jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
0 points (47% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password
Only approved users may post in this community.

HateSubredditOfTheDay

subscribeunsubscribe768 readers
~3 users here now
Welcome to /r/HateSubredditOfTheDay, the better alternative to /r/subredditoftheday. The difference being we actually admit the subreddits we're featuring are hate subs.
To submit a post critiquing a hate sub, message the moderators so we we can add you to /r/MetaHateSubOfTheDay. Assuming it's a decent critique of a hate sub, we'll add you as an approved submitter and set a day for you to post it as the featured Hate Subreddit of the Day.
You can submit a hate sub that's already been featured, as long as your post attacks it from a different angle.

Dates for Featured Hate Subreddits

Date Hate Subreddit
2016-04-26 /r/The_Donald
2016-04-28 /r/european
2016-04-29 /r/BlackCrimeMatters
2016-05-03 /r/SubredditOfTheDay
2016-05-03 /r/The_Donald - Homophobia

Commenting rules

I: No bigotry
No hate speech or bigotry will be tolerated. You may have legitimate discussions and debate, but absolutely no use of slurs or dog whistles.
As a guideline, please also refrain from unconscious ableism, sexism, transphobia, etc. Moderators have discretion to warn or ban users at will for violations.
If your posting history contains reactionary/bigoted comments, you will come under higher scrutiny.
II: No brigading
If you arrive here from a link in a sub that brigades, you will be banned.
III: No concern trolling
Discussion and debate to a reasonable degree is fine. What is not fine is constant JAQing off. Also, if you are going to debate, stay civil.
IV: No shitposting
"Lel triggered"
"somebody call the waahmbulance"
"Just cuz someone disagrees doesn't make them a hate group"
This is shitposting. Don't do it.
Use trigger warnings like this for questionable or NSFW content:
[something graphic and violent](#tw)
becomes
created by emma-_______a community for
message the moderators

MODERATORS

0
0
0
submitted by Minn-ee-sottaaMarx, Lenin, and revolution. Real girls' talk.[M]
So, understandably, many of you were upset by the TumblrInAction post. I want to apologize for my own actions that were criticized as tone policing, and I want to make it clear that it was never my intent to lend credence to a hate sub like that. Feedback is welcomed, going forward.
all 64 comments
[–]TheHat2Mod: TiA, SJiA, former KiA 31 points32 points33 points  (14 children)
So, I'm a little bit confused as to what happened. I'm fine with our views being criticized and us having to respond to them, which I felt like the thread was accomplishing. But then there was this comment:
This whole post makes no sense, it's not even highlighting shit from TiA or explaining how TiA is bad, it's literally just giving their mods a platform to spew their talking points.
Is that really what was happening? Was the post meant to showcase how terrible we were, or how we addressed criticism of the sub?
And then this:
I had no intention of this being a 'neutral' AMA type post, I said they needed to be aggressive in their interview and call out all their bullshit.
I mean, if you want to drill me with hard questions, be my guest, I'm cool with it. But I'd prefer that be clear from the outset. We were under the impression that we could answer some questions in the thread and there would be strict moderation, but it felt like a couple of people wanted things to go differently. If there was some disagreement over how it was meant to be handled, I can understand.
But again, if you want to call TiA out on its bullshit and demand we answer to criticisms, go for it. Again, I'm okay with answering the tough questions.
[–]zahlman 16 points17 points18 points  (0 children)
Was the post meant to showcase how terrible we were
I mean, look at the premise of this subreddit.
[–]TomatoHereevil anti-white sjw cuck[M] -35 points-34 points-33 points  (12 children)
We gave the TiA mods a platform for spreading their hate.
[–]Reddisaurusrekts 17 points18 points19 points  (0 children)
What? You had an AMA - an interview. If you didn't want to know what they thought, why are you asking questions?
[–]meatpuppet79 32 points33 points34 points  (0 children)
What hate? The mods seemed entirely civil, and so did you, more or less, up till this point.
[–]zahlman 25 points26 points27 points  (0 children)
What hate would that be, exactly? In particular, are you attributing hatred to the mods specifically, or to the subreddit?
[–]TheHat2Mod: TiA, SJiA, former KiA 25 points26 points27 points  (0 children)
How so?
[–][deleted]  (4 children)
[removed]
    [–]TomatoHereevil anti-white sjw cuck[M] -12 points-11 points-10 points  (3 children)
    Removed.
    I just wanted to censor you.
    [–][deleted]  (2 children)
    [removed]
      [–]TomatoHereevil anti-white sjw cuck[M] -15 points-14 points-13 points  (1 child)
      Go back and circlejerk in /r/european.
      [–]GammaKing 32 points33 points34 points  (19 children)
      Hi folks,
      I noticed you locked that AMA thread. I just wanted to take a moment to thank /u/Minn-ee-sottaa for being so level-headed and keeping things at least somewhat productive. We appreciate it. A couple of comments I'd like to deal with:
      Not only did you say okay, but then you're all over this thread reprimanding your subscribers for being uncivil to these reactionaries, and licking the boots of said reactionaries by apologizing to them for your subscribers' oh so uncivil conduct. Disgusting.
      There is no difference between this post and the SubredditOfTheDay post on TRP that talked about the ""perception"" of TRP being misogynistic. The faux-journalistic tone of that post was so absurd that I had assumed it was part of why this sub was created. But now you have this post talking about TiA's "occasional negative portrayal of some social justice movements"! With this sub's mods all over the thread openly tone policing their own subscribers. Unreal.
      This is exactly the kind of attitude that makes your userbase look like a hateful joke. I think it demonstrates very well the issues I raised over how these guys don't want to engage and are more interested in hurling abuse. "This interview didn't support the narrative I wanted it to, and you shouldn't want us to be nice to these guests" seems to miss the point of something like that. Hell, I'd even call that the sort of behaviour you'd expect from a hate sub.
      Yeah, this thread went to shit, and is a pretty good example of the type of post that convinced me to make this subreddit in the first place. I had no intention of this being a 'neutral' AMA type post, I said they needed to be aggressive in their interview and call out all their bullshit. Apparently, the TiA mods said they'd only do the interview this way, and the submitter naively assumed that getting the interview was more important than the format.
      To clear this up: we were asked to do an AMA by one of your users. I've made it very clear that if your users want a discussion they're welcome to it, but that if it were merely shit-throwing it'd be a waste of everyone's time. Your problem here isn't that the "interview" wasn't aggressive, it's that you didn't get the kind of "gotcha" responses to the bait questions we were sent. It doesn't support your political agenda and so you've dismissed it as a mistake. It's this kind of ridiculous, intellectually dishonest bullshit that's typical of /r/AgainstHateSubreddits. Can't consider for a minute that maybe, just maybe, TiA isn't a "hate subreddit" at all. So what you really mean is "the interview didn't give me the results I wanted", and hopefully someday you might realise that this is a flaw in your own ideology, not ours.
      So again, thanks to Minn-ee-sottaa, but it seems the community here just can't step outside their echo chamber enough to actually make progress in the world.
      [–]zahlman 20 points21 points22 points  (3 children)
      it's that you didn't get the kind of "gotcha" responses to the bait questions we were sent. It doesn't support your political agenda and so you've dismissed it as a mistake.
      To be honest, what they were asking mostly didn't strike me as "gotcha", so much as genuinely deluded as to what you and the rest of the TIA mod team (and the rest of TIA) are really about.
      [–]GammaKing 16 points17 points18 points  (1 child)
      Sorry, I misinterpreted this at first.
      We're under no illusion that the original questions we were sent weren't an attempt to get us to say something that could be called "hateful". When our answers didn't fit the story these guys wanted to tell an AMA was suggested. That didn't work either and so here we are with a "why did you let them speak at all?" attitude.
      [–]zahlman 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
      Ah, I hadn't realized there were "original questions". Maybe just not paying attention.
      [–]TomatoHereevil anti-white sjw cuck comment score below threshold-8 points-7 points-6 points  (13 children)
      Your argument is based on the false premise that we think that everything that does not agree with our view is a hate subreddit. It's not! Hate speech is what makes a hate subreddit.
      [–]GammaKing 18 points19 points20 points  (4 children)
      The list of supposed hate subreddits recommended by /r/AgainstHateSubreddits strongly suggests otherwise, as I've explained elsewhere in this sub.
      [–]bryoneill11 10 points11 points12 points  (0 children)
      I thought it was a list of the best subreddits on Reddit.
      [–][deleted]  (2 children)
      [deleted]
        [–][deleted]  (1 child)
        [removed]
          [–]Reddisaurusrekts 8 points9 points10 points  (7 children)
          It's not! Hate speech is what makes a hate subreddit.
          *And hate speech is what we define as hate speech.
          [–]TomatoHereevil anti-white sjw cuck 0 points1 point2 points  (6 children)
          No, it's not. It is defined as:
          Hate speech, outside the law, is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.
          [–]Reddisaurusrekts 8 points9 points10 points  (5 children)
          You left out the next paragraph:
          In the law of some countries, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
          Emphasis added.
          It's not just insults against a group. That'd be ridiculous, if mere insults were somehow disallowed or restricted.
          [–]TomatoHereevil anti-white sjw cuck 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
          Stop cherrypicking.
          In the law of some countries
          [–]Reddisaurusrekts 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          Yes, and in the law of other countries, "hate speech" isn't a crime at all.
          [–]WippyM 8 points9 points10 points  (2 children)
          Considering that you left out the next paragraph in the first place, that's rich coming from you.
          [–]TomatoHereevil anti-white sjw cuck -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
          Sorry, I'll remember to post the whole fucking article next time.
          [–]WippyM 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
          Oh, it was nothing to do with omitting the entire webpage, but rather the next paragraph in the webpage which contained critical information.
          Furthermore, if you Google "hate speech", the Wikipedia entry highlights the same paragraph that you're claiming to be cherrypicking in the first place.
          [–]EssJayDoubleYew 15 points16 points17 points  (0 children)
          Honestly I feel like what you were saying was perfectly fine. I firmly reject the ideas of tone policing and whatnot but situationally I could clearly see why it served a purpose in that thread. The TiA mods were acting civil and answering everything honestly so I don't see why they shouldn't have been afforded a little respect.
          Hell, the thread even offered an opportunity to show the mods the errors in their perspective. People who just wanted to hurl half-baked insults at them only undermined that opportunity and potentially damaged any chance of winning them over to our side of things.
          Maybe removing the posts was too far? I don't know. I think some people have a point on the tone policing but you also had a point that it was a discussion thread and respectful discourse was kind of necessitated by that fact. It even says 'Also, if you are going to debate, stay civil.' in the bloody sidebar.
          I don't think an apology was necessary here at all.
          [–]LuisN 7 points8 points9 points  (9 children)
          What actions, exactly?
          [–]Minn-ee-sottaaMarx, Lenin, and revolution. Real girls' talk.[S] comment score below threshold-10 points-9 points-8 points  (8 children)
          Telling people to keep it civil and general tone policing. I realize now what I was doing.
          [–]zahlman 36 points37 points38 points  (0 children)
          Telling people to keep it civil
          ... So you don't think that moderators should tell subscribers of a subreddit to keep discussion civil?
          Even when the sidebar rules explicitly state "Also, if you are going to debate, stay civil."?
          [–]LuisN 5 points6 points7 points  (5 children)
          Okay, you were tone-policing people who were criticizing /r/tia by attacking them. I don't think that gives credence to them, it actually just prevents the subreddit from becoming like them, imo.
          [–]Minn-ee-sottaaMarx, Lenin, and revolution. Real girls' talk.[S] comment score below threshold-8 points-7 points-6 points  (4 children)
          Okay, that's fair. Just received some criticism from SRS mods and thought they brought up valid points about how reactionaries can't be coddled.
          [–]1428073609 14 points15 points16 points  (1 child)
          You can look in my post history, I'm exactly the kind of person that posts on subreddits that would show up here.
          But that AMA was so levelheaded and actually balanced that I subscribed.
          If you're going to call people who don't think like you "reactionaries" and say you can't "coddle" them when all you're doing is affording people with different opinions a little respect... please tell me and I'll unsubscribe.
          It saddens me to see such an about-face when in the other thread you got someone you call a "reactionary" to reconsider their stance on trans* people and mental illness.
          I'm not going to ask you to reconsider, because it's not up to me. But that was such an uncannily high-quality conversation from both sides that anyone, even people you think are hateful and immutable, would bother listening.
          Best of luck with your new sub! Hope you have a great time.
          [–]Fiery1Phoenix 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          It looks like they will do that as well.
          [–]Reddisaurusrekts 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
          Just received some criticism from SRS mods
          If you're taking tips from SRS mods...
          [–]JohnP93 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
          Shit man I like SRS too but I'm not gonna bend over backwards for the mods if they think I'm not being "SJW-y" enough. You did you and it (mostly) worked out. I enjoyed the discourse.
          [–]xmrsmoothx 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          I think it was a decent and easy to swallow assessment of one of the more assailable "hate" subs. I would have appreciated a bit of a harder line of questioning, i.e. "why do you tolerate [X shit] in your sub" rather than just a soapbox.
          [–]LadyEffington comment score below threshold-8 points-7 points-6 points  (4 children)
          I want to throw a suggestion out there, no one has to listen to it.
          I feel like the HSOTD posts would be better off if they researched and highlighted how shitty the subreddit in question is without interviewing the mods. But maybe allow them to come in here and complain about it so we can make fun of them I dunno
          Edit: Because it seems to me that the way this is being executed isn't that much different from the non hate subreddit of the day method....But I am not really that well acquainted with that sub so maybe disregard everything I said!
          [–][deleted]  (3 children)
          [removed]
            [–]LadyEffington comment score below threshold-8 points-7 points-6 points  (2 children)
            So basically I wasn't talking to you.
            [–][deleted]  (1 child)
            [removed]
              [–]LadyEffington comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points  (0 children)
              [–]var_daen comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points  (4 children)
              Are the more harmful hate subreddits going to be given a platform too?
              [–]IntrepidVector 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
              Yeah, it feels like the most recent post was trying to be something different than the premise of the sub. Like, interviewing the mods doesn't quite fit the idea of documenting hate subreddits.
              [–]Minn-ee-sottaaMarx, Lenin, and revolution. Real girls' talk.[S] comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points  (2 children)
              Not at all.
              [–]var_daen comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points  (1 child)
              Why were they invited at all?
              [–]Minn-ee-sottaaMarx, Lenin, and revolution. Real girls' talk.[S] -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
              Someone else currently on the mod team had already done it all and I didn't see at the moment a good reason to say no.
              [–]tatsmazzers comment score below threshold-20 points-19 points-18 points  (7 children)
              That was horrible and honestly what I really want now is an actual writeup for TiA.
              Because that's another key feature here that people used to echo-chamber subs don't understand: We don't moderate for opinion. As per our rules, you can express practically any idea you like provided that it's expressed civilly and with respect towards others. The community are pretty good at downvoting the more stupid opinions, and we mods leave them up because it's good to let people debate things out and expose bullshit for what it is.
              I don't want to have to explain that this is ableist. I don't want to have to explain that you can't express a bigoted idea respectfully.
              Ugh.
              Edit: the /r/drama brigade has arrived, but srs is the real brigade
              [–]Minn-ee-sottaaMarx, Lenin, and revolution. Real girls' talk.[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points  (5 children)
              And that's why I'm apologizing, and I appreciate the feedback. We are going to be working on a real writeup for TiA, if you want to contribute you're more than welcome to as well, just send us an invite.
              [–][deleted]  (4 children)
              [removed]
                [–]tatsmazzers comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points  (3 children)
                Have you read the posts here on /r/european, /r/the_donald or /r/blackcrimematters? Would you describe any of what was said as a smear? Any post on TiA will be to the same standard and will only feature upvoted comments and threads.
                [–][deleted]  (2 children)
                [removed]
                  [–]tatsmazzers comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points  (0 children)
                  The only thing left to turn to is cherry picking comments and trying to take issue with them, which in a sub hosting thousands of comments a day is rather meaningless.
                  Judging a sub on its moderators is at best incomplete so it's hardly a last resort.
                  I wouldn't describe the examples in the /r/the_donald post as cherry picked. They have thousands of upvotes.
                  Hiding behind 'there are loads of comments, it's meaningless' is silly when, if the user base is as you describe, you'd expect those comments to be ignored or downvoted instead of having tens or hundreds of upvotes.
                  Sadly I can't point you to the post for TiA because instead all we have is that embarrassing AMA.
                  Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2016 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
                  REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
                  π Rendered by PID 27003 on app-204 at 2016-05-12 17:32:20.133978+00:00 running 13a7af5 country code: NL.
                  Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
                  0%
                   
                  10%
                   
                  20%
                   
                  30%
                   
                  40%
                   
                  50%
                   
                  60%
                   
                  70%
                   
                  80%
                   
                  90%
                   
                  100%