1515
Reddit faces content quality concerns after its Great Mod Purge
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
1515 points (97.7% liked)
17444 readers
140 users here now
News and Discussions about Reddit
Welcome to !reddit. This is a community for all news and discussions about Reddit.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules
Rule 1- No brigading.
**You may not encourage brigading any communities or subreddits in any way. **
YSKs are about self-improvement on how to do things.
Rule 2- No illegal or NSFW or gore content.
**No illegal or NSFW or gore content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-Reddit posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
:::spoiler Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Imagine if you were to replace "white" with "black" or "asian" or "gay" in the text you quoted. Is it now a racist comment?
Those groups don't have privilege.
A black slave master is a tragity. "You came from our position, you know first hand our plights and were taken in by their games anyway." A normal person says .
Is he a "black betrayor" or a "betrayor of his own community"?
It feels verry wrong to say these things on racial lines about large groups rather than communal ones.
Same question, diffrent perspective. is he a "white ally" or a "born-again privlaged manager"?
Pff.. try being a white guy in Japan..
Sure is. But "White" is prejudice at worst, not racism. Racism includes the inherent power dynamics and systemic racism against minorities.
Yes, and racism is also a social hierarchy and systemic structure that utilizes tools of oppression to allow the in-group to have power and control over the out-group. Calling it prejudice alone is not acknowledging the full picture.
Oh my gosh, the closest thing to reasonable and you get a "consult your dictionary" comment.
Yeah, this thread has been fascinating. It's the most basic concept and people are wild'n out. My last comment at the bottom of this thing I think will summarize it well for anyone who reads through it all. I think the biggest concern is why people are so resistant to understanding the additional power/control and systemic shit within racism. I use "gravity" as an example, but when it comes to racism, these are people's lives. And I'd hate to think how invalidating it would make someone feel to hear this "no" and "check the dictionary" shit in a conversation outside of the Internet.
Lol mate, you're being willfully obtuse. As you already know, there is knowledge beyond the confines of the dictionary, and the dictionary is merely attempting to summarize a very complex subject. If you'd like to broaden your perspective, you can turn to the research which is where I'm pulling my definition. If you'd like to understand why it's so important to include those other things I mentioned in the definition, there's plenty of reading opportunities to explain that.
Yet dictionaries still exist, and their definitions don't become invalid just because you want to avoid criticism.
Ive heard gross iterations by others (even in this thread) of what @flamingarms said, he has a fairly reasonable take in comparison
Unfortunately they have to prove it, but won't be able to.. Because you know... They're wrong.
He may be wrong, just not tunnel visioned like a lot of other theorys. Its not purely intent to harm nor purely power/ability that defines racism. 2 or more sides of the same coin. Both aspects share the same word.
The dictionary is not a replacement for the social sciences, friend. It seems like you have a narrative in your head about why I am arguing this point, but I'd like to point out that your argument is currently standing on "but the dictionary though" in the face of decades of research.
Social sciences, and dictionaries are two seperate things. No one is arguing that dictionaries replace social sciences, what people are saying is the common definition still stands.
If you'll afford me a long comment, I have an example that I think will explain my confusion. If you check the Oxford dictionary, you'll see it define "gravity" as a force. Let's say someone says "gravity is a force" in a thread much like this. I and others clarify "well, it presents as a force in some respects, but very much not like one in others." People respond "No, it's a force." I clarify further how that's not entirely the case. "Check the dictionary." Yes, but the dictionary is just trying to summarize a very complex subject in physics and is not a replacement for the sciences. "No one is equating the dictionary and the sciences, but people still use the dictionary definition."
I understand that; indeed that's how this thread formed. What I don't understand is why, when I say that gravity is not entirely a force, it is met with a rejection of that clarification and nuance. Gravity is not entirely a force; it's way more complicated than that. Racism is not just prejudice; it's way more complicated than that. I'm confused why this is such an issue.
Except now you're telling me gravity only applies to people of colour.
And in your own analogy, you don't deny that gravity is a force. You don't deny that gravity makes things go down.
Racism as in racial prejudice is still a thing. No one has discovered some fundamental force that stops racial prejudice from being a thing. What you've done is started to view everything through class structures while denying racism can operate on an individual to individual level. That's not reality, that's just Marxism.
You're mixing the metaphor, mate. Gravity certainly behaves like a force in some ways and looks like a force in some ways, but also does not look or behave like a force. You have to peel away the surface level. Prejudice may look like prejudice going both between the in-group and the out-group. But an insult from one person to another is a very different thing when the person doing the insulting is armed with a gun. Now it's not just an insult, is it? Saying "that's an insult either way" doesn't really summarize the experience, does it? The person being insulted at the end of a gun is having a very different experience. It's not an insult anymore; it's a threat of violence, it's a threat of death, it's a threat of "I can and will take everything from you" with centuries of violence and systemic oppression to back it.
You're right that gravity is kind of a force. But it's also not, and that's very important to understand. Ya feel me? I'm not saying racism doesn't happen on an individual level; quite the opposite. I'm saying the systemic and social oppression cannot be extricated from the individual level. And that's why it's not the same thing for a white person as it is for a black or brown person, when those are the in-group vs out-group respectively.
I gotta say, mate, I happened to scroll up and see another comment you made, stating that "they need to prove it" but won't be able to "because they're wrong." I assume that's in reference to me. I engage in conversations like these with the intent of just that, having conversation, seeing if we can find some understanding, and being willing to be wrong about things. That comment makes me feel like I was the only one bringing that to this conversation, and you are simply engaging with it from a "I'm right" perspective without even a consideration that your perspective may not be entirely right. Am I reading that right?
This is a crazy idea, but how about we just call out racism as a whole instead of having arguments about how racism towards whites isn't racism.
Like holy fuck, you are wrong. You DID say racism doesn't happen on an individual level.
☝️☝️☝️ That's you! That's your initial comment in this discussion.
In all honesty you're better composed, and clearly smarter then me, but you're either disingenuous, or caught up in your own BS, because your position is wildly inconsistent. When you start saying things like "it's white prejuice at worst" that should be a sign to take a step back.
Anyways.. Soo um... I guess if you don't believe in the influence of actions on the individual level, you also don't believe in grass roots, or the civil rights movements over the past 100 years?
YOURE FUCKING RACIST. Cockroaches deserve to be exposed. You are lucky for how polite I've been, and that I've taken the time to help you stop being fucking racist. People like yourself are undoing the progress we've made as a society, because like every fucking other arrogant prick, you think you can balance the scales without any consideration for the greater implications.
Fuck totalitarians.You undermine the foundations of what it means to be human like every other dictator because you can't see past your own fucking goals.
I think you're scum. Straight up.
Also heads up.. trying to gatekeep the term systemic racism is systemically racist. Sooo.. Seems like you have no problem with the structures of racism when it's beneficial towards your goals.
And of course I have fucking doubts. Maybe Marxism is the way.. But I have zero faith.
For some reason, the mobile app I primarily use doesn't allow me to see this comment or our entire thread, so I had figured it was deleted or something. But I happen to be on desktop atm and here it is! Must've just been something with the app. I'll reply, but based on the vitriol in your comment, I think it makes sense that this be the end of our conversation anyway though.
In regards to your claim that I have said racism doesn't happen on an individual level, that is simply not true. It's possible I have not been explained my position clearly enough, but I am also running out of ways to explain it. Since our conversation is coming to a close, I think the best way to explain is for me to try and explain both our positions at once. Do let me know if I have misunderstood your position!
My position is that racism is the combination of prejudice, systemic oppression, and other social tools of oppression that work in tandem, which limits racism to being used as an in-group against and out-group and not the other way around. An in-group individual can be prejudiced against an out-group individual, and it is racist because of the social/systemic dynamics in play. An out-group individual can be prejudiced against an in-group individual, but it is not racist because it does not include social and systemic oppression. It's my example of "an insult is not just an insult when that person is holding a gun." My understanding is that you believe this erases the in-group people's experience of prejudice, and that that is racist, in and of itself. My position is that your definition equates the two experiences when they are actually very, very different and is deeply invalidating of the experience of an out-group person for you to equate them.
Hopefully at the very least in this conversation, we have reached some understanding of our two positions! We don't have to agree, of course, but I believe it's important that we have these conversations and seek understanding above all. That's why I was disappointed to see your comment that felt like you actually were not engaging with me with the goal of mutual understanding. If we all stand too firmly in our perspectives, we will never see others' and can't ever learn.
That gets to my last point actually. I don't consider myself lucky that you have been polite up until this point; I consider respect the expectation. That's why I think our discussion should end at this point. When conflict turns to insults and hateful speech, we are no longer in healthy conflict; we are now just in a fight and not working towards understanding or resolution. It's funny because we both basically have the same position, if my summary of our positions above is correct; we're just on opposite sides. You think I'm invalidating certain experiences by excluding them; I think you're invalidating certain experiences by including them. So since you think that I am scum, a cockroach, etc., I expect that you believe I should think the same of you. But I don't. It's clear that care a lot about this issue, enough to spend time with a stranger discussing it to share your perspective. I appreciate you sharing your perspective on this, and I don't think you should sell yourself short on your intelligence, mate.
Thanks again for the conversation up until the insults, and take care of you!
If an out of group individual is racially prejuice towards an in-group individual.. They are being racist by definition. They are being racially prejudice. They are making judgements of another based on race. That fits the most clear cut definition of racism.
You are a bigiot. That's the choice you've made. Your attempts at justification by diverting to sociological discussions doesn't change this. At all.
Also you're wrong from a sociological perspective.. Because you know there's something called intersectionality. That minorities races actually can, and do have power, and privilege, and that white people can be oppressed. You know this, so why are you bullshitting me right now?
Because you're a bigiot.
✌️
One of these is oppression, the other is not.
They're Frodo Douche Baggins. Not much point in feeding them.
I don't know who that is; first time talking with them as far as I know. I don't mind engaging with someone until they seem disingenuous; but yeah, that's where I've reached with that person. A short reply of "check the dictionary" is not the sign of someone wanting actual conversation. Guessing you've had a similar run-in with them.
It's more than that, though.
Racism is my favorate word in any spelling bee because of this. So simple its easy to remember. Especially in comparison to 10 letter words.
Its about power, completely devoid of racial lines. It matters If you are given the privlage and act apon convincing yourself of lies. It also matters if you chase power at all costs.
If it doesn't involve oppression of a minority race by an in-power race, it's not racism. Might be prejudism, not racism though. Racism involves a power imbalance that treats as inferior a minority.
No. It is not systemic or institutionalized racism. That does not mean it's not racism. If you hate all white people for no reason you're just as racist as someone who hates all black people for no reason. I wish we would stop conflating the two and pretending they are the same. Either you strive for equity and equality (meaning no one is out here saying any race is doing X Because they're that race) the world would be a better place, or you create an argument where there shouldn't be one to validate your own racism and or bias.
You're talking about the Marxist definition of racism, aka systemic racism. OP is talking about the common definition of racism, as in to judge based on race.
Its annoying the word "systematic" was chopped off because its basically a trueism if you left it.
Right, but then you wouldn't be able to dismiss OPs concerns. OP wasn't talking about systemic racism, they were talking about the common understanding of racism.
The purpose is to muddy the waters.
I was being semi sarcastic, "an individual on his own is being systematically racist". I removed context by accedent in a earlier draft