0
1

Common Repost/r/atheism one of the most toxic subreddits? (self.atheism)

Skepticmrknowitall95 が 投稿

Just came across this article in /r/pcmasterrace, noting how their subreddit was "equally supportive as it was toxic." Read the article and discovered that using this dude, Bob Bell's, algorithm, /r/atheism is one of the most toxic and bigoted subreddits, apparently. Here is how they define bigotry:

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.

Here is screenshots of the graphs and link to the article:

http://imgur.com/a/f5rke

http://idibon.com/toxicity-in-reddit-communities-a-journey-to-the-darkest-depths-of-the-interwebs/

Personally I think it is 2 things causing this:

  1. "Anti-religion" being mistaken as bigotry. Theists seem to have a tough time separating themselves from their religion as we all know, and this study's definition of bigotry includes things that make members of a group feel uncomfortable which is a pretty bad definition if you ask me.

  2. The fact that there seems to be no shortage of preachers, apologists, etc. constantly making ignorant statements about science, atheism, secularism, politics, things in general, etc. and we talk about these people a lot.

Opinions?

全 35 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]Strong Atheistburf12345 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (7子コメント)

This was posted 6 days ago, and we actually went over the flaws of the algorithm, you can find the discussion here: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/2z1ij8/data_suggest_ratheism_one_of_the_most_toxic/

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

it's shit like this.lol jk

[–]Skepticmrknowitall95[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Aw damn... Didn't see that. :/ Should I remove this then?

[–]Strong Atheistburf12345 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Nah, it's fine, we can still discuss the article right here

EDIT: and the discussion will be more productive, as you're clearly not as obnoxious as the OP of the linked post

[–]Secular HumanistPillowbyte 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Burf, sometimes you can be so extremely nice I'm surprised there isn't a best friend button on your profile.

[–]Strong Atheistburf12345 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you, I do my best

[–]Skepticmrknowitall95[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I didn't read too much of this discussion, but it seemed like the guy was just posting it "just to let us know."

[–]Strong Atheistburf12345 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Guy was a total tool, he kept copying and pasting a few cookie cutter comments when they had nothing to do with the comment he replied to

[–]Anti-Theisttsingi 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Opinions?

We discuss bigotry here constantly. Because religion is extremely bigoted and we are against it.

That chart is an excellent example of the common misuse of statistics.

[–]Skepticmrknowitall95[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Like when some pastor says you should abuse kids till they love Jesus and there's people here saying "wow this guy is a total asshole", those comments would be seen as bigoted to this study.

[–]Strong Atheistburf12345 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I shall refer you to this comment I made about the algorithm

[–]Anti-Theisttsingi 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Last week I sent a message to payroll and got called on it by HR. Payroll is instituting an option of getting pay stubs electronically, but they are sending it through epost, Canada Post's Internet site. So what I said to payroll was that they should just send us a PDF of our paystubs, like everyone else does with my bills, and not involve Canada Post because Canada Post fucks everything up. Apparently in saying that I broke the company code of conduct and a complaint was registered. I guess I should have considered the content of my comments more carefully since the woman's name was Jean d'Arc xxx

[–]Anti-TheistGodisbull 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

We shouldn't give a shit about what happens on the other sides of reddit, as long as no trolls come. This place is pretty much self sufficient.

[–]Leann1L 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't.

I don't even care about most of what goes on in this subreddit.

[–]Skepticmrknowitall95[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We shouldn't give a shit about what happens on the other sides of reddit

Huh? You mean my reference to /r/pcmasterrace? I was just explaining how I found this article, there was no mention of this subreddit anywhere else.

[–]blaze8902 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Yeah they put us of SRS.

I myself was banned from that subject on another account because I said, and I quote, "Where's your evidence for that statement?"

My close friend was banned for saying "No, I've met similar people in real life."

So... Yeah...

[–]Skepticmrknowitall95[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

After hearing this stuff about SRS, I am really wanting to check it out just to see if all this checks out. Never been there before! Haha

[–]blaze8902 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Almost all of the stuff they post is something said as a joke. Sometimes the jokes are offensive, but imo more often than not they're just funny.

The real problem with SRS is that they don't keep to themselves. Their moderators try and moderate as many other subs as possible, including news subreddits.

Regardless of your political stance, someone with an affiliation as strong as "moderator" shouldn't also moderate the news. That's common sense.

[–]crusoe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sometimes SRS has valid examples. Most of the time its tumblr sjw's trying to earn victimhood credit.

[–]blaze8902 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Any large and vocal group, according to statistics, has to be right occasionally.

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

It's already been discussed in detail. Conclusion: Between trolls, the topics under discussion, and the methodologies of the study in making the ranking, there's not much to it;

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

  • the definitions are pretty arbitrary and seem to measure only a slither of relevant information
  • it doesn't take into account that top posts hit /r/all and a flood of non/r/atheism users come in, vote, comment
  • it doesn't measure context, tone or make a difference between normal comment text (like this) and a comment that contains quotes from others (and we all love to mention the really shitty quotes in some articles); also, doesn't measure jokes or in-jokes as they should be measured (the meaning they are convening to the user base)
  • it doesn't check /r/atheism/new where most of the support is, and, in general, /r/atheism is for atheists, not for theists; it's pretty hard to keep a place both as support group and as a public relations interface (the issue is very emotional for very good reasons), and the software didn't take that into account in any way
  • it takes into account the reddit tradition of hating on /r/atheism even if you have no idea what goes on in /r/atheism

So... B for general effort, F for naive attempt to survey something large and complex with poor tools.

[–]4ofN 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

woo hoo!

we're number 1!

we're number 1!

[–]Skepticmrknowitall95[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Actually only number 3 for bigotry. Sorry to rain on your parade. :(

[–]JimDixon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Toxic to whom? Some organisms evolve toxins to protect them from predators, while the organisms are immune to their own toxins.

Sometimes they deploy toxins only when attacked.

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

We could really get into some biology/infection analogies here

[–]JimDixon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That would be OK with me although I don't have much to say on the subject. My only point was: toxicity isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it helps a species survive. And it doesn't necessarily hurt the predator species, either; mainly it just forces them to look elsewhere for prey.

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

No that would be /r/poisons.

[–]Agnostic Atheistopenforum2011 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

If you google the definition of bigotry, read:

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

You gotta admit, /r/atheism fits the bill. Not that it's a bad thing in this context, since religious people can be just as bigoted, and in worse ways.

[–]Knight of newUnapologist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Intolerance of evil is instead this other thing called good.

I'm proud to be "bigoted" against rape, slavery, theft, murder, fraud, racism...

[–]Skepticmrknowitall95[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, in that case I don't even like the word bigot anymore. That definition implies in order to not be a bigot you have to tolerate all opinions equally. Its many people's opinion that facts are wrong (ahem, creationists), or that in order to properly raise children you need to degrade them all the time by telling them they are bad people (sinners) for no reason, or that infidels should be killed. These opinions should not be tolerated and intolerance toward such harmful views shouldn't be seen as "bigotry."

[–]lady_wildcat 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anti-gay people love calling supporters of equal rights bigots for not tolerating their hatred.

[–]hzane 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Further definition from Wikipedia:

Bigotry is a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.[1][2] Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin,gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.

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

The fact is though, its not because the opinions are different that we're against them, its because they're wrong. Religious beliefs often (almost all of the time actually) go against the facts, I don't think that fits the description of bigotry.

[–]michaelb65 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's nonsensical. You can put that into any context then, including being bigoted against ISIS.