全 102 件のコメント

[–]GibbsSamplePlatter 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've never encountered racism here, so I guess the downvotes are already doing their job.

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

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]writofassistance -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I think people are really missing the point of this thread. He is not talking about people having reasonable discussions about the merits of concealed carry in the inner city.

No we are talking about degenerative people (probabaly 14 year olds) who 1. Like guns and 2. Probably do not like a majority of the population in the United States. They are adding nothing to the conversation; it's just something that we all have to look at, downvote, and move on with our lives. The problem comes when we have the random person stopping by, the hippy who Wants to try out his first mosin, or that kid who is thinking of getting shotgun so he can try hunting with his friends and family. These people, a whole new generation of possibly gun owners, could decide that they do not want guns because they do not want to be grouped with the "gun culture". These idiots should not be tolerated for the sake of us as a group, not for the sake of this subreddit

[–]sanantoniobay 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

How many of the new possible new shooters listen to rap with lyrics consisting of 'nigga nigga nigga lemme pull dat trigga' or something along those lines? Your argument holds not a drop of water if this isnt brought into consideration. There are plenty of people well above the age of 14 that have opinions that you may not like, and there is a large chance those opinions were bred by experience. Life sucks and people say mean things. People do even worse things. Dont value pixels on a screen more than a persons actions.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

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

    I never doubted you.

    [–]brzcory 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm all against racism. I don't think anyone should be pre-judged by the color of their skin or traits that they cannot control.

    I DO however feel that the statistically validated stereotype of the "black inner-city teen gangbanger" shooting up a bunch of people is totally deserving of a shit-ton of hate. These gun owners idiots make us all look bad.

    Now, there's no doubt that part of that particular problem group is based in socioeconomic status and peer groups, but a big part of that lifestyle is the environment and culture in which they live and grow up in. An equally big part was the active decision they made to join a gang and partake in those activities which lead to violent crime.

    And I don't feel like reasonable conversation on the topic should be stifled.

    If we, as gun owners, want to keep our gun rights, it's in our best interests to not only villify this subset of GUN OWNERS, but actively campaign against such things. If we want the Brady bunch to quit talking about banning our handguns and CCW's, we need to do our part to combat gang violence and the sort of environment in which that occurs.

    So, if talking about the shit-tier black kids in south side Chicago killing each other is racist, then so be it. But when was the last time you went out with a group of Interrupters and tried to do something about it, to the benefit of not only society, and the idiot gang bangers, but also our gun rights?

    [–]seadriftstyle 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    We risk losing more popular support and we risk losing black advocates like Ice T who stand with us for gun rights.

    You are kidding, right? Welcome to the real world where people say shit you might not like. Also, you are scared of racists but worried about losing the support of IceT (have you listened to any of his pre Law And Order work?)

    Say what you want to say, downvote what you dont like. Remember mommy or a moderator wont always be there to censure what you dont like. Also sometimes facts hurt. Maybe you should be able to counter the facts rather than shouting for someone to be shut down by an authority.
    This whole thing reeks of vagina.

    [–]blackishknight -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Blacks love firearms, that's why they are responsible for 50% of all murders in the US

    [–]sanantoniobay 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Downvotes decide. People are entitled to an opinion, no matter how much it offends you. Consider that your opinion disturbs them just as much as you. You arent a special snowflake, people do say mean things sometimes. Guess what, its only words.

    [–]ObviousAlias45 16ポイント17ポイント  (13子コメント)

    The whole point of freedom is that it applies even when used in ways you don't like. Whether that's racists forced to deal with the fact that other ethnicities have the same 2nd amendment rights they do, or you dealing with racists having the same 1st amendment rights you do. Hopefully, wiser voices will drown them out. Is our position so weak that we need to silence them?

    [–]KnightsFan 7ポイント8ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Relevant XKCD for "Freedom of speech"

    And hate speech isn't OK. Hate speech is all about turning a human being into a lesser it. It's about degrading somebody until you see them as an animal, it's a cancer that infects society. It is not something we should ever put up with. Banning and silencing racists sends the message that it isn't OK, it isn't tolerated and it won't be allowed. It sends the message that they are wrong.

    And it sends that same message to others. Which is more important, if we want firearms to be widely embraced by Americans across demographic lines, we have to have a welcoming community. And racism is not part of a welcoming community.

    [–]thebobafettest3 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Jesus christ if I had a nickle for every time I see that stupid, incorrect cartoon I could buy a dragunov.

    Freedom of Speech =/= 1st amendment to the Constitution

    The idea, or ideal of free expression and speech is completely separate from the 1st amendment.

    A private party censoring a topic is, indeed, not violating the 1st amendment, they are violating the concept of free speech.

    And hate speech isn't OK

    uh huh. 'I support free speech BUUUUUUUT'

    It's a lot like 'I support the second amendment and the right to bear arms BUUUUUUUUUUT'

    aka, you don't.

    Free speech means you deal with the shit you don't like, and you can turn around and call it out.

    [–]ObviousAlias45 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Defining and policing "hate speech" as opposed to other forms of speech is first step toward yet another echo chamber type forum. Frankly, I'd rather have people who feel that way free to reveal themselves so I can spot them easily, rather than smoldering invisibly under the leaves like a temporarily suppressed wildfire. I have enough faith in my neighbors to believe they can handle some harsh language and think for themselves in evaluating the ideas behind it. If I didn't have that much faith in my neighbors, I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with them carrying guns.

    [–]KnightsFan -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Hate speech has a definition though, "Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits." (American Bar Association) And shouldn't be given the same respect as other opinions or facts. It does nothing good, it doesn't add to the conversation or culture.

    And you do understand that hate speech isn't harsh language? It's literally meant to tear a human being down in the minds of readers/listeners. It is dangerous, it's a cancer that harms everyone exposed to it.

    [–]NAVD 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    your argument has offended me, as my nation does not have free speech. Please stop.

    [–]ObviousAlias45 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It doesn't harm me. I'm a grown up and perfectly capable of shrugging off the noises made by the ignorant. Do I enjoy, for instance, the Westboro Baptists disrupting military funerals? No. Do I think they should be restrained from doing so? Nope. The most extreme, least popular, least sane positions in any argument are where the fight is. Suppressing them so that they are gathered in secret or pushing their agendas more subtly doesn't make them go away. I believe that I and my neighbors can evaluate and disregard their ideas for ourselves.

    Cultural values shift. There was a time when the "mainstream" of our culture would have been inclined to suppress anyone suggesting racial equality or denying that homosexuality was a disorder. Allowing unpopular voices to argue freely allowed the better arguments to shift our values. Unpopular speech should be a part of the discussion. Most of it is going to be ignorant or crazy, sure. That doesn't mean it should all be suppressed.

    If nothing else, making fun of the white-sheet crowd injects some humor into the discussion.

    If their ideas aren't allowed to be expressed, how are they going to be countered? If racism, sexism, homophobia, etc only exist in whispered conversations behind the scenes, how are they to be answered, disproved, exposed?

    Your argument that hate speech is unlike other speech reads to me exactly like an anti arguing that "assault weapons" aren't like other weapons because they're only meant to do whatever bad thing is the crisis of the day. Defending the extreme end of any right is where the fight is.

    [–]thebobafettest3 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    It does nothing good, it doesn't add to the conversation or culture.

    Neither do the majority of comments on this website guess they should be removed as well!

    It is dangerous, it's a cancer that harms everyone exposed to it.

    So is censorious authoritarian bullshit like you are proposing.

    Heres a tip- if you don't like what someone posts...ignore it?

    [–]ObviousAlias45 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    No, this isn't safe. Anything bad should be forbidden, and everything good should be mandatory. We must put bubble-wrap on all the sharp corners of the world, and everyone must be forbidden cigarettes and forced to wear helmets and seatbelts. Allowing grownups to make bad decisions is far too dangerous.

    /S.

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

    First sentence is true but the other whole point of freedom is freedom of association. The 1st amendment prevents government from locking you in a rape cage because they don't like what you are saying - it has nothing to do with kicking some random troll out of grandma's house during thanksgiving dinner for shouting "meat is murder" during the carving of the turkey.

    [–]ObviousAlias45 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I agree that enforcing rules in a private forum isn't regulated by the constitution, I just don't think suppressing unpopular ideas is desirable in creating the best discussion. I have faith in my neighbors' ability to evaluate and differentiate good vs bad ideas and to handle some harsh language without having a breakdown. I don't think we need to forcibly silence people. It seems more reasonable to me to just make fun of them a lot until they are too embarrassed to say stupid shit out loud.

    [–]indgosky 21ポイント22ポイント  (4子コメント)

    I've got $100 that says this perpetrator(s) (it might just be one person with multiple accounts) are ANTI-GUN assholes doing a {psyop / false flag / whatever you want to call it} to make us look bad to outsiders. Maybe even the juvenile asswipes from that other subreddit which likes to fuck with us and then cry that we attacked THEM.

    I'm not much for banning people or things, but in cases like this I have no patience left. I'm all for banning people who act and smell like harmful trolls, psyops, or whatever. Which these do.

    Problem is they'll keep coming back with new accounts. Just keep banning them, I guess.

    [–]Frostiken 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That one account that's three years old and never posted anywhere except here is suspicious as fuck.

    [–]Potss 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Agreed 100%. This happens ALL the time on many subs.

    Those that aren't outright brigaded have anti's sockpuppets post insane shit which is of coursed then used to "prove" the sub is racist or whatever the FOTM is.

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

    What evidence would you require to claim the $100?

    [–]drkwaters 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

    What makes Reddit great is the idea that you can form a community around a given interest, and that community will decide what is appropriate based on up or down voting content.

    What concerns myself and hopefully others is setting reactionary policies on our community that regulate open expression and thought. As active members of the firearm community, we routinely see reactionary policies being proposed by people who feel like they have the best intentions in mind. While I agree that these situations are not very comparable, the idea of this happening in our community is distasteful.

    While there is no guarantee that grants any of us the freedom of speech, I hope that all of us realize the inherent danger that comes with censorship. The majority of us disagree with the comments that were made today, which is evident by many of the downvoted comments in that thread.

    I implore the other members of the community who support these changes and the moderator to not give in to the few people who want to ruin this community. Let the community decide what comments should be seen by the current system available.

    The OP said that by allowing racism on this subreddit that we risk losing popular support, but doesn't it say more about who we are that when given the option, we as a community downvote these people? For those that are concerned and want to make these changes, I say to them that if we give us a chance, you'll find that most of us are reasonable, decent, and respectful people. Give us the opportunity to show that.

    [–]indgosky -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    The majority of us disagree with the comments that were made today, which is evident by many of the downvoted comments in that thread. ... The OP said that by allowing racism on this subreddit that we risk losing popular support, but doesn't it say more about who we are that when given the option, we as a community downvote these people?

    It should. But truths such as "we downvote racists" DO NOT MATTER one bit to people who are already "looking for excuses".

    If someone anti-gun comes in here, or is sent here by some SJW brigade, they WILL use the presence of such comments and usernames here, even if heavily downvoted by us, to cast aspersions on the whole community.

    This is simply how they operate. If you don't think so, you've not been watching the news much this summer, or the last couple of years.


    Letting the community deal with it, rather than mods and spam, would be great -- if only there were a site feature which allowed regular subreddit contributors having well-upvoted submissions to that subreddit, to wield some kind of "shitpost" button, and if enough of them agreed on a post or comment, that it would automatically be deleted, rather than just buried.

    [–]DisforDoga 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    If somebody is "looking for excuses" they won't support us anyways so we haven't lost a thing.

    [–]Phteven_j -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    "Squad"? You mean the one individual in charge who bans whoever he feels like? Right.

    One person coming here and trolling isn't a brigade. The sky ain't falling, Chicken Little.

    They will get it out of their system and move on. Just keep reporting and downvoting.

    [–]DocTorrFabulous -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's been more than one, but you're right, the mass of upvotes and "dindunuffin" isn't coming from outside brigaders.

    [–]rem87062597 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

    In this subreddit, we value Freedom of Speech as much as we value The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Political posts (left or right), image macros, stupid questions, fringe opinions, and low-quality images are welcome to be posted, but will be subject to the approval or disapproval of the community at large.

    I'm for following the first amendment on this, as the sidebar implies. If someone says something that would violate the first amendment, I'm all up for a ban. But the average racist idiot can just be as downvoted as heavily as they're downvoted by society. I think bans, even in the case of trolls, are against the principles of this subreddit (despite the banning of trolls also being in the sidebar). Tagging trolls and racist people is a good idea, but I can't really condone censorship in a sub that rose to popularity in reaction to /r/guns censorship.

    I know you're a good mod though, so if you do ban people just be good about it and I'm sure no one will complain.

    [–]flopsweater 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

    IP ban the one 14-year-old doing it.

    [–]Tarnsman4Life 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I am all for banning trolls but we need to keep a close eye on how this is done or before you know it people will be getting banned for going "He was a good boy an he aint never did nuffin"

    [–]DocTorrFabulous 8ポイント9ポイント  (16子コメント)

    Counterpoint: places like /r/guns and /r/firearms attract a certain amount of reactionaries, racists, and soft racists. They've always been here, and the internet-blackface subs like /r/gats are an outcropping of that, as is the not-infrequent use of slurs and "soft racism" like "thugs" in these subs.

    We have to accept that the pairing of gun rights, shooting sports, and the right wing/Republicans has lead to a lot of overlap with reactionaries, racists, and people who think The Donald is a reasonable advocate.

    I'm tempted to say it's just reddit as a whole, but you get this same stuff in analogue spaces like gun shows too. If we're going to start censuring racism, it'd be nice to do the same for misogyny and homophobia too. Maybe even bring pro-gun spaces into this century and break away from the neoreactionaries and regressive social ideas.

    [–]that1guypdx 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

    "thugs"

    Thugs gonna thug. Period. Skin color is not a factor in whether you're a thug.

    If we are to ever, ever, ever have a truly intelligent conversation about race, some among us must refuse to rise to such bullshit bait as "thug = thinly veiled way to say 'n-word'."

    In case you slept through this in high school or college: correlation is not causation. Many thugs are black, and many blacks are thugs. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.

    Dammit, words mean things.

    [–]indgosky 10ポイント11ポイント  (6子コメント)

    "soft racism" like "thugs"

    PC and SJW much?

    "Thugs" in no way implies race/color. Up through the 50s it was more often than not used to describe WHITE petty criminals and bullies. Today it still means petty criminals and bullies. "Racist" it is not, even the (holding nose to type it) "soft" kind.

    [–]Frostiken 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I can see how 'thug' can carry a racial connotation. However, I don't think it's severe enough to warrant the 'OMG RACISM' counterpoints. If your biggest issue with criminals being called 'thugs' is that you think it's racist, you're completely missing the fucking point.

    [–]DocTorrFabulous 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

    http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2015/05/biker_clubs_instead_of_thugs_this_is_how_racism_works.html

    When 'thug' is used, particularly in media, it's almost exclusively applied to black men.

    [–]TheShagg 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Correlation does not mean causation.

    [–]ObviousAlias45 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

    A thug is someone who takes by force. "Me bigger, me take". It is a sub-set of the larger set "thief", differentiated by methodology from, for instance, a "sneak-thief". The term "gang banger" may likewise become associated with some ethnicities vs others. The CAUSE of that ethnic association may be subject to some debate, but a thug is defined by what he does. If he beats people up to take their stuff, he's a thug, whether he's black, white, or green as Kermit the damned frog.

    I'm not going to stop calling a thug a thug for fear of offending him. I don't think that makes me a racist, "soft" or otherwise.

    [–]texinator9 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Don't bring Kermit into this.

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

    I dunno, in my mind, downvoting is the way to censure racists. Censoring is not. Now, I know it's pretty much just an analogy, because the Bill of Rights only applies to the government and not Reddit subgroups, but those of us who are pro-2nd Amendment hold pretty much all Amendments in high esteem, including the 1st. We shouldn't be afraid of such speech, we should bring it into the open so that we can shout it down. I would hope that there would be enough sane people here to downvote such posts into oblivion--there has to be, otherwise if you institute a ban, you won't get anyone posting! I would prefer that people be alerted to racists posts so that we can visit them, make up our own minds, and downvote them if deemed it's indicated.

    In some ways, banning speech because you don't like its message is not unlike banning an AR-15 because of the way it looks. It's a slippery slope. Banning speech in this way is what European countries do in an ill-starred attempt to "protect" people; it's a slippery slope, and before you know it, the authoritarians are banning everything left and right because they have a potential to be hurtful. Let's show the anti-gunners that we don't need a central authority to deal with racists--in true American form, we unite individually to protect those who should be protected.

    [–]Vittles_And_Libation 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I really like the /r/firearms community. You guys and /r/ccw are some of the most enlightened, level-headed and freedom-loving buncha people on this website.

    If somebody rustles my jimmies in another subreddit, I'd be quick to be impolite but with you guys I always show respect. Why? Because I know behind the computer is a responsible person who probably has a family she/he protects. I respect those who care for others, and support our sacred Constitution.

    So, with respect I will say that:

    1 -The dispersion of race-oriented posters is a natural and VERY predictable consequence of CT being banned. Anybody could have seen this coming. It was stupid to ban it, and this doesn't surprise me.

    2 - Uncomfortable though this may be, there are many people in America (mostly white, but some Asian or Hispanic) who have had so many negative encounters with a certain demographic that their opinions are staunchly anti-, well, anti-black or at least anti-ghetto-black. Whether or not you agree with them, their opinions and feelings are valid. As are yours. As are mine.

    I downvote things in this sub that paint gun owners in a bad light, and will continue to do so. But there are nuances to many subjects we could discuss. That said, I don't believe in threats or violence and there's a difference b/w saying "I hate ghetto people" and "let's kill a ghetto person."

    Alright, hope this contributes. Carry on

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

    Whether or not you agree with them, their opinions and feelings are valid.

    Valid? Even if we can identify a rational reason why a racist has come to their state of being, that doesn't make it worthy of consideration. There are places where they should be able to express them, in a therapist's office or to a member of their clergy for instance. Further, there are plenty of toxic shit holes already for those people to wallow in their ideology and allow it to fester further. There is no reason to give them additional platforms to espouse their propaganda.

    [–]Vittles_And_Libation 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

    your argument sounds good, except...

    have you seen /r/spacedicks ?

    what's horrible is totally subjective.

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

    Not sure if you're familiar with reddit since your account is so new (I'm guessing your other account get banned recently?) but individual subs frequently remove content of that is objectionable or irrelevant to their communities. For instance, the types of things that get posted to /r/spacedicks would get deleted from here. You see, civilized society (which based on your comment history you've got some pretty specific ideas about) has a vested interested in keeping out antisocial behavior, despite some lunatics' subjective belief that they're ok.

    [–]Peoples_Bropublic 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The banhammer should be brought down hard on them.

    [–]csmjr91090 35ポイント36ポイント  (2子コメント)

    How about downvoting and ignoring (do not engage) idiots?

    All this is going to create is a Streisand Effect and this shit will flood this place. Did anyone not browse the front page the day FPH got banned? There were swastikas everywhere.

    They're getting what they want: attention. Stop giving it to them.

    [–]DirtD4er 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This sub is up voting it though. I noticed it myself earlier.

    [–]DocTorrFabulous 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    shit will flood this place

    I mean, it's r/firearms. It's just the nature of the shit that will change.

    [–]of_the_brocean 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I am not necessarily for the barring of any speech and I say that as a minority. Does it piss me off? Hell yeah I hate motherfucking racist twat waffles. However, sometimes it is better to publicly humiliate those with insane ideologies. By making them ridiculous, we reduce their power. Just another possible solution. All aforementioned ideas aside, I like this community and will strive to follow any reasonable and just rule put forth.

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

    I don't want to limit anyone's free speech legally, but part of our right to freedom of expression is the right to exclude others from our community. They can start a community of their own based on guns and bigotry, but we don't have to let them use this sub as a platform.

    Normally this is something I would not want to do, but the gun community has to be careful about our message given some want to abolish our rights. Letting people go around proclaiming the start of a race war doesn't really help our case.

    [–]AMooseInAK 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Downvote and move along. It's how we police ourselves.

    [–]hydrogenous 8ポイント9ポイント  (23子コメント)

    Agreed wholeheartedly.

    One of the ideas that was put forth was to tag the users and threads. I could set up a bot so a handful of regular /r/firearms users can tag comments as they see them. No moderator required.

    Personally, I like to keep racists in the open. They deserve to be publicly shamed.

    On that same note, there could also be a special tag for trolls instead of banning them for 7 days like I have been doing. Spammers should still be banned, I think.

    [–]SpiveyArms 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Don't fuck around, don't give racists a place to try to pander and get reactions. Ban them

    [–]El_Seven 0ポイント1ポイント  (18子コメント)

    Permanent "Confirmed Troll" flair is a good solution. Better than a ban.

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

    I didn't like the tagging idea at first, but now that I think of it, it's not unlike The Scarlet Letter. And what or who could be more American than Nathaniel Hawthorne, and the story's theme? Let the community opprobrium do its work.

    The flip side is the theme of The Lottery by Shirley Jackson.

    [–]aristander[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm OK with tagging people. The ones in that thread should be first.