Digg 2.0. At this point, I don't think saving reddit is possible. It's not something that can be sold to advertising firms (they hate corporate) it's racist and sexist (would you want your company associated with "black peoples Twitter " where black are mocked? The tools they have in mind cost money, and they can't get any.
Honestly, I think saving Reddit is entirely possible. Content is king, and if anything, this drama is just generating more content for people to consume when they browse /r/all looking for drama. Reddit is still a hugely popular site, and outside of some of the default subreddits, most people aren't going to see/care about these types of changes until it affects Reddit as a whole.
It really comes down to whether Reddit as a company can continue operating without instituting some broad changes that drive away users (pop up flash ads, etc). But the site is still running strong. The difference between Digg and Reddit is that most of this Reddit drama is around stuff mostly unrelated to using the site on a daily basis. If you only browse /r/games, you would never even know any of this was going down. Whereas with Digg, it was changes/policies that affected every single user of the site in obvious ways.
How do you generate good content when half of the story is your website and whether or not your content will be visible (blackout). When the front page for weeks has been dominated by "chairman Pao", blackouts, and long missives about the staff, the rules, the backlash, all you have is drama .
Absolutely, after all, it is called blackpeopletwitter, and not twitter. TIA is another sub that I bet will get the banhammer soon. I am almost surprised Pao hadn't kille dit.
"Screenshots of black people being hilarious on social media, it don't need to just be twitter but obviously that is best.
Black culture has a unique way of examining the everyday and we are here to showcase that. You know this shit is funny so don't be a cunt and accuse people here of being racists. The people whose posts are featured here are the comedians, not the jokes.
We're all black here so be cool and if I see one more gad dam post about black fathers skipping town y'all gonna catch these hands."
I suppose anything can be offensive if you want it to be.
It makes fun of black people on Twitter. If it was "shit Twitter says" you could make the case that it's not racist, however when it's a bunch of white kids posting black people saying stupid stuff on social media (ps the common denominator isn't even Twitter, it's blacks) then there's a racist element there. If I made a sub of Slav Twitter, and mocked stupid Russians on Twitter, it's anti Slav.
" The people whose posts are featured here are the comedians, not the jokes. " Like I said, you make it offensive. If there was a sub with black standup comedians like Dave Chappelle would it still be racist, like /r/blackpeoplestandup ? Can't I enjoy black (ebonic?) humor without being racist?
The difference is that a comic is clearly trying to be funny. Twitter users aren't always trying to be funny, and if you're laughing at something for saying something stupid, that's not the same as laughing with a guy who made a joke. You can enjoy any jokes you like, you just don't get to laugh at black people making comments on social media and pretend it's not racist.
You don't have to scratch too hard to find bigotry there. Ranked the tenth most bigoted sub, three slots ahead of /r/imgoingtohellforthis, even when a given post isn’t racist, the sub and the reason the sub exists is exactly racist. I suppose you don’t see what you don’t want to see.
I was surprised to see this morning that Snapzu now has an outpost of one of the more popular racist subs, /r/imgoingtohellforthis. Notable for rocketing patently offensive bigotry to the top of /r/all, you don’t have to turn over many rocks to see the bigots there scurrying for cover, either. How long before /t/imgoingtohellforthis metastasizes that way at Snapzu?
Racism isn't a disease. It's something people do, which is born out of ignorance. And since many, many people who post on the Internet are kids, you get many, many ignorant posts of all kinds. The response is not to drive them off the site or even silence them. That's not how you raise kids. When kids do something wrong you patiently chastise them or, if they are someone else's kids, you ignore them as long as they are not bothering you. Racism on the Internet is annoying, but trying to stop it is a fool's errand. Attention is exactly what bigots and trolls want. It helps validate their world view. When you stop paying attention, they eventually run out of gas and reevaluate their own world view. Hopefully, they give up their foolish ways. Most do.
Wow, that caught me off guard. While I had filtered that site while visiting reddit because the jokes made were usually in bad taste (I feel there is a way to achieve the goal of the sub while staying within taste), to see such atrocious behaviour encouraged is quite disheartening.
Hopefully we as the community can prevent that from happening, though the nature of the jokes that belong in that sub have a tendency of easily drifting in a rather unfortunate direction.
Racism isn't a disease. It's something people do, which is born out of ignorance. And since many, many people who post on the Internet are kids, you get many, many ignorant posts of all kinds. The response is not to drive them off the site or even silence them. That's not how you raise kids. When kids do something wrong you patiently chastise them or, if they are someone else's kids, you ignore them as long as they are not bothering you.
While I agree with you on principle, I'm not sure simply chastising or ignoring them is sufficient if the friendly atmosphere is to maintained. Chastising will work as long as it's done sufficiently diligently by enough people. Ignoring probably won't work as well, as I believe there will then be a tendency of such behaviour to spread and possibly start affecting unrelated content.
Racism on the Internet is annoying, but trying to stop it is a fool's errand. Attention is exactly what bigots and trolls want. It helps validate their world view. When you stop paying attention, they eventually run out of gas and reevaluate their own world view. Hopefully, they give up their foolish ways. Most do.
While it may not be something we achieve within our lifetimes, I do believe trying to stop it from happening is still valuable. If it isn't challenged, people might leave with the mistaken impression it's acceptable. Though how you challenge it is as important as challenging it. Merely starting a yelling match doesn't change anything, and as you said, would probably only strengthen their resolve. Though I agree with you in a sense, there are cases where ignoring is the right thing to do, as not having one's statement validated or challenged can be powerful as well. So I guess the takeaway is, approach things case-by-case?
Well I read you link on the most bigoted sub and while it is an intriguing approach to ranking subs there are obvious flaws in the system. As I understood it, a comment like "fuck you" would be considered offensive and therefore place the sub higher, but where is the racist factor, I might have misunderstood the method as English is not my first language but it doesnät seem to rank racism just generally rude behaviour?
You not being able to see racism on a sub meant for racist jokes is probably not to do with whether English is your first language.
Nor is it likely because of a flaw you've found in other people's understanding of what bigotry is.
Maybe before you disprove the existence of racism completely, let’s see if you can use those critical thinking skills to think of a reason you might not be able to perceive racism.
Well, the metric for defining toxicity wasn't exclusively about bigotry, it also included attacks against individuals. But the article does state:
Overt bigotry: the use of bigoted (racist/sexist/homophobic etc.) language, whether targeting any particular individual or more generally, which would make members of the referenced group feel highly uncomfortable
when making their definition of toxicity. So racism/bigotry is a factor in that ranking, but not the sole metric.
I never attempted to disprove the concept of racism, I'm quite certain there is racism in the world. There is probably racism on Reddit as well, maybe some users post racist comments on /r/blackpeopletwitter but that shouldn't mean the entire subreddit is Racist, much like one racist user on snapzu shouldn't make it racist. The reason I brought up my English skills or lack there of is because the only substantial evidence of whether or not /r/blackpeopletwitter is racist or not was the sub ranking site whos method seem to contain but not exclusively measure racist comments. The only other complaint seems to be that the subs name contains black and/or black people which in and of itself should not be considered racist.
No, we're not talking about the equivalent of staying outside til past dinnertime, or failing to put your toys away. These aren't kids, they're bullies. The way you deal with bullies is not to ignore them, you must confront them at some point. Ignoring them as you suggest is being beaten. No, the helpless strategy you suggest is learned passivity. It will not starve the fires, it allows them to flourish. Bigots don't give up if you let them fester long enough. Fight back or run.
That article describes TumblrInAction as a bigoted sub... TiA is a sub that's pro-equality, transgender rights, LGBT rights which a demographic of relatively poor and left-leaning people of both genders. So I question their standard for bigotry.
I would suggest that you don't understand bigots. Bigots are lazy, ignorant people and they need your constant validation to continue their world view. They crave attention. The KKK doesn't hold parades because they think people will welcome them. They know they're going to be shouted at. They thrive in that hostile environment and feed off of it. It's how they gain recruits for their imaginary "fight". If no one showed up or if they were ignored, it would simply look and sound pathetic. And they would all slink away to wonder why they bothered.
Well, yeah, sure, in an ideal world. But we're talking the Internet here. It's a place where just as soon as you're shouting down a bigot or even just arguing over some political point, someone on the opposite end of the spectrum jumps into your conversation and goes at you the other way too hard. It's emotion vs. logic and a lot of people argue with emotion. Then someone reacts with emotion and then someone tries to apply logic and then others, well, they like to stir the pot.
Racism is just a bunch of words. And if those of us that know and understand racism understand this, then we know we cannot be hurt by these words. But we have to be able to remove the emotion of the words to judge them. You look at YouTube comments and you see all the terrible things there. Half the time, it's some kid just trying to shock you or start an argument. He's not a guy in a hood. And while he'll probably grow up to be an ignorant dumbass, punishing won't work. He'll just move to another part of the Internet and do it again. Getting emotional won't work, since that's exactly what he wants. Quietly deleting his posts might work, as he's probably as lazy as he is ignorant. And he'll eventually realize that he'll have to be more clever to get a rise out of the Internet.
Quite frankly, most of the Internet is so full of unimportant nonsense, most websites aren't the places to attempt to make meaningful changes in race relations or in bigots' mindsets. But it is a place where free speech should be allowed. Because if everything is allowed, you quickly see what's popular, what's good and what's god awful. And I am confident that bigots will have to work extra hard deluding themselves if everything is allowed. If some things are not, then they can tell themselves, "Well, all the stuff I believe is just getting censored or else there'd be more."
Reddit users ignoring /r/imgoingtohellforthis has yet to work as a strategy for boring bigots into slinking away quietly. They can get the attention they want from each other. The flavor of bigot you're describing might be more likely to be a Stormfront user than a redditor, but even then, I think you may be underestimating how much of outwardly bigoted behavior comes down to opportunistic bullying, and overestimating the effectiveness of simply passively enduring until the bully gets tired. As much as an anvil will wear out many a hammer, hammers are produced much more frequently than anvils.
Well, yeah, sure, in an ideal world. But we're talking the Internet here. It's a place where just as soon as you're shouting down a bigot or even just arguing over some political point, someone on the opposite end of the spectrum jumps into your conversation and goes at you the other way too hard. It's emotion vs. logic and a lot of people argue with emotion. Then someone reacts with emotion and then someone tries to apply logic and then others, well, they like to stir the pot.
True, the Internet might not always be a nice place, but I'd like to think there's value in attempting to keep our little corner of it nice. And while we may not get through to everyone, isn't getting even one person to question their ways in this matter a good thing?
Racism is just a bunch of words. And if those of us that know and understand racism understand this, then we know we cannot be hurt by these words. But we have to be able to remove the emotion of the words to judge them. You look at YouTube comments and you see all the terrible things there. Half the time, it's some kid just trying to shock you or start an argument. He's not a guy in a hood.
It may be just a bunch of words while we stay on the Internet, but if people continue applying such beliefs while out in the world it may end up harming someone, overtly (e.g. actually committing hate crimes) or more discreetly (e.g. preventing career advancement). While hopefully your hypothesis that it's usually just someone who hasn't had the time to learn yet or is just out to get a rise is correct, surely the former might be reachable through some calm words?
And while he'll probably grow up to be an ignorant dumbass, punishing won't work. He'll just move to another part of the Internet and do it again. Getting emotional won't work, since that's exactly what he wants. Quietly deleting his posts might work, as he's probably as lazy as he is ignorant. And he'll eventually realize that he'll have to be more clever to get a rise out of the Internet.
While this may very well be correct, as said, if we do manage to get through to even one person doesn't it end up being a positive thing?
Quite frankly, most of the Internet is so full of unimportant nonsense, most websites aren't the places to attempt to make meaningful changes in race relations or in bigots' mindsets. But it is a place where free speech should be allowed. Because if everything is allowed, you quickly see what's popular, what's good and what's god awful. And I am confident that bigots will have to work extra hard deluding themselves if everything is allowed. If some things are not, then they can tell themselves, "Well, all the stuff I believe is just getting censored or else there'd be more."
True, the change might not end up being meaningful, but hopefully they may end up being a small net positive. And do remember, I didn't advocate removing their speech (i.e. moderator action), I suggested challenging their views. Though as you said it may lead to an emotional flurry of words, hopefully some calm reasoning may also lead some to challenge themselves and their views.
We may not get through a 100% of the time, and if it ends up being something that happens daily, I do see that it will probably become too exhausting to deal with. Hopefully though, it'll be rare enough that it won't be daily occurrence, and maybe we'll get through to some. If so, I do think it may be worth it.
Are you really going to equate the hardcore NeoNazis with some kid who wants to get rise out of you on Reddit by posting something in that subreddit? You're letting your emotion get the better of you. Of course the bigots are going to prop each other up. That's all they have! But I wouldn't call r/imgoingtohellforthis a bigot-only subreddit. I think you're overstating the threat tremendously. And just like the U.S. overstated the threat with groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, you continue to overstate the threat at a stupid, pointless subreddit like that. Who cares what they say? It's about a relevant as what gets said in r/funny. It's stupid Internet chatter. Did you really expect a subreddit called r/imgoingtohellforthis to be full of nurturing, supporting wisdom for everyone? Shock value is exactly the point of that subreddit. You confuse being passive with being a grown up. When some kid yells something at me on the street, my immediate thought isn't to rally the world against that kid and drag him in front of the court of public opinion so I might make sure that all his thoughts conform to mine. My immediate thought is, ignore it. Words are not actions. And you're not going to teach anyone anything by responding to perceived threats on r/imgoingtohellforthis. You're just going to look like an overcompensating old person that's too sensitive for the Internet. You cannot expect to go through life covered by an invisible forcefield that will protect you for all the bad words.
"isn't getting even one person to question their ways in this matter a good thing?"
Lead by example, not through punishment and self-righteous reaction, I say.
"but if people continue applying such beliefs while out in the world it may end up harming someone"
Words are not actions. Unless you're planning to build the Offices of Pre-crime, people are allowed to say what they want.
"actually committing hate crimes"
Crimes are crimes. Applying adverbs to them doesn't make them any more or less terrible. Hate crime legislation is the natural extension of people who delude themselves into thinking they can get everyone to think the same. And if validates the world view of bigots that certain groups of people need special protection. I'm all for calm words, if they are calm, but choose your battles. Someone suggested r/imgoingtohellforthis as one of those battles. I say, that's the wrong horse to bet on.
"if we do manage to get through to even one person doesn't it end up being a positive thing?"
If you end up validating the world view of dozens of bigots, then no. I've been on the Internet since it's inception and someone changing their opinion on it is an extremely rare thing indeed.
Yeah, I think calm reasoning can work. But be prepared and patient. You have to turn the other cheek even when it does not. That's something few people hiding behind an avatar can do.
Lead by example, not through punishment and self-righteous reaction, I say.
Agreed, if the situation can be resolved calmly all the better.
Words are not actions. Unless you're planning to build the Offices of Pre-crime, people are allowed to say what they want.
Agreed, people are allowed to say what they want.
Crimes are crimes. Applying adverbs to them doesn't make them any more or less terrible. Hate crime legislation is the natural extension of people who delude themselves into thinking they can get everyone to think the same. And if validates the world view of bigots that certain groups of people need special protection. I'm all for calm words, if they are calm, but choose your battles. Someone suggested r/imgoingtohellforthis as one of those battles. I say, that's the wrong horse to bet on.
Agreed on the crimes are crimes. I used the adverb merely to indicate that behaviour displayed online may (doesn't necessarily, nor should it assumed does, but may) continue on in real life with more severe consequences in this case and to not accidentally indicate that being racist online may lead to other criminal activities offline. :)
I actually mostly agree with the whole hate crime legislation point though. There should probably be good enough legal protections anyway so that specific protection isn't necessary. It just may be a easier stop-gap to reach in situations where that isn't true.
If you end up validating the world view of dozens of bigots, then no. I've been on the Internet since it's inception and someone changing their opinion on it is an extremely rare thing indeed.
True, guess it all again comes down to approach.
Yeah, I think calm reasoning can work. But be prepared and patient. You have to turn the other cheek even when it does not. That's something few people hiding behind an avatar can do.
Hopefully I'm good at that then & able to recognise the times I'm not so I don't engage. Or, well, I think I've got the patience down, preparation I'm less sure about.
Speaking up hardly seems like emotional hysterics to me, more like having the courage of conviction. That’s not me being too old for the Internet. Bigots are like mosquitos. Neither survives in the main channel of a swiftly flowing river. They keep to backwaters, need isolated little ponds, and reproduce where they're not interfered with. Given the choice to fight or run, you suggest running every time. The strategy you're calling ‘ignoring’ and I’m calling ‘learned passivity’ strikes me as being too broadminded to take your own side in an argument.
The way you position things so dramatically suggests to me that you're too emotional to confront these people without being suckered into a fight. You want to cruise for trolls, that's your business. I refuse to feed them anymore.
Digg 2.0. At this point, I don't think saving reddit is possible. It's not something that can be sold to advertising firms (they hate corporate) it's racist and sexist (would you want your company associated with "black peoples Twitter " where black are mocked? The tools they have in mind cost money, and they can't get any.
Honestly, I think saving Reddit is entirely possible. Content is king, and if anything, this drama is just generating more content for people to consume when they browse /r/all looking for drama. Reddit is still a hugely popular site, and outside of some of the default subreddits, most people aren't going to see/care about these types of changes until it affects Reddit as a whole.
It really comes down to whether Reddit as a company can continue operating without instituting some broad changes that drive away users (pop up flash ads, etc). But the site is still running strong. The difference between Digg and Reddit is that most of this Reddit drama is around stuff mostly unrelated to using the site on a daily basis. If you only browse /r/games, you would never even know any of this was going down. Whereas with Digg, it was changes/policies that affected every single user of the site in obvious ways.
How do you generate good content when half of the story is your website and whether or not your content will be visible (blackout). When the front page for weeks has been dominated by "chairman Pao", blackouts, and long missives about the staff, the rules, the backlash, all you have is drama .
They need to find a way to get a cut of what some of the mods are getting paid to control content.
Reddit breaks even and has 50 million dollars in the bank.
They got money from investors, the just drove themselves into a dead end and probably will not get more money soon.
You really think r/BlackPeopleTwitter is racist?
Absolutely, after all, it is called blackpeopletwitter, and not twitter. TIA is another sub that I bet will get the banhammer soon. I am almost surprised Pao hadn't kille dit.
What has TiA done that would warrant a banhammer?
"Screenshots of black people being hilarious on social media, it don't need to just be twitter but obviously that is best. Black culture has a unique way of examining the everyday and we are here to showcase that. You know this shit is funny so don't be a cunt and accuse people here of being racists. The people whose posts are featured here are the comedians, not the jokes. We're all black here so be cool and if I see one more gad dam post about black fathers skipping town y'all gonna catch these hands."
I suppose anything can be offensive if you want it to be.
It makes fun of black people on Twitter. If it was "shit Twitter says" you could make the case that it's not racist, however when it's a bunch of white kids posting black people saying stupid stuff on social media (ps the common denominator isn't even Twitter, it's blacks) then there's a racist element there. If I made a sub of Slav Twitter, and mocked stupid Russians on Twitter, it's anti Slav.
" The people whose posts are featured here are the comedians, not the jokes. " Like I said, you make it offensive. If there was a sub with black standup comedians like Dave Chappelle would it still be racist, like /r/blackpeoplestandup ? Can't I enjoy black (ebonic?) humor without being racist?
The difference is that a comic is clearly trying to be funny. Twitter users aren't always trying to be funny, and if you're laughing at something for saying something stupid, that's not the same as laughing with a guy who made a joke. You can enjoy any jokes you like, you just don't get to laugh at black people making comments on social media and pretend it's not racist.
You don't have to scratch too hard to find bigotry there. Ranked the tenth most bigoted sub, three slots ahead of /r/imgoingtohellforthis, even when a given post isn’t racist, the sub and the reason the sub exists is exactly racist. I suppose you don’t see what you don’t want to see.
I was surprised to see this morning that Snapzu now has an outpost of one of the more popular racist subs, /r/imgoingtohellforthis. Notable for rocketing patently offensive bigotry to the top of /r/all, you don’t have to turn over many rocks to see the bigots there scurrying for cover, either. How long before /t/imgoingtohellforthis metastasizes that way at Snapzu?
Racism isn't a disease. It's something people do, which is born out of ignorance. And since many, many people who post on the Internet are kids, you get many, many ignorant posts of all kinds. The response is not to drive them off the site or even silence them. That's not how you raise kids. When kids do something wrong you patiently chastise them or, if they are someone else's kids, you ignore them as long as they are not bothering you. Racism on the Internet is annoying, but trying to stop it is a fool's errand. Attention is exactly what bigots and trolls want. It helps validate their world view. When you stop paying attention, they eventually run out of gas and reevaluate their own world view. Hopefully, they give up their foolish ways. Most do.
Wow, that caught me off guard. While I had filtered that site while visiting reddit because the jokes made were usually in bad taste (I feel there is a way to achieve the goal of the sub while staying within taste), to see such atrocious behaviour encouraged is quite disheartening.
Hopefully we as the community can prevent that from happening, though the nature of the jokes that belong in that sub have a tendency of easily drifting in a rather unfortunate direction.
While I agree with you on principle, I'm not sure simply chastising or ignoring them is sufficient if the friendly atmosphere is to maintained. Chastising will work as long as it's done sufficiently diligently by enough people. Ignoring probably won't work as well, as I believe there will then be a tendency of such behaviour to spread and possibly start affecting unrelated content.
While it may not be something we achieve within our lifetimes, I do believe trying to stop it from happening is still valuable. If it isn't challenged, people might leave with the mistaken impression it's acceptable. Though how you challenge it is as important as challenging it. Merely starting a yelling match doesn't change anything, and as you said, would probably only strengthen their resolve. Though I agree with you in a sense, there are cases where ignoring is the right thing to do, as not having one's statement validated or challenged can be powerful as well. So I guess the takeaway is, approach things case-by-case?
Well I read you link on the most bigoted sub and while it is an intriguing approach to ranking subs there are obvious flaws in the system. As I understood it, a comment like "fuck you" would be considered offensive and therefore place the sub higher, but where is the racist factor, I might have misunderstood the method as English is not my first language but it doesnät seem to rank racism just generally rude behaviour?
You not being able to see racism on a sub meant for racist jokes is probably not to do with whether English is your first language.
Nor is it likely because of a flaw you've found in other people's understanding of what bigotry is.
Maybe before you disprove the existence of racism completely, let’s see if you can use those critical thinking skills to think of a reason you might not be able to perceive racism.
Well, the metric for defining toxicity wasn't exclusively about bigotry, it also included attacks against individuals. But the article does state:
when making their definition of toxicity. So racism/bigotry is a factor in that ranking, but not the sole metric.
I never attempted to disprove the concept of racism, I'm quite certain there is racism in the world. There is probably racism on Reddit as well, maybe some users post racist comments on /r/blackpeopletwitter but that shouldn't mean the entire subreddit is Racist, much like one racist user on snapzu shouldn't make it racist. The reason I brought up my English skills or lack there of is because the only substantial evidence of whether or not /r/blackpeopletwitter is racist or not was the sub ranking site whos method seem to contain but not exclusively measure racist comments. The only other complaint seems to be that the subs name contains black and/or black people which in and of itself should not be considered racist.
No, we're not talking about the equivalent of staying outside til past dinnertime, or failing to put your toys away. These aren't kids, they're bullies. The way you deal with bullies is not to ignore them, you must confront them at some point. Ignoring them as you suggest is being beaten. No, the helpless strategy you suggest is learned passivity. It will not starve the fires, it allows them to flourish. Bigots don't give up if you let them fester long enough. Fight back or run.
That article describes TumblrInAction as a bigoted sub... TiA is a sub that's pro-equality, transgender rights, LGBT rights which a demographic of relatively poor and left-leaning people of both genders. So I question their standard for bigotry.
I would suggest that you don't understand bigots. Bigots are lazy, ignorant people and they need your constant validation to continue their world view. They crave attention. The KKK doesn't hold parades because they think people will welcome them. They know they're going to be shouted at. They thrive in that hostile environment and feed off of it. It's how they gain recruits for their imaginary "fight". If no one showed up or if they were ignored, it would simply look and sound pathetic. And they would all slink away to wonder why they bothered.
Well, yeah, sure, in an ideal world. But we're talking the Internet here. It's a place where just as soon as you're shouting down a bigot or even just arguing over some political point, someone on the opposite end of the spectrum jumps into your conversation and goes at you the other way too hard. It's emotion vs. logic and a lot of people argue with emotion. Then someone reacts with emotion and then someone tries to apply logic and then others, well, they like to stir the pot.
Racism is just a bunch of words. And if those of us that know and understand racism understand this, then we know we cannot be hurt by these words. But we have to be able to remove the emotion of the words to judge them. You look at YouTube comments and you see all the terrible things there. Half the time, it's some kid just trying to shock you or start an argument. He's not a guy in a hood. And while he'll probably grow up to be an ignorant dumbass, punishing won't work. He'll just move to another part of the Internet and do it again. Getting emotional won't work, since that's exactly what he wants. Quietly deleting his posts might work, as he's probably as lazy as he is ignorant. And he'll eventually realize that he'll have to be more clever to get a rise out of the Internet.
Quite frankly, most of the Internet is so full of unimportant nonsense, most websites aren't the places to attempt to make meaningful changes in race relations or in bigots' mindsets. But it is a place where free speech should be allowed. Because if everything is allowed, you quickly see what's popular, what's good and what's god awful. And I am confident that bigots will have to work extra hard deluding themselves if everything is allowed. If some things are not, then they can tell themselves, "Well, all the stuff I believe is just getting censored or else there'd be more."
Reddit users ignoring /r/imgoingtohellforthis has yet to work as a strategy for boring bigots into slinking away quietly. They can get the attention they want from each other. The flavor of bigot you're describing might be more likely to be a Stormfront user than a redditor, but even then, I think you may be underestimating how much of outwardly bigoted behavior comes down to opportunistic bullying, and overestimating the effectiveness of simply passively enduring until the bully gets tired. As much as an anvil will wear out many a hammer, hammers are produced much more frequently than anvils.
True, the Internet might not always be a nice place, but I'd like to think there's value in attempting to keep our little corner of it nice. And while we may not get through to everyone, isn't getting even one person to question their ways in this matter a good thing?
It may be just a bunch of words while we stay on the Internet, but if people continue applying such beliefs while out in the world it may end up harming someone, overtly (e.g. actually committing hate crimes) or more discreetly (e.g. preventing career advancement). While hopefully your hypothesis that it's usually just someone who hasn't had the time to learn yet or is just out to get a rise is correct, surely the former might be reachable through some calm words?
While this may very well be correct, as said, if we do manage to get through to even one person doesn't it end up being a positive thing?
True, the change might not end up being meaningful, but hopefully they may end up being a small net positive. And do remember, I didn't advocate removing their speech (i.e. moderator action), I suggested challenging their views. Though as you said it may lead to an emotional flurry of words, hopefully some calm reasoning may also lead some to challenge themselves and their views.
We may not get through a 100% of the time, and if it ends up being something that happens daily, I do see that it will probably become too exhausting to deal with. Hopefully though, it'll be rare enough that it won't be daily occurrence, and maybe we'll get through to some. If so, I do think it may be worth it.
Are you really going to equate the hardcore NeoNazis with some kid who wants to get rise out of you on Reddit by posting something in that subreddit? You're letting your emotion get the better of you. Of course the bigots are going to prop each other up. That's all they have! But I wouldn't call r/imgoingtohellforthis a bigot-only subreddit. I think you're overstating the threat tremendously. And just like the U.S. overstated the threat with groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, you continue to overstate the threat at a stupid, pointless subreddit like that. Who cares what they say? It's about a relevant as what gets said in r/funny. It's stupid Internet chatter. Did you really expect a subreddit called r/imgoingtohellforthis to be full of nurturing, supporting wisdom for everyone? Shock value is exactly the point of that subreddit. You confuse being passive with being a grown up. When some kid yells something at me on the street, my immediate thought isn't to rally the world against that kid and drag him in front of the court of public opinion so I might make sure that all his thoughts conform to mine. My immediate thought is, ignore it. Words are not actions. And you're not going to teach anyone anything by responding to perceived threats on r/imgoingtohellforthis. You're just going to look like an overcompensating old person that's too sensitive for the Internet. You cannot expect to go through life covered by an invisible forcefield that will protect you for all the bad words.
"isn't getting even one person to question their ways in this matter a good thing?"
Lead by example, not through punishment and self-righteous reaction, I say.
"but if people continue applying such beliefs while out in the world it may end up harming someone"
Words are not actions. Unless you're planning to build the Offices of Pre-crime, people are allowed to say what they want.
"actually committing hate crimes"
Crimes are crimes. Applying adverbs to them doesn't make them any more or less terrible. Hate crime legislation is the natural extension of people who delude themselves into thinking they can get everyone to think the same. And if validates the world view of bigots that certain groups of people need special protection. I'm all for calm words, if they are calm, but choose your battles. Someone suggested r/imgoingtohellforthis as one of those battles. I say, that's the wrong horse to bet on.
"if we do manage to get through to even one person doesn't it end up being a positive thing?"
If you end up validating the world view of dozens of bigots, then no. I've been on the Internet since it's inception and someone changing their opinion on it is an extremely rare thing indeed.
Yeah, I think calm reasoning can work. But be prepared and patient. You have to turn the other cheek even when it does not. That's something few people hiding behind an avatar can do.
Agreed, if the situation can be resolved calmly all the better.
Agreed, people are allowed to say what they want.
Agreed on the crimes are crimes. I used the adverb merely to indicate that behaviour displayed online may (doesn't necessarily, nor should it assumed does, but may) continue on in real life with more severe consequences in this case and to not accidentally indicate that being racist online may lead to other criminal activities offline. :)
I actually mostly agree with the whole hate crime legislation point though. There should probably be good enough legal protections anyway so that specific protection isn't necessary. It just may be a easier stop-gap to reach in situations where that isn't true.
True, guess it all again comes down to approach.
Hopefully I'm good at that then & able to recognise the times I'm not so I don't engage. Or, well, I think I've got the patience down, preparation I'm less sure about.
Good luck!
Thanks! Hopefully it ends well and not in insanity. :)
If you're going to do that, I'm not sure Red Lantern is an appropriate avatar! :)
Oh, Red Lantern isn't my avatar, just the author of the snap we've been discussing in. :) I'm repping Zerg. :D
Speaking up hardly seems like emotional hysterics to me, more like having the courage of conviction. That’s not me being too old for the Internet. Bigots are like mosquitos. Neither survives in the main channel of a swiftly flowing river. They keep to backwaters, need isolated little ponds, and reproduce where they're not interfered with. Given the choice to fight or run, you suggest running every time. The strategy you're calling ‘ignoring’ and I’m calling ‘learned passivity’ strikes me as being too broadminded to take your own side in an argument.
Sorry. Still getting used to this site!
The way you position things so dramatically suggests to me that you're too emotional to confront these people without being suckered into a fight. You want to cruise for trolls, that's your business. I refuse to feed them anymore.