site is also banning objectionable content? If this is the route that snapzu is going down, I might as well stick to reddit. Or maybe try out Voat.

    • CrazyDiamond
      +13

      It was in the etiquette before you even joined and before this whole thing ever happened that hate speech and racism is not tolerated. If you want to be racist or hate groups of people, you've always got voat or 4chan or 8chan or whatever. Stormfront? I'm just glad I've found a website kind of similar to reddit that's willing to shut it down. Pretty cool in my mind.

      • theaceoface
        +6

        It's important not to equate the defending of hate speech with the desire to produce hate speech oneself. I'm not sure what's happened in the last few years but it seems that the tolerance for free and open discussion has really waned. It's disheartening to see an new platform like snapzu follow that trend

      • theaceoface
        +4

        Isn't Reddit a website similar to Reddit that's willing to shut down hate speech and racism?

        • CrazyDiamond
          +6

          Nope. Places like coontown still exist. This is the only website I know of like reddit that actually does disallow that sort of thing, and I find that refreshing. That way people who want to participate in hateful stuff can be happy somewhere else while this website can be happy not to have them.

    • cmagnificent
      +8

      It's not that the site is banning objectionable content, it's explicitly banning racism and hate speech. Disagreement and divergence are fine. Even passionate and fiery disagreement is fine. What Snapzu will remove has been outlined as such (Copied from the TOS)

      Threatening - Don't threaten people, you wouldn't threaten someone at your birthday party. Don't PM threats and don't post any type of threats in snaps / text posts or comments.

      Harmful - Whatever you wouldn't do to yourself because your brain instinctively tells you "its bad", don't do to other people. Unless you're a psychopath, then, just, use the code that your father taught you on how not to hurt others.

      Unlawful - Illegal stuff gets everyone in trouble, so lets not do illegal stuff. Don't post illegal downloads, music, pictures or anything else that would otherwise land you in jail if engaged in on another medium (like a bazaar).

      Abusive - Don't partake in abusive behaviour either by yourself or in a group. No witch hunts, no bullying, no posting of personal information, anything that you would dread happening to you, DON'T do it to others.

      Harassment - It's alright to have a heated discussion on whatever topic comes to mind, but don't continue to repetitively PM someone after they have given you obvious signs that they have concluded their discussion with you. By obvious we mean obvious, harassment will not be tolerated in any form.

      Libellous - Don't post personal information, don't post defamatory content about other individuals. I'm sure everyone of us hates negative untrue rumors going around about ourselves, this is even worse.

      It's not about free speech and censorship. It's about a group of people who want to build a community that is free from these things.

      • Zednix
        +5

        In theory a section like FPH can operate under those broad headings couldn't it? As long as the posters don't post usernames, links to other posts or any other personal info that could leave to the person featured for whatever post that an FPH user would consider is content, isn't that enough to operate on a site that doesn't tolerate garbage like harassment and abusive habits from its users?

        • cmagnificent
          +6

          Well, the problem is the site also outlines that they will not tolerate racism and hate speech and fat people hate, has the word hate right in the goddamn name and it's targeted at a very specific group of people. I would say that regardless of anything else, that alone should bar that community from being here in the first place. The bottom line, and to reiterate it once again, is that the snapzu team has outlined that that isn't the kind of thing they want here, and that's been their policy since well before snapzu became known as a "reddit alternative".

          Now, instead of accepting and understanding that is this site's policy, there are many redditors showing up her complaining that snapzu not upholding their individual interpretations of free speech. You're not doing this, you're having a polite and civil conversation about it, but there have already been comments crying "censorship" and disparaging snapzu for not honoring a commitment snapzu never made.

          The driving issue is not whether or not it might be possible for FPH to work with the rules, etiquette and TOS outlined thusfar, it's that it is very obvious the admins don't want it on their site and majority of the snapzu community doesn't want it here either and many of the reddit refugees are here to escape that kind of toxicity and drama associated with it. It really is that simple. People who want to establish a new FPH can go to a site that will allow them to do it and honestly, more power to them, but I won't be going to that site. One of the reasons I chose snapzu was the specific forbidding of hate groups and one site refusing to allow them here does not constitute "censorship". Just like a church saying you can't burn a cross on their front lawn isn't "censorship". It's a private community of individuals who don't want to have to deal with that kind of thing.

          • l23r
            0

            So by that logic, just drop the word "people" and make it "fat hate" or drop the "hate" and have it be a group about "fat people"

      • theaceoface
        +3

        Those TOS are fairly broad and a lot can be read into them. Right now racism and hate speech seem like a fairly low barrier to set but it's a slippery slope.

        On the other hand, my problem with Reddit isn't so much the banning of content so much as the lack of transparency and consistency. The capricious nature of the censorship offends me more than the censorship itself. In that sense I suppose that snapzu has a chance of approaching this issue, which all websites have to deal with, in a more open and transparent way

      • l23r
        0

        "anything that you would dread happening to you, DON'T do it to others."

        If I was getting fat, I'd want people to let me know, so I wouldn't get even fatter.

    • Rothulfossil
      +2

      Voat is absolutely a good alternative if you're looking for that sort of thing. I, for one, would like to keep it clean on Snapzu.

  • skeeva
    +36

    I'm far from a SJW but when I was severely downvoted for suggesting someone not make fun of fat people I knew I was on the wrong site.

    • Stoic
      +27

      You know you were on the wrong site when you were severely downvoted for your opinion. People shouldn't use the downvote button as a disagreebutton.

      • PrismDragon
        +10

        Yeah, that's the main thing. Whatever position you may hold, SJW or MRA or whatever, or what fandoms you are interested in, as long as you as don't spit bile/hatred at people, you should not be down-voted for your opinion. That's what I am hoping for here, and it seems pretty good right now.

      • MidasToren
        +4

        You're right, but the power is there, and whether through ignorance or malice, it will be used for that purpose. This is why I much prefer a system like Slashdot.org's where they have moderation points and modded posters that dictate from -1 to +5 the quality of comments. Trolls, hate comments, and shitposts that drop below a certain threshold are hidden, and posts above 0 are visible, and can be seen as to their quality. That kind of system is far less likely to be abused easily, Snapzu's system looks similar enough to Reddit/Digg's system that I fear it will be abused in the same way, I want to be wrong.

        • hallucigenia
          +4

          Unfortunately, I don't think you are wrong, and the problem stems from having the downvote as an anti-upvote. If you upvote posts you like, you're going to downvote ones that you don't. That's a natural association that takes effort to break. I would prefer no downvoting at all, but if you're really worried about shitposts, have an up button and a report button instead. If something gets "reported" enough, then it can be hidden. I've seen this system used on other sites, and it works great. Users don't "report" posts or comments just because they don't like them. It's taken a lot more seriously, because you know that somebody with authority (a mod or admin) will see it.

      • theaceoface
        +3

        That's actually the nicest thing about snapzu I've noticed: People don't disagree by downvoting.

    • Xeno
      +9

      Basic human decency !

      (Also, I almost typed basic humancy decent -1 for me.)

    • Lyzern
      +4

      I believe everyone should be made fun of equally.

  • wheels29
    +30

    I have a view that I know is not commonly shared. I hate that some fat people try to convince other people that it's healthy, but I have never and will never hate fat people themselves. My disdain extends only as far as hating an unhealthy attitude. I would feel this way if someone promoted alcohol addiction or drug addiction, but they aren't because everyone knows that it's unhealthy.

    • Strangequark
      +13

      I kind of get where you're coming from, but the health at every size movement is less about convincing people that being fat is super healthy and more about dismantling the extreme view that has been adopted by society that you cannot be both fat and healthy. As it stands right now, people encourage otherwise perfectly healthy people who exercise, run marathons, eat well, etc, to adopt unhealthy behaviour (mental health problems regarding obsession, anorexia, or physical damage through starvation or over exercising) just to be thin.

      Everyone knows people who can eat whatever they want and not put on an inch, no matter how little they exercise, but the idea that there could be a corollary at the other end of the scale is just unthinkable. So HAES is about eating healthily, exercising regularly, checking health markers like bloodwork, lung capacity, etc, but not obsessing over weight or dress size. Everyone else's fixation on the weight of a person who is perfectly healthy, just fatter than you'd like them to be, is the issue the activists fight against.

      • hallucigenia
        +5

        I think the bigger issue than FPH is the fact that reddit is so one-sided. I wouldn't mind the existence of FatPeopleHate so much if there were a strong HAES community on reddit, but there just isn't. Not even remotely. So there's no real debate, it's just people spewing hate, and if a single person dares to disagree with them, they're downvoted into oblivion.

    • FamousFellah
      +10

      You've just described my feelings on the matter perfectly. I think it might be helpful to treat obesity as a disease or injury in the sense that it's something we should help people overcome or recover from. That attitude works better on drug-related issues than marginalization, insults, and punishment. Why not try it out on obesity as well? FPH causes nothing but harm; communities like /r/fitness, /r/running, /t/fitness, and /t/running have the potential to help people become healthier through exercise.

      • l23r
        +1

        I've read several posts from people on FPH who pretty much said "thank you for calling me out on being a fat lazy slob. It made me realize I didn't want to be that way anymore and got me to exercise more and eat less" Being straight up with someone instead of (literally) sugar coating it can be painful in the short term, but I think it's better than lying to someone.

        If you feel shame and embarrassment because someone said something about you, that something can often have a piece of truth in it.

        • FamousFellah
          +3

          While that may be true for some, it certainly doesn't work for all and still doesn't present a solution. And the problem isn't telling someone they're unhealthy or fat, it's doing so in a rude, insulting, and demeaning way. Honesty and harassment are two very different things.

    • vulpixwithdix
      +6

      I understand where you're coming from. But people are free to live their lives as they see fit. While it's not a healthy lifestyle choice, it's not so bad that hate groups need to actively shame them. A lot of the people who were hurt by the subreddit were people who didn't preach that it was healthy. Just innocent bystanders who didn't want to see that hatred on their front page.

      If someone has a drug or alcohol problem, it's not in good taste to try and point it out and try and change their lives. That task is for close friends and family members that are concerned. Not strangers on the Internet.

    • PrismDragon
      +5

      I understand where you come from as well, and share sentiments with /u/vulpixwithdix. Right now, the way you conveyed your opinion is fine. I may disagree with it, but you don't spit out bile and hatred such as FPH did.

    • l23r
      +1

      A good chunk of the people on FPH have the same view.

      Some people make jokes about fat people because they used to be fat themselves, or because they're verbally attacked for being thin or muscular, or because they have to deal with stupid family members or neighbours or co-workers who happen to be fat.

      Very few people on FPH actually "hate" fat people.

  • mithrandir
    +14

    But muh FREE SPEECH™!

    • ObiWanShinobi
      +13

      Freedom to express a distasteful opinion that I may not personally agree with is the entire point of free speech.

      • chloe
        +13

        communities like snapzu, unlike our governments, are in no way obligated to uphold free speech.

        • ObiWanShinobi (edited 3 years ago)
          +10

          True. I can't in good conscience condone it, but I'm not an admin. Honestly, it's just disappointing, communities of the Internet seem to be running a little short on free speech these days.

          • FurtWigglepants
            +6

            That ended when they brigaded a SW post.

            • CrazyDiamond (edited 3 years ago)
              +4

              What's SW stand for?

              Oh nvm, suicide watch right? I remember that.

          • Zeis
            +5

            May I suggest you create your own community then? I'm not saying you shouldn't be here - it's cool you're here. But if you feel like there's a lack of something and you have the means (in this case, a computer and an internet connection) to change it, why not change it?

            • ObiWanShinobi (edited 3 years ago)
              +5

              You are absolutely right. I hate complaining without doing something about it. I am the admin of /t/longform articles, and I intend to operate it on a free speech basis. The only requirement for people posting there is that their content is an article longer than a couple paragraphs, and written well.

              Believe me, as an indie game dev watching all these online game blogs and people complaining about games because they don't meet their personal, subjective criteria, the phrase, "If you don't like it, make something better," is never far from my lips.

          • Rothulfossil
            +2

            4chan, aside from posts that are straight-up illegal, is probably the best forum for unfiltered free speech on the internet. It makes me uncomfortable, though, and I don't see that sort of community in Snapzu. There's gotta be somewhere that keeps it classy, you know?

        • hallucigenia
          +6

          That's true. A waiter in a restaurant isn't obligated to be nice to me, either. In fact, he could spit in my soup. Perfectly 100% legal to do so. I'm probably not going to go back there if he does, though.

          • cmagnificent (edited 3 years ago)
            +4

            Exactly because you have every right to not want to associate with an entity that allows people to spit in your soup. Just like people who want the broadest form of free speech don't have to associate with a website that clearly states racism and hate speech will not be tolerated.

          • l23r
            0

            Please let me know what country you live in where it's legal to spit into someones food, so I can never go there.

      • spoderman
        +6

        I think there is a big difference between having an offensive opinion and activly hating and trolling people.

        Those who do not tolerate can not expect to be tolerated. Also, "Freedom of Speech" means you will not be prosecuted for your opinions, not that everbody is obligated to provide you with an audience.

        • ObiWanShinobi (edited 3 years ago)
          +4

          "Freedom of Speech" means you will not be prosecuted for your opinions, not that everbody is obligated to provide you with an audience.

          Oh I concur, companies have no obligation to provide free speech the way governments are expected to. I just believe in it as a concept and get disappointed when I don't see it on the many websites I frequent on a platform (the internet) that I consider the ultimate freedom of expression.

          Until fatpeoplehate got banned, they kept their hate in their own subreddit. The content never made it to the front page, and they were free to express their (distasteful) opinions. That, to me was ideal free speech on a website. Then they got banned, and all that shit spilled into /r/all.

          Edit: Furthermore, why haven't other subreddits that "troll" people get banned? /r/cringe and /r/cringepics have some pretty vicious threads about people.

          • spoderman
            +3

            I think the problem with FPH was not their hate, but them posting pictures of obese people and then mocking them. This is not a matter of speech, this is a matter of human dignity.

            r/ringepics at least anonymizes the usernames of the users they mock, so they are not exposes to a platoon of bored trolls.

    • Kerwin15
      +5

      Did I hear something about freeze peaches?

    • cmagnificent
      +5

      Shhh. Shhhhhhhh. Just watch the pretty gifs and everything will be fine. There, doesn't that feel better?

    • blue2501
      +4

      Let's be fair. Let's not treat free speech as some meme we're going parade around in a negative context by calling it "FREE SPEECH™". Free speech is awesome. I'm glad to be in a country that (for the most part) practices it. We wouldn't be here without free speech.

      I understand the arguments against hate speech. I don't mind them practiced here, since even a full-on democracy has its flaws. (So a policy of keeping anything that gets upvoted is also flawed.) Let FPH users post their bullshit elsewhere on the Internet.

      However, let's be respectful of the slippery slope we've created. Because it is a slippery slope. Do not prance around with absolute power declaring "FREE SPEECH™" as the enemy.

  • Triseult
    +12

    Can I just say? I love you guys. *hug*

    • CrazyDiamond
      +8

      This community is killin it.

      • Wenjarich (edited 3 years ago)
        +4

        Ok so I'm still only a day old so I apologise is this is a silly question. I have noticed your name a few times in green in this thread. And saw one guy who's name was red. Are you by any chance a mod, with the red guy being an admin?

        • CrazyDiamond
          +2

          Nope . green is just the color for op. I am op.

    • Rothulfossil
      +4

      hug You da bomb, Triseult!

  • Idontmindturtle
    +10

    I guess this is where snapzu stops being a reddit alternative and starts being a change... At least to me. I'm unsure as to how I feel about this so far, but when there is a topic with two legitimate sides and one is shut down due to hate speech... That's the day I move out of this website.

    • GroundhogNight
      +6

      I'm not sure how people hating fat people is a legitimate side? It's not like discussing the economic principles of 21st century nations, where the topic is open-ended. People grouping together to make fun of, mock, and discuss their hatred for fat people isn't a side to a discussion. It's vitriol. Maybe you could make an argument for shaming as a motivation technique. I think it would be different if it wasn't fat people hatred rather than them explaining the ailments of being overweight and attempting to motivate people to improve their healthy habits and lose weight. That would, in my mind, be legitimate, because the discussion is, "I want to be overweight" versus "This is why you shouldn't want to be overweight". But "I hate fat people" contributes what? How is it not anything more than a vipers' den?

      • Idontmindturtle
        +3

        Because quite often viewpoints can be deliberately misinterpreted to be grouped under hate speech. e.g. If someone says "I am 500 pounds and in peak fitness", I am going to call them out on that in a respectful manner. Some people will deliberately mis-interpret that as "Oh he hates fat people and just can't accept that people are happy with themselves" and call it hate speech, and write it off.

        • GroundhogNight
          +3

          The example you gave can happen, absolutely! But there's a huge difference between the example you gave and starting a group whose sole purpose is to mock and ridicule fat people. You want to say, "Hey, being 500 pounds isn't okay, whether or not you're fine with it. It's an unnatural weight...etc. etc." While Fat People Hate had posts with titles like, "Great letter from dissatisfied flyer who had to sit next to a diaobese whale." Or, "My GF found one doing what they do best, taking up space." You pointing out to someone that their idea of "being in shape" is constructive, where the entire purpose of Fat People Hate is to ridicule and destroy. One is legitimately hate speech.

          • Idontmindturtle
            +2

            Yep, definitely. I appreciate there is a very big difference between fph and my viewpoint, but I also believe that many people will group my viewpoint with fph, in order to right it off. For the record, I think that someone who is morbidly obese and doesn't preach their lifestyle should be treated just the same as everyone else in society. I don't bring up weight with my overweight friends and I don't bring up weight with my skinny friends.

  • Channu
    +10

    I hate censorship more than people that hate fat people.

    • spoderman
      +5

      I think dedicating serious amounts of energy to hating a praticular group of people has the same outcome as censorship.

  • Holymanta
    +10

    Cant they just make their own website?

    • kobayashimaru
      +9

      The problem with that is, then nobody else would have to listen. They don't want the freedom to express themselves they want the right to force everybody to listen to them.

    • NotSteve
      +7
  • Ruckus
    +9

    So you're not going for the no censorship route...

    • CrazyDiamond (edited 3 years ago)
      +18

      Naw I think absolute free speech is more voats thing.

      • ToixStory
        +9

        I agree there. Lots of r/fatpeoplehate refugees over there, so hopefully they congregate there instead of trying to spread themselves around.

        • jmcs
          +2

          They'll always have 4chan, their attention span doesn't need anything more structured.

      • Muffintop
        +5

        I thought the same. They should really sort their server issues otherwise who knows what other tribes will start popping up here ;)

      • Rothulfossil
        +3

        Bingo! There doesn't have to be one ultimate link aggregator with principles of free speech on the internet. If you're looking for the ability to spew hatred, Snapzu simply isn't the right website for you.

    • l23r
      0

      Doesn't look like it :(

  • typesprite
    +6

    Honestly, I don't know why this is even an issue. In my country hate speech & discrimination against a certain group has nothing to do with free speech and is against the law. Is that any different in the States?

    • hallucigenia
      +6

      Yes, it is. I'm assuming that by "hate speech" you mean "speech that is hateful". That's subjective, and people who are truly hateful are often adept at couching their hatred in niceties, anyway. "Hate speech" has everything to do with free speech. If I hate something, I should be able to say so. I should be able to explain why I hate something, whether you like it or not.

      Discrimination has nothing to do with speech, though, and it should be against the law. For example, I don't think that employers should be able to fire people because of their age, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation, etc.

      • blue2501
        +4

        I think South Park explained it best:

        If somebody kills somebody, it's a crime, but if somebody kills somebody of a different race, it's a hate crime. And we think that that is a savage hypocrisy, because all crimes are hate crimes. If a man beats another man because that man was sleeping with his wife, is that not a hate crime? If a person vandalizes a government building, is it not because of his hate for the government? The motivation for a crime shouldn't affect the sentencing. It is time to stop splitting people into groups. All hate crime laws do is support the idea that blacks are different from whites, that homosexuals are different, that we aren't the same. But instead we should all be treated the same, with the same laws and the same punishments for the same crimes.

        • hallucigenia
          +4

          I don't think that the logic behind "hate crimes" is quite that facile, but I think I agree with South Park on this one. With hate crimes you have to get into motive, and I don't think that having bigotry as a motive should make a crime more or less illegal. I don't think that you get rid of bigotry by punishing it away.

      • CrazyDiamond
        +2

        I think countries that outlaw hate speech adopt the philosophy that hating groups of people is morally wrong all together, thus opinions about hating a group can be silenced. I think Germany outlaws hate speech. They are intimately familiar with the power of movements involved in the hatred of a group.

        • hallucigenia
          +2

          Yah. I understand why Germany does it, but I still think it's an over-reaction. Besides squelching speech, It also helps to give holocaust deniers credibility. "Hey, if I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist, why is the government trying to silence me?" And people go, "Wow, he's got a point!"

          • l23r
            0

            There's still a bunch of Nazis in Germany (and the USA and all over the world) and unless they fly a Swastika flag or walk down the street doing a Hitler salute while yelling "Heil Hitler", the government doesn't really do much.

            The issue with Holocaust denial is that it's beyond stupid. It's like saying gravity doesn't exist.

            • hallucigenia
              +2

              The issue with Holocaust denial is that it's beyond stupid. It's like saying gravity doesn't exist.

              I don't get it. Is it illegal to say that gravity doesn't exist?

            • l23r (edited 3 years ago)
              +2
              @hallucigenia -

              No. It's that spreading obviously false information is harmful to impressionable children. Now religion is still legal in Germany, but that's another story, heh. Even East Germany didn't outright ban religion. They still thought that people had the right to think almost any crazy thought they wanted.

    • Muffintop
      +3

      Some people don't get the difference.

  • Erik
    +4

    If Snapzu doesn't allow people to created tribes such as fatpeoplehate then it is just as bad as Reddit. Only content which is illegal should be removed.

    • eilyra
      +10

      I mean, there's this in the etiquette on posting & commenting:

      8. Don't post racism or hate speech.

      fatpeoplehate would seem to fall in the latter camp (i.e. hate speech), no?

      • hallucigenia
        +3

        But then they turn around and say that there's no censorship. Now, what I think is that those are guidelines (not rules), and the fact that they're labelled "etiquette" implies this. However, to avoid confusion, the admins could fix all this by adding one word:

        8. Please don't post racism or hate speech.

        • eilyra
          +4

          But then they turn around and say that there's no censorship.

          I must have missed it, you don't happen to remember where you saw that? My impression has been that this is a moderately curated community in order to maintain a friendly atmosphere. This leads me to believe downright hateful content might end up getting removed.

          • hallucigenia
            +6

            Here you go. Under Our Mission, it says:

            No censorship: We strongly believe that transparency and freedom of speech is vital to any community, especially online. For this reason, submitted content belongs to users and thus can never be removed. As the community grows and expands, we will continue keeping our censorship-free ideology as a top priority to uphold.

            • eilyra
              +4

              Huh, cool. Thanks :)

              Interesting to see how that goes along with the etiquette, I suppose it means it's up to the community to follow it & encourage others to do the same.

    • GroundhogNight
      +5

      I was going to make a point about Reddit saying there's no censoring then selectively censoring while Sanpzu is about sharing and discussions. Except I just read the "About Snapzu" section and it says they don't censor. So I'm not sure how I feel. I mean, I think fat people hate is stupid and SHOULDN'T exist. It's a disgusting thing. But if a site is going to not allow a group like that...then it shouldn't say no censoring will occur. It should say "We allow for almost any tribe, except for: etc. etc."

    • Rothulfossil
      +2

      Just as bad as reddit? How about different? It's not the same site, so if you're looking for a reddit clone with anarchistic free speech, try Voat.

      What's nice about this is that you (hopefully!) won't get downvoted for this opinion. I disagree with you and I think you're on the wrong site based on what you value in a discussion forum, but I'm not going to downvote you. I think that's a core value being promoted here.

  • JohnDough99999
    +4

    Maybe we should have an option to ignore an entire tribe. This would solve the problem for people who dont want to see specific content and those who do want to see it.

  • frohawk
    +4

    There have been tribe attempts? But why? Even the one article I saw got shut down pretty quickly.

    • PrismDragon
      +4

      tribe attempts?

      There will always be those who wish to test the boundaries of the rules, or just attempt to see if they can pass in stuff that wouldn't normally be accepted. At least this case it's very clear cut. What I'm more worried about is certain topics in the future, which aren't so clear cut.

  • batwithahat
    +4

    I find it funny that CalorieKins (the guy who made t/fatpeoplehate) first posts title was "Lets keep the spirit of Reddit!" Isn't that what a lot of Snapzu users are trying to avoid?

  • imbrex
    +3

    I was not a person to hate all the FPH banning-haters (does that make sense?) but it is great that here the 'issue' is just a null point. Less time dealing with the melodrama BS and more more reading the actual sources and interesting content.

Here are some other snaps you may like...