Well, I can tell you what's bugging me personally about this. There's a growing divide in our society between the "equal opportunity" and "equal outcome" camps. And while the "equal opportunity" people mostly have the "just let me grill" attitude, "equal outcomers" are pushing increasingly harder, while doing their best to silence any opposing voices. It's now getting to a point where raising one's kids to be proud of their achievements, seek self-improvement, and pick friends based on shared values, is considered sinful and is being pushed back against.

As a person who was born in a country that tried implementing equal outcomes for 70 years, and ended up with extreme corruption, poverty and social distrust, I don't want to see another round of this happen here. So I am hoping that if enough reasonable people acknowledge the problem, the society will reach some sort of a compromise before the lives of several generations are completely wasted, like they were in the USSR. And having platforms where this sort of discussion is not considered "cancerous" is a very important step IMHO.

Any evidence at all that self-improvement is under attack, or are these all euphemisms for something else? Maybe "pick friends based on shared values" means "I wouldn't let my kids play with kids from the other side of the tracks", which should indeed get some pushback.

Here's one for you [0]. That's an infographic from the Smithsonian museum that attributed Enlightenment-age values, like individualism, family structure, and work ethic to "whiteness" and implied that it should be opposed. They removed it after pushback (search archive.org for more).

That's the tip of the iceberg though. There's a whole industry of wrapping this narrative into struggle session-like training while charging 7 figures to various-level budgets. You can find many examples like [1] if you search for Chris Rufo. Except adults sort of understand that it's a kickback-driven nonsense and don't take it seriously. So now they are taking the Critical Race Theory with very similar postulates into schools.

It's not about helping minorities learn from the more successful, and reach for the stars. That's purely about making kids hate what their parents did for them, rather than building on top of that.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20200715192955im_/https://nmaahc...

[1] https://christopherrufo.com/cult-programming-in-seattle/

I don't see anything that indicates these values should be opposed. I've seen controversy over this before and to be honest it mostly seems to be people projecting their own idea of what the left thinks - that "white values" implies they are not "black values" and that all whiteness = bad. Then they conclude from a decent summary of dominant values in America something like /r/conservative's take: "#DefundSmithsonian ... We are paying for white genocide with our tax dollars."

Maybe I should just let this just let this comment stand for its own inanity, but dammit, someone is wrong on the internet.

That poster was at the National Museum of African-American History and Culture, where you might expect to learn the differences between African-American culture and the dominant White-Anglo-American Culture. Context is important. In no way it implied that "Enlightenment-age values ... should be opposed." Also, it's kind of ironic to be cheering for the takedown of speech you didn't like on a thread where you complain about the silencing of the speech you do like. If you don't like what the poster said or how it said it, maybe oppose it with more speech.

About the whole industry of "training while charging 7 figures" isn't that just how the pendulum swings right now? Before it was prayer meetings and then survivalist tactics for team-building. Plus most employment in the US is at-will, so I suppose if employees don't like it, they are free to find other employers. Freedom cuts both ways too. Also, what's wrong with 7 figures? I thought the free-market and entrepreneurs charging for the value they bring to willing buyers were all good things.

When you conclude it's "purely about making kids hate what their parents did for them", well, that's the kind of hyperbole that's hard to take seriously. It is totally free of argument or evidence, and it sounds so much like the conservatives of the 50's and 60's about how the peace-activists, civil rights leaders, and hippies were going to turn their sons and daughters against their parents.

Soviet Union was never about equal outcome. It was proclaimed, but worked around in every way possible. Jews were limited in access to education, ex-nobility was limited in rights, the party members were given all kinds of preferential treatment and nomenklatura living in relative luxury while the peasants were starving. Hey, even the city dwellers were privileged compared to peasants who were tied to the land and required visas for inner travel. And access to Moscow and its opportunities was tightly controlled.

>It was proclaimed, but worked around in every way possible.

It always does. Each time someone proclaims equity, they carve out some sort of exception for themselves and their family. Like the mayor of Chicago that mysteriously had heavy police presence around her home, while ordering them to stand down everywhere else.

[0] https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2020/8/20/21377608/li...

I think this is the point. It's not going to work out here either, but it will still be proclaimed.

The distribution of outcome in one generation is, rather explicitly, the distribution of opportunity granted to the next one. Policies like progressive taxation and universal welfare programs that can be cast as equal outcome initiatives are, in the minds of their proponents, often about checking this runaway feedback loop that might otherwise leave all the opportunity (wealth, by another name) piling up with fewer and fewer people.

A lot of countries only said they were trying for "equal outcomes" while rather openly being authoritarian states.

I'm confused about this response. A powerful authority is how you enforce those "equal outcomes." You can have authoritarian left (communism) or authoritarian right (fascism), but both are authoritarian. Let me put it this way: Fascism is authoritarianism but authoritarianism isn't fascism.

Edit: Can someone explain the downvotes? Is the argument that there isn't an authoritarian left? I'm referring to this basic model [0]

[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Po...

Once you have a strong central authority, you are not equal by definition. The stronger and more centralized the power is, the easier it is for the ruling class to pass the status to their kids. So ambitious people won't dream of starting companies and changing the world. Their only route to success will be to join the party ladder and play political games. USSR in a nutshell.

As a part of a minority, I heavily disagree. The new push for diversity create self doubt. am I really achieving on merit, or just the result of this new social justice movement? I tend to think the people of the left are politicians. They haven’t done much to help me as a student, business owner, or parent. Rather, they just want me to be a victim, someone who they can rely upon to keep themselves employed.

Yep. You know the trick of surviving 10+ years in a corporate managerial position? You pick your subordinates out of slightly underqualified mediocrities. Not only they will be completely helpless without you (let alone, challenge your position), but they will also be infinitely loyal to you, as they won't get another chance under anyone else.

Well, that kind of people now want to run our entire society this way. They want you to be that loyal mediocrity, infinitely thankful for the handout, and supporting their cause without questioning.

Believe me, it's a road to nowhere. Corporate mediocrities end up taking antidepressants for life, or killing themselves after the boss gets fired and they have zero shot at paying that mortgage. The life of self-improvement, hard work and achievement is 1000x more rewarding and I'm glad more people are starting to realize that.

We need more people like you speaking up though. Because virtually every criticism from outside the minorities is now almost unconditionally labeled racist.

>mostly just want people to have the same access to schools that whites have had for decades.

I would disagree with that. Kids from the families with inherited wealth always enjoyed their hilltop mansions, gated communities, private schools and Ivy League admissions by donation. And they continue doing that, they're above the rules. Nobody is going to put a low barrier social housing in their backyard, or force their kids to network with us, the plebs.

It's the middle class that made their own wealth is under attack now. Doctors, engineers, small business founders. Apparently, we can't have in a community with no used needles near the playgrounds. Because poor homeless. I can't apparently spend time teaching my pre-school kids to read and to write, so once they go to school, they can focus on more advanced stuff with other like minded kids. For the sake of social justice, the class has to be diluted by a few troublemakers whos parents didn't care. But, of course, not the class where the Governor's kids go.

Mind you, nobody will mind if you go and help the affected people directly. Go offer free counseling to homeless. Go teach Python to kids from poor families. Go do lemonade stand projects with underrepresented minorities. But do it in your own free time and at your own expense. I am pretty certain, many reasonable people will follow, since our society generally values being generous and positive. Except that's not what the activists are doing. They don't want to solve the problem in their free time, they want others to somehow find time and solve the problem for them.

>See, e.g. Glen Beck and Tucker Carlson urging their followers to doxx and threaten their critics.

I've seen the piece from Tucker Carlson. NYT journalists threatened to publish his home address. He stated that it already happened before, leading to threats to his family, and said that if they do it again, he will retaliate. He didn't mention any personal details there, so the NYT pulled back and they've reached a stalemate.

>See, for example, Hollywood, the NBA, the music industry, etc.

Hollywood has deteriorated to releasing heavily engineered comic book films. The art aspect is gone, the creativity is gone, many genres like parody/comedy are gone. Mainstream music isn't at it's peak either. It's pretty consistent with the left-leaning big tech, that focuses on making people replaceable drones following procedures, because they have much less bargaining power this way. I am not into sports, so no clue on NBA/NFL.

That's a noxiously inaccurate caricature of what people in each "camp" believe (to the extent there even are two camps). Practically nobody believes in strict communist-style equal outcomes. The most any significant number want is more equal outcomes, because the distribution of outcomes has clearly diverged from the distribution of any real merit. What the majority want is equal opportunity, just like they say. That's something we don't have, and it's disgusting to appropriate that phrase for those whose beliefs are more accurately described as discriminatory and/or segregationist. It's equally disingenuous to imply that pride in achievement or desire for self-improvement are either distinguishing characteristics of or unique to that group. The vast majority of those you deride as "equal outcome" believers also have those characteristics. If anything, it's the "OK for heritage to determine outcome" crowd who don't believe in achievement and improvement.

People call that kind of twisting of facts and words "cancerous" because it is. You could argue reasonably that attempts to address current inequity are misguided or have gone too far, but not by misrepresenting what people believe.

Reddit recently dramatically revised their moderation policy and has generally been banning a lot of subs. Reddit very much wants to be a profitable business, and has no problem elimiting non-profitable subreddits.

"When your content is too cancerous for church, maybe the issue isn't the church".

Feel free to replace church with whatever is appropriate to your situation, but there have always been censors and there will always be people who resist the censors. The censors have acted against homosexuals, trans folk, hippies, anti-war demonstrators and many others who we no longer see fit to censor today and I will continue to be in the camp of people who work to thwart the censors.

This site listes Parler and Voat which have rampant, unchecked antisemitism and racism. I would love to see a non-censorious site that takes hate speech seriously but they don't seem to exist for some reason...

You can’t be non-censorious and also take down hate speech, if that’s what you mean by “takes hate speech seriously”.

You’re either a censor or you’re not. If you want a censored platform, say it; if you want an uncensored site, say that.

The thing is, any service that offers a "censorship-free" alternative will instantly attract mostly by those whose content is garbage for everyone else: usually it's pedophiles until the operators get a couple not-so-nice letters or a police raid and then at least introduce modest moderation, and then come Nazis, antisemites and conspiracy myth peddlers.

And said hate peddlers then complain that they don't have the reach they enjoyed on Twitter, Youtube and Facebook... well d'oh. Turns out one who is not a Nazi, a journalist reporting about them, or an antifa activist collecting information wants to spend their free time on a platform dominated by Nazis.

> usually it's pedophiles until the operators get a couple not-so-nice letters or a police raid and then at least introduce modest moderation

You're describing illegal content. Nobody is objecting to taking that down. Everyone else is talking about censoring legal content.

Last time I checked, Voat was a bunch of people letting the n-word rip in every comment like they're 10yo and discovered a bad word for the first time.

There was very little sign of intelligence. I had no urge to go back.

Hitler salutes, calling for gassing Jews, or "out with migrants" have been illegal in Germany since 1945 - for obvious reasons, one might add. That is illegal content under German laws, but "muh free speech!!!11" for Americans.

Let me clarify: by "illegal", I meant "illegal in the jurisdiction where it's being hosted", not "illegal anywhere on the planet".

Even so, OP still has a point. Reddit is pretty lenient as far as content is concerned.

This is a tricky problem even to define, because there's "Reddit" which is the owners and paid moderators, then there is "reddit" which is the universe of its subreddits and its unpaid, unaccountable moderators.

For example, it's been well known for awhile that if you subscribe to any of the men's rights subs, you are auto-banned from several of the feminism ones (including TwoXChromosomes). That kind of thing certainly isn't lenient but also isn't under Reddit's control.

Just a slight correction - nobody knows what subs you subscribe to on Reddit, it all works by looking at you commenting in these "wrong" subs.

It does not matter what the content of the comment was, of course. What matters is the fact you left the bubble and interacted with a different one, you traitorous scum.

Correct, thanks for that. And, zing.

This sort of sloganistic un-logic that constantly gets up-voted here is a great reminder that most tech people aren't mature enough to make decisions about how the rest of the society communicates.

Yes, if the only defense of your content is that it isn't literally illegal to produce and distribute, maybe choose something better to do with your time.

In the context of a lot of Reddit alternatives, the argument of 'not literally illegal' isn't always what is being made. Sometimes it's more along the lines of 'stop interfering with our law breaking' or 'let us openly promote real workd violence'. Sometimes people have migrated to sites where the administration is either legally insulated by strong local laws (ie: Voat in Switzerland), or otherwise ambivalent attitudes towards actually following regulations (Chan sites, self-hosted forms). The incel communities, and many other violent communities come to mind right away.

By that logic we should outlaw all things are neither illegal nor valued.

I can think of no faster way to stifle innovation, research, and the human spirit.

If you think reddit only censors cancerous content ...maybe the issue isn't Reddit.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9a33ep/orlando-shooting-r...

A good rule of thumb, but it's worth noting that content banned from reddit isn't necessarily 'too cancerous', it can also be 'the wrong kind of cancerous'.

I liked /r/watchpeopledie in a morbid curiosity way.

I know you're just expressing a common curiosity. A friendly reminder that snuff film production is a thing and if a community creates a big audience/market for this stuff then the consequences are horrific.

Isn't this the justification for every kind of moral panic? If we let kids watch sex scenes they'll become prostitutes. If we let kids play grand theft auto they'll shoot up their school. Everything has the potential for negative externalities. I don't expect anyone to "think of the poor morbidly curious people" because it's strongly taboo in our culture but suggesting that - cause and effect: gore equals more murder for snuff - is a stretch.

You got it the wrong way around. If a lot of people consume a type of content, there are going to be people wanting to produce it for <money, fame, kicks, ...>.

To push the analogy to the extreme, consuming illegal pornography doesn't actually harm anyone, the production does, however the consumption drivers production, therefore the consumption does harm.

Yeah but we're not talking about "the knockout challenge" or destroying milk jugs in the supermarket. Most people don't murder for the lulz and they also enjoy not being in prison for decades. Despite the FUD pushed by popular media there aren't going to be that many people producing it for money/fame/kicks. The vast majority of gore on the internet is a product of security cameras or otherwise hidden cameras.

>there aren't going to be that many people producing it for money/fame/kicks

I agree.

There are some non cancerous communities that aren't welcome on reddit.

Lots of legal gray area ones that revolve around data hoarding / archiving are constantly threatened and sometimes taken down for piracy. The subreddits try to police the most blatant piracy but due to the nature of why people archive/hoard data it can be difficult.

Can you give an example of such a community?

The highest profile one is /r/piracy. The illegal sharing part of the subreddit spawned a forum for good general piracy discussion. It was at serious risk of being deleted and had to go to extreme lengths to preserve the community that formed around the actual illegal sharing part.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvygwq/reddits-piracy-sub...

/r/datahoarders and /r/opendirectories are a couple other I personally have seen similar things happen. In my opinion they're a couple of the greatest subreddits out there so the fact that they could be banned out of nowhere on a technicality is a little concerning.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I suppose these are the results of the gap between technology and legislation.

There are similar adjacent problems with discord and violation of the terms of service.

Luckily most of these groups are tech savvy enough to run their own IRC servers.

I can give you another one. Reddit banned /r/Holodomor https://www.reddit.com/r/reclassified/comments/bedmbv/rholod...

Reddit bans wrongthinkers and hoards cancer.

Reddit is plenty cancerous, depending on how you define that. Certainly in the sense that people aren't arguing in good faith, aren't actively engaging, but are just firing talking points or insults at one another... the sort of thing good moderation used to help limit so that the quality of discussion remained high.

I'd way rather read a good-faith, well written exploration into a controversial topic, than someone who toes the mainstream line of acceptable opinions entirely while being rude and belligerent.

believing that reddit covers the entire spectrum of ideas is also an issue.

They recently banned every popular Marxism/Leninist subreddit. They claim it was for advocating violence but I know for a fact it didn't happen with any more regularity than any other political subreddit, including /r/politics.

Reddit itself became cancer a while back.