Reddit is breaking the law

The salt in this thread is getting intense.

Sean Cook2 said:j

Just from the way you phrased that, it’s clear nothing bothers you. And you're wearing purple—how lovely.

Why on earth would he care?😕 He was simply asking a straightforward question, much like how people will inevitably ask why you're trying to pass off someone's opinion as a criminal offense or introduce the concept of "blasphemy." If those kinds of ideas actually take root here on Reddit, then I’ll be forced to endure reading your tedious posts—which, if I may say so, feel rather dull based on your writing style—instead of the witty contribution from that other user who was permabanned for blasphemy, even though I don't particularly agree with him...

Harold Walker44 said:Why on earth would he care?😕 He was simply asking a straightforward question, much like how people will inevitably ask why you're trying to pass off someone's opinion as a criminal offense or introduce the concept of "blasphemy." If those kinds of ideas actually take root here on Reddit, then I’ll be forced to endure reading your tedious posts—which, if I may say so, feel rather dull based on your writing style—instead of the witty contribution from that other user who was permabanned for blasphemy, even though I don't particularly agree with him...

He was banned because he's a clone of a previously permabanned user, not because of the blasphemy in that quote—which wasn't even an issue for the Politics moderator, nor are the admins willing to call it out definitively.

If you want to know why he's permanently banned, just ask the Politics moderators; Michelle Wells3 was quite clear about whether he deserved it or not. You can enjoy his "wit" once he registers a new clone account. Until then, you can stick to reading pillar of society, bailiff, and public official.

Sean Cook2 said:j

Just from the way you phrased that, it’s clear nothing bothers you. And you're wearing purple—how lovely.

The color I choose doesn't prove a thing. What's your actual reasoning for complaining about it?

Are we really at a point where you can't say anything that might be interpreted as slightly negative toward feminists?

Charles Fox10 said:No, it isn't clever. When a rational person realizes something wasn't written correctly, common decency—at least for me—dictates they fix it at the next opportunity.

Charles, I know you consider yourself a rational person, and I know you aren't someone who hates dialogue, but I’m pointing out something a bit more nuanced here when I ironically suggest you should have "corrected yourself" a little.

I honestly think we’ve reached a point where these kinds of oversights—along with much cruder ones—have been happening for far too long. It’s gotten to the stage where we can move past calling them mere "oversights" and start calling them what they actually are: symptoms.
You get this distinct impression that something is fundamentally rotten in the core of this community when, not only through obsessive political nitpicking but also through various administrative statements, you constantly run into viewpoints and mindsets that would typically be relegated to the fringes of any civilized society.
In a real democracy, those fringe views wouldn't even break 4% of the vote, so when you tally up all these oversight instances, the minor corrections, and the belated disclaimers from that same group of people signing off on garbage posts—you end up with a reflection in the mirror that isn't particularly pleasant. It’s certainly not the image one would want to represent them in the real world.

Sean Cook2 said:Well, if you're already willing to admit you can make mistakes, why is it such an issue to concede that you should have handed out a red card—and that the user shouldn't have been tolerated on the topic for nearly that long?

The moment we were certain the clone was real, they got the permaban. Being absolutely sure takes a little longer.

Jerry Rogers6 I'm not sure how else to answer you, other than noting our attempt to remain as objective and fair as possible.

slycrane94 said:The color I choose doesn't prove a thing. What's your actual reasoning for complaining about it?

Are we really at a point where you can't say anything that might be interpreted as slightly negative toward feminists?

Alright, let's see if we can handle this on Reddit once and for all so we can finally put this topic to bed. Let's keep it simple: yes or no?

Maybe it's time to just drop some plain old truth. Nowadays, some people start from the premise that African Americans are practically equal to Caucasians in everything, and therefore should hold an identical role in society. That’s basically the core of liberalism. This ideology refuses to acknowledge any differences between African Americans and Caucasians beyond skin color, and it completely ignores the obvious fact that Caucasians—not just biologically, but intellectually through evolution—developed differently than African Americans to meet the demands of survival.

Let's be blunt: African Americans aren't as capable as Caucasians. I'm talking about averages, obviously. Not just physically, but intellectually too. For a whole century, IQ tests have shown that Caucasians, on average, score 3-5% higher. But fine, let's toss the tests aside since those results aren't always bulletproof. Let's look at reality.

And the reality is that Caucasians have built practically everything the human race has ever produced. Civilizations, cultures, technology, science, architecture, philosophy, art, entertainment—it's all Caucasian work. What's the contribution from African Americans? Pretty much nothing. Even though they make up over 50 percent of humanity, African Americans haven't contributed even a fraction of a percent to those major milestones in human endeavor.

I'm not trying to bash or belittle African Americans here; I'm just laying out some widely known facts that this supposed liberalism and other modern egalitarian ideologies try so hard to sweep under the rug, trying to convince us that what we see isn't true, and that the "truth" is whatever they want it to be.

The difference in intelligence (and I mean actual intelligence, let's skip the "emotional" or "social" intelligence New Age nonsense) between Caucasians and African Americans isn't super noticeable in everyday, routine life. In that arena, African Americans don't lag behind at all, actually. That gap only becomes apparent as tasks get more complex and unpredictable. That's why, in extreme situations, it's Caucasians who step up and take charge. That's why the most exceptional, top-tier achievements in every field belong to Caucasians.

But for their own good and the good of the community, they took on the roles they were naturally suited for, which ended up letting Caucasians do their own thing.African Americans took care of the physical labor, like construction, digging trenches, utility work, and agriculture—mostly jobs that don't require intense mental heavy lifting. Just as Caucasians developed the traits needed to interact with the outside world over centuries, African Americans developed the skills and qualities necessary for their specific roles.

Sean Cook2 said:He was banned because he's a clone of a previously permabanned user, not because of the blasphemy in that quote—which wasn't even an issue for the Politics moderator, nor are the admins willing to call it out definitively.

If you want to know why he's permanently banned, just ask the Politics moderators; Michelle Wells3 was quite clear about whether he deserved it or not. You can enjoy his "wit" once he registers a new clone account. Until then, you can stick to reading pillar of society, bailiff, and public official.

I appreciate the response and the handles; it’s hard to stumble upon anything remotely interesting here, so this is quite lovely, provided the user is always this sharp...😁

Charles Wells71 said:Alright, let's see if we can handle this on Reddit once and for all so we can finally put this topic to bed. Let's keep it simple: yes or no?

Maybe it's time to just drop some plain old truth. Nowadays, some people start from the premise that African Americans are practically equal to Caucasians in everything, and therefore should hold an identical role in society. That’s basically the core of liberalism. This ideology refuses to acknowledge any differences between African Americans and Caucasians beyond skin color, and it completely ignores the obvious fact that Caucasians—not just biologically, but intellectually through evolution—developed differently than African Americans to meet the demands of survival.

Let's be blunt: African Americans aren't as capable as Caucasians. I'm talking about averages, obviously. Not just physically, but intellectually too. For a whole century, IQ tests have shown that Caucasians, on average, score 3-5% higher. But fine, let's toss the tests aside since those results aren't always bulletproof. Let's look at reality.

And the reality is that Caucasians have built practically everything the human race has ever produced. Civilizations, cultures, technology, science, architecture, philosophy, art, entertainment—it's all Caucasian work. What's the contribution from African Americans? Pretty much nothing. Even though they make up over 50 percent of humanity, African Americans haven't contributed even a fraction of a percent to those major milestones in human endeavor.

I'm not trying to bash or belittle African Americans here; I'm just laying out some widely known facts that this supposed liberalism and other modern egalitarian ideologies try so hard to sweep under the rug, trying to convince us that what we see isn't true, and that the "truth" is whatever they want it to be.

The difference in intelligence (and I mean actual intelligence, let's skip the "emotional" or "social" intelligence New Age nonsense) between Caucasians and African Americans isn't super noticeable in everyday, routine life. In that arena, African Americans don't lag behind at all, actually. That gap only becomes apparent as tasks get more complex and unpredictable. That's why, in extreme situations, it's Caucasians who step up and take charge. That's why the most exceptional, top-tier achievements in every field belong to Caucasians.

But for their own good and the good of the community, they took on the roles they were naturally suited for, which ended up letting Caucasians do their own thing.African Americans took care of the physical labor, like construction, digging trenches, utility work, and agriculture—mostly jobs that don't require intense mental heavy lifting. Just as Caucasians developed the traits needed to interact with the outside world over centuries, African Americans developed the skills and qualities necessary for their specific roles.

Caucasians are inherently more intelligent Than African Americans was posted on the debate forum, and now what? These American social spaces have become incredibly repressive; there isn't a single free man left who can speak his mind without interference. You should be able to debate anything... what is your problem?

Can I start a thread asking if Asians are more intelligent than Caucasians, given that they make up the majority at MIT, or will everyone else just be relegated to rounding errors immediately?

And I should mention, I only see these nonsensical restrictions and this blatant violation of the right to hold an opinion here on this site. Who do you think you are, trying to police other people's thoughts and impose your own views through political censorship? It’s absurd...

Did anyone in that post actually incite violence? Was it done with the specific intent to provoke hatred? Because if not, then you all need to prove it, otherwise you are violating the Constitution and the right to freedom of speech. Today it is this, but tomorrow, no one will be allowed to say a word against the government because, hey, suddenly it's "hate speech." And by then, it will be far too late, thanks to certain people among you...

Harold Walker44 said:Caucasians are inherently more intelligent Than African Americans was posted on the debate forum, and now what? These American social spaces have become incredibly repressive; there isn't a single free man left who can speak his mind without interference. You should be able to debate anything... what is your problem?

Can I start a thread asking if Asians are more intelligent than Caucasians, given that they make up the majority at MIT, or will everyone else just be relegated to rounding errors immediately?

And I should mention, I only see these nonsensical restrictions and this blatant violation of the right to hold an opinion here on this site. Who do you think you are, trying to police other people's thoughts and impose your own views through political censorship? It’s absurd...

Did anyone in that post actually incite violence? Was it done with the specific intent to provoke hatred? Because if not, then you all need to prove it, otherwise you are violating the Constitution and the right to freedom of speech. Today it is this, but tomorrow, no one will be allowed to say a word against the government because, hey, suddenly it's "hate speech." And by then, it will be far too late, thanks to certain people among you...

Honestly, I couldn't care less about your opinion; everyone’s got one these days.

The whole thing is an administrative question regarding freedom of expression.

It's up to them to decide if this counts as acceptable posting, not you or me.

slycrane94 said:The color I choose doesn't prove a thing. What's your actual reasoning for complaining about it?

Are we really at a point where you can't say anything that might be interpreted as slightly negative toward feminists?

Exactly.

It shouldn't matter what he thinks about feminism—nobody is stopping him from expressing his views—but he shouldn't be allowed to belittle or degrade all women in the process.

The Equal Rights Amendment states (Art. 16):

Media outlets are expected to promote awareness regarding gender equality through their programming, content standards, editorial guidelines, and self-regulatory measures.

Publicly portraying or presenting men and women in an offensive, derogatory, or demeaning manner based on gender or sexual orientation is strictly prohibited.

How much is this media outlet actually promoting gender equality if they won't penalize content that explicitly claims women will never catch up to men in intellectual or creative capacity—essentially arguing that true equality of ability is a myth and therefore women don't deserve equal social standing, or that their ambitions are just inflated and they are merely submissive conformists lacking willpower?

To speak like that is high-level sexism—unless, of course, you hold those exact views and find nothing wrong with them.

Charles Wells71 said:Honestly, I couldn't care less about your opinion; everyone’s got one these days.

The whole thing is an administrative question regarding freedom of expression.

It's up to them to decide if this counts as acceptable posting, not you or me.

You see, what you're doing right now is essentially an insult, yet you're simultaneously demanding that people be silenced for expressing their own views...

When one posts, there is a reasonable expectation that others have the right to quote, respond, and offer their perspective. At the end of the day, this is supposed to be a user discussion. I don't doubt that things will play out however the administration decides, but that doesn't mean we should all just sit here in silence and withhold our thoughts...

Take the topic of religion, for instance—Belief and Intelligence—is that allowed? Is it permissible to cite research suggesting that children who aren't indoctrinated into a faith tend to score higher on intelligence tests? Did you happen to participate in that thread? Or does the invocation of hate speech and censorship somehow conveniently bypass religious discussions, as if they are exempt from the rules...

Harold Walker44 said:You see, what you're doing right now is essentially an insult, yet you're simultaneously demanding that people be silenced for expressing their own views...

When one posts, there is a reasonable expectation that others have the right to quote, respond, and offer their perspective. At the end of the day, this is supposed to be a user discussion. I don't doubt that things will play out however the administration decides, but that doesn't mean we should all just sit here in silence and withhold our thoughts...

Take the topic of religion, for instance—Belief and Intelligence—is that allowed? Is it permissible to cite research suggesting that children who aren't indoctrinated into a faith tend to score higher on intelligence tests? Did you happen to participate in that thread? Or does the invocation of hate speech and censorship somehow conveniently bypass religious discussions, as if they are exempt from the rules...

I don't really view this specific section of Reddit as some big community hangout for users to chat amongst themselves, which is why I said what I said. It doesn't matter if you and I agree on this post or not.

I'm looking for an answer from the admins, so I'm addressing them, not the other users.

Sean Cook2 said:Exactly.

It shouldn't matter what he thinks about feminism—nobody is stopping him from expressing his views—but he shouldn't be allowed to belittle or degrade all women in the process.

The Equal Rights Amendment states (Art. 16):

Media outlets are expected to promote awareness regarding gender equality through their programming, content standards, editorial guidelines, and self-regulatory measures.

Publicly portraying or presenting men and women in an offensive, derogatory, or demeaning manner based on gender or sexual orientation is strictly prohibited.

How much is this media outlet actually promoting gender equality if they won't penalize content that explicitly claims women will never catch up to men in intellectual or creative capacity—essentially arguing that true equality of ability is a myth and therefore women don't deserve equal social standing, or that their ambitions are just inflated and they are merely submissive conformists lacking willpower?

To speak like that is high-level sexism—unless, of course, you hold those exact views and find nothing wrong with them.

Give me a break. Of course he’s allowed to believe women belong in the kitchen or that Saudi Arabia is right to ban them from driving.

The law exists to protect women from things like being denied a job just because they're female, not to force everyone to hold polite opinions or kiss their asses.

If he were calling for violence against women or telling employers to fire them, then we'd have a case. But he wasn't saying that, so the law has no business stepping in here. A person has a right to their opinion and to express it, no matter how much it gets under your skin. I'm sure there are plenty of people whose opinions get under yours, yet here you are, still posting on Reddit.

slycrane94 said:Give me a break. Of course he’s allowed to believe women belong in the kitchen or that Saudi Arabia is right to ban them from driving.

The law exists to protect women from things like being denied a job just because they're female, not to force everyone to hold polite opinions or kiss their asses.

If he were calling for violence against women or telling employers to fire them, then we'd have a case. But he wasn't saying that, so the law has no business stepping in here. A person has a right to their opinion and to express it, no matter how much it gets under your skin. I'm sure there are plenty of people whose opinions get under yours, yet here you are, still posting on Reddit.

That’s just the logical conclusion of the stances he promotes.

And you—just keep talking nonsense.

Sean Cook2 said:That’s just the logical conclusion of the stances he promotes.

And you—just keep talking nonsense.

This is easily one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Rational people can hold a conversation with those they dislike or disagree with. Claiming that anyone who thinks women are less capable than men in certain areas will discriminate against all of them at every opportunity is, to put it mildly, a massive stretch.

I think people often mistake opinion for action. In a liberal democracy, freedom of speech is a fundamental principle, as is individual physical liberty. Restricting free speech is, first and foremost, an attack on liberalism itself. Everyone has the right to think whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they have the right to act on those thoughts.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. 🤷

There really shouldn't be any room for hypocrisy here.

slycrane94 said:This is easily one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Rational people can hold a conversation with those they dislike or disagree with. Claiming that anyone who thinks women are less capable than men in certain areas will discriminate against all of them at every opportunity is, to put it mildly, a massive stretch.

It's really about verbal offenses and an obvious violation of free speech—things that shouldn't have any place in a liberal democracy.

Everyone should have the right to think whatever they want... just not discriminate based on those thoughts. For example, someone might have a "personal" opinion about someone else, but that opinion shouldn't be the reason they don't hire them. They still have the right to the opinion itself. Some people clearly don't get that. 🤷

Charles Fox10 said:The moment we were certain the clone was real, they got the permaban. Being absolutely sure takes a little longer.

Jerry Rogers6 I'm not sure how else to answer you, other than noting our attempt to remain as objective and fair as possible.

What's the point, Charles—why bother with all this effort and good intentions from a handful of you when this entire thread has proven that things just don't hold up at the higher levels of administration?

That’s exactly why I figured it would be helpful if the supermods actually weighed in on these specific posts to clear up some confusion—but apparently, even that's asking too much.😁

If I may add—and I say this observing from the sidelines—it seems to me you're falling a bit too easily for the hysterical extremists who have made themselves at home here on Reddit; they're trolling you with nothing more than playground antics.
Because of all this, the current policy of this forum isn't going to last long before migrating toward something a bit more civilized—honestly, you'll eventually be forced to look under a microscope just to find people capable of having a quality discussion.

Thanks for the answers, regardless.😁

PS. Just as an aside, how much longer is it going to take you guys to realize that Harold Walker44 is just a clone of a public official?

So, regarding the disparagement of men or women in general—is there really no limit to it under the guise of free speech? I’m just looking for a straight answer to my question, one way or the other—is it actually permissible or not—rather than being told that kind of language won't be tolerated, when, in reality, it is.