Multiple comments on this sub-thread have gone as far as accusing the author of "hate". The parent comment stops at "this sort of trash". I don't think that the authors of these comments would use those words if they heard this piece in person from the author, in an environment where they could question its more extreme assertions. Perhaps this person has themselves been through (or had a close friend go through) a bad divorce, and is simply venting under the guise of philosophical ramblings. It's totally natural to project your personal experience on the rest of the world in this way. It's something people have to be trained not to do.
We seem to be in the habit of turning our ire all the way up as soon as somebody barely crosses some invisible threshold of harmful opinion. That habit makes us a lot less effective at communicating. If it weren't for the article title and excerpt, I would assume from some of the commentors that this person had written a piece calling for wives-as-property or genocide or something. There's just no way to tell if it's all "trash" and "hate". Isn't there such a thing as a poorly-written post with vaguely sexist undertones that _isn't_ an atrocity?
A small selection of the top posts on Voat right now:
- "jew politician calls for war on whites" -> http://magaimg.net/img/9f2p.png
- "NFL player's wife accuses Dolphins owner of favoring 'Jew buddies'" -> https://www.timesofisrael.com/nfl-players-wife-accuses-dolph...
- "Everything's about race. Every single thing is about race. Remember that it's all about race, everything. All of it." -- member-only discussion
- "Voat in a nutshell" -> https://files.catbox.moe/se4iny.jpg
Keep in mind that they didn't leave Reddit because they wanted to leave. They left and made Voat because they were banned. Now they don't have to interact with people that have dissenting opinions, and they can ban you if you dissent.
Reddit is relieved because their users are no longer exposed to this toxicity. Unfortunately, now those users are no longer exposed to anything but toxicity.
This is your opinion, please don't present it as fact.
Feel free to spend your own time deradicalizing white supremacists, but don't insist that the problem is that normal people aren't being welcoming enough to white supremacists.
Is that really true on the internet? "Subjecting people" makes it sound so extreme. In reality, all you had to do was hide a few subreddits and you'll never see them again. They were already removed from the frontpage well before any casual user would encounter them.
So by "subjecting people", I don't think you honestly mean subjecting the community to those people. I think you mean that you want to shame the service provider into de-platforming them because you disagree with their views.
You weren't going to see their content on reddit anyway, except due to reddit outrage about how that content was ever allowed on their service.
You'd only find a lot of the things that were banned if you knew where to look.
> You can go to voat and debate white supremacists tho.
I didn't interact with them when I was on Reddit, and I don't care to now. But at least they were in a space where they were frequently challenged by people who did feel like debating them. If you don't want to interact with them, you're free to ignore them. That's why I think it's such a small ask and net good to not de-platform unpopular opinions.
"Censorship" makes it sound so extreme. Is it really so bad that people get banned from a forum?
HN does it correctly. I can show flagged posts. This adds a helpful dimension in figuring out what a community values. I think moderation being opt-out is wise.
So they were doing that anyway.
This right here is my point. I know that and you know that. I don't subscribe to that subreddit.
But I still hear about what goes on there sometimes, because you know, reddit, stuff leaks out a little if it's popular.
So that wouldn't be an in-joke if they weren't self-aware that they're outcasts on reddit. Now tell me a voat in-joke, because I don't know any.
Do you know what goes on at voat? I don't, so I just made an account. What I see looks like a community isolated, not a community scorned. It's much worse than any unmoderated community on reddit could ever be. That's what I think is dangerous.
From my point of view, reddit dropped the banhammer and this thing called Voat popped out.
The rule is fairly simple, and does not require a list; if you believe that someone should have a different set of rules and expectations just because of a characteristic outside or their control, that is not acceptable.
You are never going to change someone's mind by shouting at them.
There are limits, and some views are not just a difference of opinion. Some viewpoints need to be shunned.
The world's largest moderators have you in mind when they're removing content. That must be great for you, because your experience is tailored for your personal satisfaction. And if you ever do happen upon something that offends you, you can report it and rest assured that corporate america will take care of it for you.
Now imagine you have a deeply held belief, and suddenly, it's been canceled. Your content has been banned, even though you made some well-received things. What do you do? Where do you go? Maybe you just give up on that belief, replace it with the new corporate belief, and move on.
But some years tick by, and now you find that all of your old beliefs have been canceled. Have you assimilated and given up contact with people that talk about canceled ideas and share canceled content? That's what you should have done. That's why our corporate monoculture is so harmonious. This is a wonderful thing... right?
If you're not ok with that, then maybe you need to get onboard with platforms that allow alternative opinions, because you might need one some day.
I guess I miss the old internet, too.
For example, from _Men and Women and Marriage_:
> In contrast, from what I've observed of women's behavior, most women marry for money. Some of them marry several times for money. You see, women understand why marriage exists. It exists to ensure that women will be provided for while they raise their children. This is why so many marriages are dissolved after the children leave home. From the woman's perspective: no more children, no more reason to be married.
Perhaps, in addition to the conveniences, opportunities (learning, employment and otherwise), etc. the "New Internet" has afforded us, making this sort of trash harder to find is a bit of silver lining.