12
13

Drama from troll subreddits is banned? (self.MetaSubredditDrama)

optimalg が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]18andover -10 ポイント-9 ポイント  (47子コメント)

The reason for this is because both subs thrive on negative attention for their sub growth. They WANT you to link to them and talk to them, that's how they get new recruits SRD mods find the subs personally offensive.

Who cares whether they want to get linked or not. If it has butter on it, people will eat it. That's what SRD is for. But the mods don't like those subs and don't want to help them grow. So they ban them. It's textbook bigotry.

[–]ArchangelleDovakin 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (44子コメント)

The problem is that the get new recruits whenever they get linked to a high traffic sub, so linking them actually helps them.

[–]Hinmatoowyalahtqit 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly. r/CoonTown gained a few hundred subscribers after it was linked on /r/wowthissubexists and the thread literally blew up.

I'm actually somewhat wary about /r/AgainstTheChimpire, the subreddit I founded a month ago, being linked to SRD, because it might actually drive people to the Chimpire. r/CoonTown specifically says that one of the ways it advertises is having alt accounts that go to threads where people are being racist and post stuff like

Why are you so racist? It's not like this is /r/CoonTown!

But I'm not that scared of ATC being linked to SRD, given that r/CoonTown has been mentioned in many past SRD links and I think most people who have spent some time in the subreddit know what CT is.

[–]18andover -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (42子コメント)

Right. That's why they ban them. And that's bigotry. If they agreed with the views in those subs they would have no problem helping them grow. So this is them banning views they don't agree with.

[–]ArchangelleDovakin 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (41子コメント)

You do realize that's nowhere near the definition of bigotry, I hope.

[–]18andover -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (40子コメント)

big·ot·ry - intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

[–]Gauchokids 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (13子コメント)

0/10 trolling. Do better

[–]18andover -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (12子コメント)

The only one trolling here is you. Explain why I'm wrong or go suck your brothers dick again.

[–]Gauchokids 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (11子コメント)

The whole "You're the real bigot because you won't tolerate my bigotry" is literally the dumbest argument I've ever heard. You're probably 14, given your complete lack of any critical thinking skills and homophobia with a dash of weird incest fetish.

[–]18andover -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (10子コメント)

You are a bigot for being so intolerant of my views that your brain completely shuts down and the only response you can think of is to hurl insults at me.

[–]Gauchokids 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Oh no, your shitty views aren't being tolerated. How terrible.

[–]ArchangelleDovakin 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (25子コメント)

Bigotry is a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability,sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.

Not wanting to assist in someone else's bigotry does not rise to the level of bigotry itself.

[–]18andover -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (24子コメント)

Do you see the word 'or' in what you bolded? That means it can be any of those.

So let's remove the irrelevant words:

Bigotry is a state of mind where a person intolerantly dislikes people, ideas etc. Example: personal beliefs.

That's what I'm referring to when I say they are bigots.

The mods of SRD intolerantly dislike the ideas and beliefs of /r/transfags - as evidenced by them banning the sub from SRD because they think they are bigots.

P.S. Wikipedia should not be relied upon for exact definitions. It's written by non-experts who often word articles to suit their beliefs, twisting sources to fit them. However in this case it worked out ok.

Not wanting to assist in someone else's bigotry does not rise to the level of bigotry itself.

A black guy that hates white people and a white guy that hates black people are arguing in a bar. Which one of these is bigotry in your opinion:

A. the black guy saying he hates white people

B. the white guy saying he hates black people

C. the bartender who kicks only the white guy out because he doesn't allow racists in his bar.

D. the bartender who kicks only the black guy out because he is white and is offended.

E. all of the above

[–]ArchangelleDovakin 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (23子コメント)

Your analogy is irrelevant. There is nothing irrational, obstinate, or otherwise in not assisting bigots be bigots.

[–]Presentist 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's not as if this is the only reason not to link anyways. Circlejerk bigotry drama is just sour, and given the plenitude of material on those subs, I would worry about srd devolving into one big counterjerk.

[–]18andover -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's ostensibly a valid reason to ban the subs. However that's not the reason they are banned so it's irrelevant.

If a guy is a known child molester and the cops plant drugs on him and arrest him, their actions are not excusable because they got a child molester off the streets.

[–]18andover -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (20子コメント)

So you agree with everything else I said? Awesome, thanks for admitting you were wrong about that stuff. That takes character.

Your analogy is irrelevant.

Well, it proves my point. So I'd say it's somewhat relevant. But ok, let's ignore it. My argument is such a slam dunk I don't need to get hung up on minor details.

There is nothing irrational, obstinate, or otherwise in not assisting bigots be bigots.

You purposely left out intolerant. That's clever. It's still part of the definition though and the definition still includes the word 'or' so none of the words you listed are relevant because they are not what I was referring to.

Let's change the wording of what you just said using the definition of bigotry instead of the emotionally charged word of bigot:

There is nothing intolerant in not assisting those who are intolerant of other people or ideas, be intolerant of other people or ideas.

When they are not assisting them because they are intolerant of them or their ideas, yes that is exactly bigotry.

It requires intent. And I think that intent is clearly established by the SRD mods calling them bigots.

[–]ArchangelleDovakin 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (19子コメント)

When they are not assisting them because they are intolerant of them or their ideas, yes that is exactly bigotry.

This is the most asinine, childish definition of bigotry I've seen someone make, the entire point of which seems to be an attempt to force others to accept or even help you in spreading hate and bigotry in their own spaces.

You're arguing from a place of ignorance and have yet to accomplish anything but to prematurely congratulate yourself on a victory you never get any closer to attaining.

[–]shhhhquiet 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's artificial butter, loaded with preservatives.