The way the entire thing was handled was deplorable. I got shadowbanned for posting a link to a BBC article on the shooting, which I only did because I thought it was weird as shit that it seemed like no one had done so yet.
As a left-wing dude who voted for (and campaigned for) Obama in 2008 and 2012, I strongly disagree with your premise.
Censorship is censorship, and the Reddit users do a fine job of downvoting the speech they view as not contributing to the conversation.
I think a term that is often used by conservatives (as well as folks like Bill Maher) is getting sadly accurate: the regressive left.
The first step of the regressive left in silencing opinions they don't agree with, instead of simply countering those opinions with their own, is to label that speech and/or the person using it as some form of hate speech. Once the speech and/or the person is labelled (subjectively) as such, they are sufficiently dehumanized to make them unworthy of being heard and/or argued with.
It hurts us when we do this. The people in the middle who might actually be swayed in an argument see the silencing of dissent, and it makes them hate us.
Technically, downvoting is supposed to be used in a community on comments which don't add anything to the conversation, but of course this is abused to simply squash differing opinions. The key difference is downvotes don't come from a central authority, they come from the crowd. Not good or ideal, but different.
Say you've got a tribe of 100 people, and 80 of them basically agree on most things, and amicably sort out their disagreements when they don't, and are able to work together most of the time. Then, you've got the other 20 people, who scream and bitch about every fucking thing, and constantly insist that some small number of people among the 80 are "out to get them" and "destroy the tribe" and demonize them, and it's always some slightly different subset of the 80 every time such that most people, at one point or another, are slurred as tribe-hating traitors. The main contribution these 20 make to tribal society is, at best, to grab the mic at every opportunity so it takes 10x longer to resolve an issue than it otherwise would, and at worst to pit everyone against everyone else and cause brand new problems that weren't there before. Is there ever a point where the tribe is justified in exiling these 20 people?
Now, I know that tribal politics do not scale exactly to national politics, but do you think there is a point where we can say that some group of people have had their say, and then some and it's time for them to shut the fuck up so we can carry on with our god damn business?
I read your post assuming the "20% of loud people" being the SF-style "can't say attacker was Islamic", "can't report on Cologne rapes", shouting edgily at whites/asians/Jews and upmodded you. Reading subsequent posts you seem to be part of that group.
Is anyone going to actually address the thought experiment itself? The 20% is "obnoxious people who hijack civil discourse and decorum to allocate outsized influence for themselves" and yes they exist on the left and the right. I will talk about the "regressive left" or whatever the hell just as soon as we have talk radio and cable news filled with left-wing ideologues and a bunch of socialists in Congress who would sooner burn down the country than negotiate with our center-right President (or really, center-left President would more accurately mirror the current situation but whatever).
You think there is much chance of that happening, like ever?
Possibly. That kind of behaviour has a fairly strong growth rate ATM. In the UK its taken over the mainstream left, and we now have someone that idolises Chávez and feels sympathy with the IRA leading the Labour party. Anyone who thinks that, say, glorifying murder is wrong, is branded a Tory.
>Now, I know that tribal politics do not scale exactly to national politics, but do you think there is a point where we can say that some group of people have had their say, and then some and it's time for them to shut the fuck up so we can carry on with our god damn business?
Now look back at the fight for racial and gender equality as well as gay rights and tell me how hypocritical you think you sound.
The people fighting for racial and gender equality, and gay rights, had to face a hell of a lot more adversity in getting a fair hearing, than anyone on the far-right has ever had getting their views in the mainstream for policy consideration. I'm talking about a minority which by the indulgence of the elites coupled with a desire for decorum from centrist liberals, has been able to achieve a great deal more than you would expect from their numbers.
I mean one of the groups you mentioned above is actually the fucking majority group (women). Their struggle for a position in society and a voice in the public discourse is not comparable to that of the far right, because on the face of it they should be dominating the discussion, and are not. Likewise black people may not be the majority, but they should not be subjected to fire hoses (and much worse) if they try to vote. And so on.
And I'll point out that none of those groups actually got anything substantial until after the majority agreed with it. They never drove policy like e.g. the evangelicals do despite being a minority of the population and wanting something most people didn't care for.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be given a voice, I'm saying that when a group is consistently given a voice and policy impact way out of proportion to their numbers (and necessarily at the expense of other groups), that it is fine for society to react to that especially if no legislative action is involved.
I suppose it goes from one to the other around the time that the minority has actually successfully dominated the discussion well out of proportion to their numbers. I think the far-right in America has been successful at this via movement conservatism for the past few decades, and definitely falls in scope.
Again, when is enough, enough? Is there any point at which you are comfortable - again at a societal level not as an act of Congress or something - with informing these people that their positions are unpopular and hated, and they need to, and if they refuse will be made to (e.g. r/news reaction here), quit hogging the public discourse in favor of some other people with fresher ideas?
I mean, it's not like "gays shouldn't be married, Muslims should be banned, taxation is theft, Obama isn't eligible for office, Hillary left people to die in Benghazi for no reason at all, black people are fools for the Democratic party, Mexicans are both lazy moochers and taking all our jobs, and on and on and on and on and on" hasn't gotten a fair hearing. Not according to my Facebook feed, anyway.
So, again, at what point is it okay to tell these overbearing loudmouths to shut the fuck up and give the 80 other people in the room a chance to speak? Is it ever okay? Should we doom ourselves to rule by the loud and obstinate?
In my view it's okay to tell them that at any time, and just as acceptable for them to throw it back in our faces. What's worrisome is when action is taken to silence and suppress speech considered problematic, because that is a precedent that eventually can be used against anyone.
By inspecting whether they are actually being oppressed, or just being discouraged from being overbearing assholes.
Also bear in mind this is not an act of Congress. This was a popular subreddit where some unpaid mods decided to go nuclear on people who have a history of hijacking discussion and preventing civil discourse. I think that public forums like Reddit do have an ethical duty to freedom of speech, but their duty stops short of the restrictions that are (and should be) placed on government i.e. Congress.
Also, to be clear, I am not suggesting that the 20 are all alt-right, but neither do the political views of that 20 need to mirror that of the 80 (taken to the extreme).
So - neither of you answered my actual question. Any other takers?
I think being part of an oppressive majority feels just like you describe. There are these insufferable dicks always screaming about how bad things are despite that you've already given them far too much. Isn't it time to teach them a real lesson?
People are always heroes in their own stories. They truly believe it. If they set out to "inspect" if that is really the case, their honest evaluation will be that, yes, they are.
It doesn't surprise you that comments simply pointing out where to go donate blood for the victims of the mass shooting were removed without explanation?
Is donating blood to victims of a mass shooting an alt-right, Islamophobic thing?
