To be fair to their intentions, the the cultural meaning is different based on social context. This is why successfully policing content on a global or even national social media site is nigh impossible.

When a woman is recounting frustration at being talked over during a meeting and says "kill all men," there's a non-literal connotation based in a belief in patriarchal suppression.

When a man says "kill all women" it reads darker, based on a belief that men subject women to violence specifically based on their gender/sexuality. Even if it's clearly not meant to be taken literally, there's still a dark underpinning culturally (e.g. see Marilyn Manson's 'I Want to Kill You Like They Do in The Movies’)

As a result, "kill all women" is much less likely to be said in mixed company; the more common communication discriminating against women will be longer form, and not easily string-matched.

Therefore, with 'even' enforcement, an offhand complaint about men's place in society will often instantly trigger an automatic deletion/ban, while a misogynistic screed will require human review to be removed.

I agree "kill all women" reads and is darker for a variety of reasons, but I don't think either statement should be acceptable. I think a high percentage of people who would say "kill all women" would also reply that they're being non-literal and sardonic, but I don't think that would make it acceptable. Both phrases should trigger human review and a ban, in my opinion.

Even without the literal meaning, vitriol towards gigantic groups of people based on at-birth traits isn't healthy or rational for anyone. (To make the comparison more palatable, imagine a complaint about an ex-romantic partner followed by a frustrated exclamation of "fuck men" or "fuck women", depending on the parties involved. I don't see why either of these statements should be privileged over the other.) I think double standards should be eliminated across the board, rather than tipping the scales so that a side that historically wielded them is now subjected to them.

Reddit admins have their own window of discourse and it's certainly colored by personal biases. But, it should say a lot that "Let's kill all the lawyers" would likely result in a ban.

Reddit risks closing the window of discourse so tightly that it becomes a Facebook, Instagram or Tik Tok. The problem for Reddit, of course, is that there is already a Facebook, Instagram and Tik Tok.

I've already left the platform.

Well said - while this point is somewhat subtle, I think the real reason most people "miss" it is because of a human tendency to overlook pragmatism in the context of language/communication while engaging in even non-heated ideological battles. I.e. they tend to turn a blind eye to colloquial meaning and real consequences in favor of a bias toward literalism as a bad rhetorical tactic.

> When a woman is recounting frustration at being talked over during a meeting and says "kill all men," there's a non-literal connotation based in a belief in patriarchal suppression. When a man says "kill all women" it reads darker, based on a belief that men subject women to violence specifically based on their gender/sexuality.

This might have been true once but the ascent of fourth-wave (misandrist) feminism has made short shrift with the assumption that women who say "kill all men" have a different intention than men who say "kill all women". In both cases it is most likely not to be taken literally, in both cases (humoristic intentions excepted) the message has a dark underpinning. Where in the "kill all women" case there might be a background of literal truth, in the "kill all men" case there is a background of wishful thinking, an idea that society is better off without men, that men are evil and unredeemable.

But everyone says "oh you're missing the context" when challenged on their hateful rhetoric, and no targeted group enjoys being told they ought to die. I don't really see why anyone should be allowed to spread hate speech, even if they don't mean it literally or it doesn't "read darker".

The problem is that a significant chunk of the community believes that it's not hate speech but simple hyperbole in response to uni-directional injustice.

It's easy to string match, bans/deletions can be instant and abrupt. They see the quick removal of their post and compare it to what they perceive as genuinely hateful posts that stay up because the post cleverly avoids violations that are easy to include in content policies.

Check out the "men are trash" question here https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/10/3/20895119/facebo...

And I'm not saying you're wrong. Lots of people do think their hate speech is simple hyperbole, or that it's justified by misdeeds of the group they hate. But what's the point of a rule against hate speech if you're not willing to tell those people no?

I don't read the parent as advocating the opinion that the people subjected to the "less dark" form shouldn't consider it a kind of hate speech or shouldn't feel offended by it. The context is moderation, and why it makes sense to treat the cases differently - that doesn't mean simply always allowing one and always disallowing the other. The point is that prudent and pragmatic judgement is necessary.

That doesn't really change my perspective. I'd be very frustated if a moderator told me "well, we generally don't allow hate speech, but let's be prudent and allow it when it's targeted at you".

My point is more that prudent and pragmatic judgment is nearly impossible, if your goal is to be seen as a neutral platform for a large collection of communities.

For those of you who don't think in who/whom, note this comment well.

There are many, many people who think this way.

Just to clarify, I see this as a problem that may be impossible to solve.

For me personally, I think that "kill all men" or "all men are trash" can have a harmful impact (particularly on boys) even when stated as hyperbole in response to systemic misogyny.

>For those of you who don't think in who/whom

What do you mean by this?

It's a common meme in some circles, reflecting a claim that facially neutral rules against hate speech depend implicitly on who's speaking and to whom it's directed.

I think that meme/claim is indeed substantiated in many cases. It's a form of implicit bias. Implicit biases are very culturally-mediated and can exist from any individual or group towards any other individual or group. I don't know if reddit staff suffer from that bias, but it's evident some people in this thread do.

Or we can agree that both statements are wrong, and we should not wait and see the effects of allowing one over the other (we already are seeing dangerous effects however).

I really agree with this. An American Indian friend of mine once said, "It's not like we want another Trail of Tears." Folks who have been beat down know people don't deserve that just for being a certain way.

Now if you're advocating a worldview that carries implicit, targeted violence (looking at you, Neo-Nazis) I think it's a different story. At that point, it becomes a question of what is possible and practical to reduce the overall amount of violence.. even if it means punching someone who wants you dead or subjugated.

Wouldn't the difference there be between venting resulting in hurt feelings rather than targeted violence?

Reports of genuine, targeted violence against reactionaries are almost non-existent while just a few days ago three trans women were nearly killed while waiting for a cab. If banning r/dropthet (a transphobic subreddit) reduces the amount of eyeballs absorbing phobic talking points that has to be a good thing, no?

I always find these sorts of discussions sorely lacking an understanding of The Tolerance Paradox. Hopefully more folks will begin to see the implicit violence present in minority targeted hate speech. It really does lead to loss of life all too often.

>I always find these sorts of discussions sorely lacking an understanding of The Tolerance Paradox.

I can't possibly speak for Popper, but I suspect that he'd disapprove of intolerance from any group towards any other group. Let's not tolerate threats or double standards of any kind, whether it's a man defending that he said "kill all women" sarcastically or a woman defending that she said "kill all men" sarcastically. One can acknowledge that a man saying it should be taken more seriously (for a variety of reasons) while also acknowledging that the acceptance of generalized vitriol towards groups based on at-birth traits shouldn't have directional weighting. This is a blind spot and form of implicit bias I find many well-meaning progressives fall into.

Also, although it doesn't necessarily apply here (since most would agree talking about killing groups of people shouldn't be tolerated), I almost always find that people who bring up Popper's paradox of tolerance tend to wield it like a cudgel to draw arbitrary and absolute lines as they see fit.

Agreed that you shouldn't be using Popper as a cornerstone, but I really think it's a great tool for getting folks to step outside a limited perspective. A foot in the door when trying to introduce the difference between hate speech and retaliatory frustration.

I think it's also worth mentioning that you are very correct in a need for subtlety -- "kill all women" isn't something you're going to see very often any more. Rather, we get some nonsense about the moral arc of the universe and another endless discussion while people continue to be harmed. I knew (happily past tense) a couple guys who just couldn't kick their absolute vitriol for seeing women thrive while they were struggling. It's super nasty and, in my experience, a way more dangerous thing than someone going off about killing women verbatim.

Thanks for pointing out the blind spot though! I've found that way of thinking about morality to be really positive and forgiving -- to view something as a correctable omission rather than a character flaw.

> Reports of genuine, targeted violence against reactionaries are almost non-existent

Someone is wearing a MAGA hat. Someone else is wearing a Biden hat.

Which do you think is more likely to be assaulted?

I wanted to disagree with you, but honestly my gut also says the MAGA hat person is at risk.

Here's the thing though -- where's the data? Has that actually happened in any significance? Especially compared to right wing violence.

Thanks for being honest. There's a huge amount of video footage of people being beaten by rioters.

Please link me!

I've been following the pipe bomb situation pretty closely so I've missed a lot of that stuff probably.

You're a green account, so I'm somewhat concerned you migh be a troll or whatever.

But assuming you don't live in the US: just Google 'portland violence'

Yeah I lurked for way too long. Spent like half of yesterday rate limited, which is understandable. :)

I actually have a few mutuals who have been on the ground in Portland and I'm in the southeast.

I had seen this stuff when it first happened but it's just hard to pay much attention with other deadly force being deployed IMO. If you google Skylor Jernigan, you get nothing but local articles. There's a strong false equivalency being deployed there.

e: almost forgot where I am! I rarely get to make this point but here we go: nitpicking out individualized acts of violence to discredit a large, decentralized movement is the exact same thing as FUD, IMO. It's a tactic for maintaining unequal power dynamics.

> nitpicking out individualized acts of violence to discredit a large, decentralized movement

That would forbid criticism of any violent decentralized movement.

> There's a strong false equivalency being deployed there.

I don't think there's any equivalency. There's no widespread looting and assault from the center or the right here.

Antifa specifically are willing to use violence to suppress disbelievers as part of their manifesto, and have handbooks re: playing to the invisible audience, goading people into fight responses, etc. However I suspect you know this already. And that you're doing that it now.

> That would forbid criticism of any violent decentralized movement.

Establish a pattern of behavior?

> There's no widespread looting and assault from the center or the right here.

I know it's low hanging fruit but do you find this compelling?: https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-3...

> and have handbooks re: playing to the invisible audience, goading people into fight responses, etc.

Who is antifa??? More FUD. This is, in my opinion, a very lazy and poorly researched argument against the anti-fascist movement. Especially in a country where crime reporting is run through an institution with ties to white supremacy and roots in crushing strikes and capturing escaped slaves. Show me the data. Show me the pattern of left wing terror.

> And that you're doing that it now.

Not even touching this..

Oh also, are you sure you've been seeing literature from the "real" "antifa"? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-fake-antifa-acount-whit...

> Especially in a country where crime reporting is run through an institution with ties to white supremacy

I think we're done here.

> I think we're done here.

Yes, sir.

But also ...why though?

All it takes is a few dudes with an iron cross tattoo to fudge the numbers here or there. It's really not uncommon, again, if you look at what happens often, not what happens loudest.

I hope this rings as genuine... I would very much like to hear back from you!

Also did you happen to look up Skylor Jernigan? Had you heard of him?

Oh yeah. They removed that tidbit from the ToS but still enforce it the same way.

Removed but still enforced aka we have written and unwritten rules

>While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.

Punching up vs punching down is a super important distinction to make in these kinds of policies.

I thought we are trying to stop hate for characteristics someone has no control over (sex, sexuality, race, gender, disability, nationality). I think any "punches" thrown at a group that was just born that way is not fair and the direction should not be a factor. Shouldn't someone be judged on their character and thoughts, not their biology or circumstances? If you aren't doing that then you aren't being genuine for stopping stereotyping and hate.

This includes "majority" populations and those more privileged. We shouldn't give hateful or blanket statements for them as they never decided to be that way. Putting entire groups of people based on some trait they were born with on blast is wrong.

Also the direction is a slippery slope too. "Well yes I can direct blanket negative/stereotypical/hate statements against Indians because I myself am a disabled, trans minority" ad-infinitum.

The solution to "stop the punching" isn't to demand oppressed people not be upset. The solution is to stop punching down. We stop racism by reversing the material effects of racism, not by spreading an imaginary "color blind" ideology. The last thing we should be doing right now is pretending that race doesn't matter.

> I thought we are trying to stop hate for characteristics someone has no control over (sex, sexuality, race, gender, disability, nationality).

Some of use are, but we seem to be losing.

> Shouldn't someone be judged on their character and thoughts, not their biology or circumstances?

This is considered racist now. This was explained to me by a friend that if a person wants to be seen as a "$race man", than not seeing him that way would be offensive.

I don't think it should be. I think punches above a certain threshold of force shouldn't be permitted, regardless of whether they're aimed left, right, up, down, or diagonally. Also, who exactly is definitively judging these directions in each of these cases? What's the judgment criteria when two people reside among a distribution of different relative directions across multiple different parameters?

I think eliminating double standards in the enforcement of these policies is crucial for them to be effective and accepted by a community. You're just trading one set of implicit and explicit biases in for another, and many of the same issues start to bubble up. Yes, certainly not all of the same issues in the case of one group wielding more capability to carry out a threat than another group, but many of the important ones, especially when it comes to matters of epistemology and reasoning.

When punching down it's important to dress it up so it looks like punching up. Attack the innocent who look like the guilty because the guilty are too hard to reach.

Its clearly what they do. The best example, a default sub TwoXChromosomes is full of blatant hate speech against half the species and its touted as a progressive bastion when its a different variation of The Donald.

Can you provide recent examples?

On their front page right now:

- A post about finishing shampoo and conditioner at the same time

- Celebration of a black female CEO

- Discussion of abortion

- Discussion of Women's only gyms (pros/cons/benefits/etc)

- Discussion about marketing vis-a-vis unhealthy body image

- Inappropriate boss in a meeting

None of those posts are even about men, let alone "hate speech against half the species?" So the emphasis is definitely on you to show that this is a popular usage of the sub.

Subs don't get removed for a scattering of hateful comments, the moderators are expected to deal with those. Subs get banned because their popular purpose is against Reddit's rules or their moderators are unable/unwilling to enforce the rules.

People ignore the non offensive posts. But every few weeks a "men suck" or "ridiculous attacks on anti-abortion viewpoint" pops up non /r/all.

Without specific examples and links cited, this discussion will just run in circles. It probably will anyway, but it has no way of not without citations.

its pointless to bikeshed this. People did the same to defend TD and other crazy communities. Most of the posts are fine, but occasionally blatant sexism will make the front page and mods don't do anything about it, or even encourage it by putting the post in "real believer" mode where opposing viewpoints can't exist. Same as TD.

Best example I've seen https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/hzis4w/a_n...

"A message to all men" . Basically telling "all men" their opinions aren't valued or wanted on the sub. Wonderful. And it hit the Reddit front page. Imagine a "mancave" sub on Reddit with mods saying women's opinions don't matter and aren't welcome here and shit like that. It would be banned immediately, probably after making 5 o'clock news

That's...literally not what that message says, "basically" or otherwise.

It literally says the opposite, in fact

> Men, I have a request: Please, think twice before you reply to a post that you can't relate to. I'm not asking you to leave this sub, because I think that it's valuable to read about other people's experiences to learn about their unique challenges in this world.

TwoXChromosomes has improved dramatically since it was first made a general sub. I'm sure it drove most of the misandry to other smaller subs. If anything it's a good example that exposing hate and echo chambers to a wider audience can help improve them in some cases.