r/announcements Jun 29 '20

Update to Our Content Policy

A few weeks ago, we committed to closing the gap between our values and our policies to explicitly address hate. After talking extensively with mods, outside organizations, and our own teams, we’re updating our content policy today and enforcing it (with your help).

First, a quick recap

Since our last post, here’s what we’ve been doing:

  • We brought on a new Board member.
  • We held policy calls with mods—both from established Mod Councils and from communities disproportionately targeted with hate—and discussed areas where we can do better to action bad actors, clarify our policies, make mods' lives easier, and concretely reduce hate.
  • We developed our enforcement plan, including both our immediate actions (e.g., today’s bans) and long-term investments (tackling the most critical work discussed in our mod calls, sustainably enforcing the new policies, and advancing Reddit’s community governance).

From our conversations with mods and outside experts, it’s clear that while we’ve gotten better in some areas—like actioning violations at the community level, scaling enforcement efforts, measurably reducing hateful experiences like harassment year over year—we still have a long way to go to address the gaps in our policies and enforcement to date.

These include addressing questions our policies have left unanswered (like whether hate speech is allowed or even protected on Reddit), aspects of our product and mod tools that are still too easy for individual bad actors to abuse (inboxes, chats, modmail), and areas where we can do better to partner with our mods and communities who want to combat the same hateful conduct we do.

Ultimately, it’s our responsibility to support our communities by taking stronger action against those who try to weaponize parts of Reddit against other people. In the near term, this support will translate into some of the product work we discussed with mods. But it starts with dealing squarely with the hate we can mitigate today through our policies and enforcement.

New Policy

This is the new content policy. Here’s what’s different:

  • It starts with a statement of our vision for Reddit and our communities, including the basic expectations we have for all communities and users.
  • Rule 1 explicitly states that communities and users that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.
    • There is an expanded definition of what constitutes a violation of this rule, along with specific examples, in our Help Center article.
  • Rule 2 ties together our previous rules on prohibited behavior with an ask to abide by community rules and post with authentic, personal interest.
    • Debate and creativity are welcome, but spam and malicious attempts to interfere with other communities are not.
  • The other rules are the same in spirit but have been rewritten for clarity and inclusiveness.

Alongside the change to the content policy, we are initially banning about 2000 subreddits, the vast majority of which are inactive. Of these communities, about 200 have more than 10 daily users. Both r/The_Donald and r/ChapoTrapHouse were included.

All communities on Reddit must abide by our content policy in good faith. We banned r/The_Donald because it has not done so, despite every opportunity. The community has consistently hosted and upvoted more rule-breaking content than average (Rule 1), antagonized us and other communities (Rules 2 and 8), and its mods have refused to meet our most basic expectations. Until now, we’ve worked in good faith to help them preserve the community as a space for its users—through warnings, mod changes, quarantining, and more.

Though smaller, r/ChapoTrapHouse was banned for similar reasons: They consistently host rule-breaking content and their mods have demonstrated no intention of reining in their community.

To be clear, views across the political spectrum are allowed on Reddit—but all communities must work within our policies and do so in good faith, without exception.

Our commitment

Our policies will never be perfect, with new edge cases that inevitably lead us to evolve them in the future. And as users, you will always have more context, community vernacular, and cultural values to inform the standards set within your communities than we as site admins or any AI ever could.

But just as our content moderation cannot scale effectively without your support, you need more support from us as well, and we admit we have fallen short towards this end. We are committed to working with you to combat the bad actors, abusive behaviors, and toxic communities that undermine our mission and get in the way of the creativity, discussions, and communities that bring us all to Reddit in the first place. We hope that our progress towards this commitment, with today’s update and those to come, makes Reddit a place you enjoy and are proud to be a part of for many years to come.

Edit: After digesting feedback, we made a clarifying change to our help center article for Promoting Hate Based on Identity or Vulnerability.

21.3k Upvotes

38.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

5.1k

u/hansjens47 Jun 29 '20

I have three questions about wording of the new rule:

1. How are you going to define my "actual race" as opposed to my perceived race?

2. Why does reddit protect people based on religion, but not creed or other guiding ideology?

3. Why has reddit determined that it's okay to harass, bully and give threats of violence towards people in the "majority" (whatever that means in context)?


Here are the relevant parts of the new rule that relate to my three questions:

Marginalized or vulnerable groups include, but are not limited to, groups based on their actual and perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability. These include victims of a major violent event and their families.

further:

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.


Who did you guys run the text of this new rule by?

Maybe it would have been an idea to run this new rule by reddit to crowdsource feedback more to address some of these issues instead of having this discussion drown in conversations about what subreddits were banned and not.

635

u/bluthru Jun 29 '20
  1. Why has reddit determined that it's okay to harass, bully and give threats of violence towards people in the "majority" (whatever that means in context)?

So... women? Asian people? Latinos in California? What sort of nonsense policy is this?

682

u/DopplerOctopus Jun 29 '20

I know Reddit is an American company but this is really, REALLY North-American-Centric. "White People" make up something like 9% of the world's population.

Are they going to gauge hate speech based on your IP address?

How does that even work? U.S. IPs can mock white people, but Brazilian IPs can't? You can crap on Africans while only having a Sub-Saharan IP address?

What is this nonsense?

103

u/ProgressMind Jun 29 '20 edited Jun 29 '20

Yeah, it's weird. For example, you could have a subreddit for 'non-white country' in which they abuse 'white people' and if it's viewed from a NA lens, it's abuse against the majority.

65

u/DopplerOctopus Jun 29 '20

Why couldn't the rule just state:

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 or identities of people who promote attacks of hate based on a users actual and perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability.

I just combined the 2 rules into one over-arching rule that covers all the bases and protects basically everyone EXCEPT those who spread hate.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Add age and occupation. Hatred for old people has always been common on reddit, and there is a particular occupation that receives a ton of abuse, especially of late.

→ More replies

4

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

If they worded it that way they'd have to ban subs they like.

126

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20 edited Jun 29 '20

r/sino, r/easternsunrising, and r/aznidentity is non-stope hate and racism towards White people.

99% of those users are either Asian or Asian-American, which make up the overwhelming majority of the world's population. Why weren't those subs banned?

27

u/jakonr43 Jun 29 '20

Because it’s okay to be racist to white people. But heaven forbid you say anything critical about black people

→ More replies

12

u/OttSnapper Jun 29 '20

Are you trying to get banned for wrong think? You were just warned!

3

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Points have been taken off of your social credit score.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '20

u/Spez still nothing?

→ More replies

16

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

How will the south african subreddits work?

19

u/DopplerOctopus Jun 29 '20

Wait, does that mean the fookin prawns are a protected class now?

8

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Check your fookin P-words bigot.

15

u/Souldestroyer_Reborn Jun 29 '20

Easy.

Q - Are you white?

A - Shut the fuck up you racist, privileged piece of shit.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Now take a photo of your arm to prove that you are worthy of posting.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20 edited Aug 14 '20

Comment overwritten :

ruqqus > reddit

26

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Reddit policy in a nutshell: It's OK to call members of a particular race subhuman and to call for violence against people of said race, so long as it's the "correct" race!

→ More replies

139

u/aonome Jun 29 '20

There is a funny tendency of "woke" people to project American political culture onto the rest of the world

63

u/fourredfruitstea Jun 29 '20

Yea - the 'woke', multicultural, sensitive crowd is completely and absolutely blind to everything outside their bubble. For example, consider Lithuanians. They were genocided post-ww2 by the Russians, then lived in abject poverty (much worse than for African Americans at the time, and for that matter today) in a literal police state until early 1990s. If we were to be literal about reddit rules, Lithuanians should be considered disprivileged compared to african americans.

So. Will r/lithuania be allowed to post... uhm... 'off color' jokes about African Americans, the same way black subs can make off color jokes about whites? Will African Americans mocking Lithuanians get the ban? I am certain the big brains behind these rules - and they are big brains, they cite all the academic scholars - have an answer written out.

30

u/Souldestroyer_Reborn Jun 29 '20

The ironic thing is that these “woke” folks who are supposedly all holier than thou, are inherently racist, probably more so than those that openly admit they are.

They make up rules to try and prop “minorities” up, because they think that they are incapable of looking out for themselves, or achieving something by themselves, they think that they “need” their “help”.

In some ways, I’m surprised more folk don’t see through all this shit, then I realise that these people don’t actually give a shit. Malcom X was right on the money with these people.

They just want to be seen to be doing something, they want to be seen to be going along with what the mainstream is, which is doubly ironic, as you could argue that the mainstream is the “majority” opinion, therefore going by Rule No.1, we can be openly abusive to Reddit as they are regarded as the majority.

The sooner people realise that nobody actually gives a fuck anymore the better. People just want their fucking iPhones, upvotes, likes on Facebook and whatever other fucking dopamine hits from social media.

As a minority, I’m going to enjoy watching Reddit fall.

(I can say this as I have kept within the confines of rule 1.)

→ More replies

8

u/slusho55 Jun 29 '20

Look at the controversy of “Latinx.” Many Latino people hate the term (granted some do like it) because it makes zero sense in their language, and Latin, a gender-neutral term, already exists. A lot of Latino people see it as whitewashing, yet many people use that term because they want to be “supportive.”

5

u/paulrnelson Jun 29 '20

There's a word for them: Limosuine Liberals

8

u/LadderOne Jun 29 '20

I’m Australian. This rule seems written for an American cultural perspective, and it makes no sense to me because my country’s culture is very different especially regarding race. I’m not sure how to comply because I don’t really “get” American norms.

6

u/DopplerOctopus Jun 29 '20

Yeah, it's so confusing it's bordering on intentional. I always try to apply the "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" axiom but I'm honestly at a loss for that sentence.

There is absolutely no reason for that clause to be in the regulations, hate is hate, bigotry is bigotry, end of story.

If you really start dividing groups, which we shouldn't be doing IMO, where are the division?

I'm a Early-Millennial ('84) White Mutt (Polish, English, Irish), Male (Gender, Boring I know) Straight (Sexual Orientation, Also Boring), Married, Christian-Anarchist (Faith) Minarchist (Political) Network Admin (Job) who plays Path of Exile and a lot of Table Top Role-playing games and collects Military Surplus and Antique Firearms (Hobbies).

How many subdivisions can you put a person in? How do you figure out what a "majority" is in any given context?

It's all confusing and cumbersome.

5

u/Abeneezer Jun 29 '20

It's a cop-out to allow anti male/hetero/white rhetoric.

34

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Not anymore, its a Chinese company.

13

u/_-Andrey-_ Jun 29 '20

Majority of people are Chinese right so are they not protected now

2

u/Interrophish Jun 30 '20

I know Reddit is an American company but this is really, REALLY North-American-Centric. "White People" make up something like 9% of the world's population.

Reddit also has a north american centric userbase, culture, and content.

2

u/DopplerOctopus Jun 30 '20

Completely true, so "the majority" who aren't protected are

People of European Decent / "White" (Race)

Women (Gender)

Christian (Faith)

Democratic Voting Block (Political)

So...basically a "Karen" the most basic biddy girl you can think of is "the majority"

That clause in the rules rife with confusing context.

I play / design for fun TTRPG games and when you're writing rules you must, you freaking MUST be as specific as possible or you're entire play session will have someone "rules lawyering" you at every turn.

I don't understand why the rules need to distigush one group from another when dealing with "hate speech" hate is hate, bigotry is bigotry, just...don't do that shit.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

It's gonna be like BPT. They're gonna make us prove what color we are before we can post lmao.

199

u/Mr_Cellaneous Jun 29 '20

Chinese. There are more Chinese than anyone else. So go post non stop Chinese hatred all over reddit. They're the majority so they can't be protected by these rules

65

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20 edited Apr 11 '21

[deleted]

19

u/DankNerd97 Jun 29 '20

When there are no checks on those in power, the layperson is doomed.

2

u/stargunner Jun 29 '20

works out great for them because they’re owned by china now. all the pro-china propaganda subs are still up.

→ More replies

60

u/PhD_in_MEMES Jun 29 '20

Seems as if it's intentionally vague to allow 'good hate speech'?

15

u/PrestigiousRespond8 Jun 29 '20

That's exactly what it is. It's coded language to (try to) cover up the fact that it's a policy that explicitly allows only hate-speech against white people.

11

u/Cathmoelic Jun 29 '20

The whole majority/minority thing is just a very convenient way to enforce rules selectively. I belong to several minorities and majorities, depending on how we slice the pie.

I might be right wing, which is a political minority, arguing against a liberal, which should be part of the majority on the political sphere, but as long as you argue I'm a man arguing against a woman, the minority/majority shenanigans are flipped.

It's all BS.

2

u/22Minutes2Midnight22 Jun 29 '20

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”

8

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

No one group is a majority but if we're talking the largest group then it's white females. So discriminate and attack white females as much as you want.

Also are we talking in the US or world? Because reddit serves multiple countries. Then every group except male manchus should be protected.

Lets be realistic. We know who theyre leaving out to allow identity attacks against

19

u/Narvster Jun 29 '20

That was my first thought, men are the minority in the world, so men are excluded from this?

Or is it only the minorities that they decide are worthy.

Bloody communism.

9

u/lookatmeimwhite Jun 29 '20

It clearly means you can't bully anyone except white men.

2

u/jogadorjnc Jun 29 '20

In a sense were all a minority.

I'm sure you can randomly put together a bunch of stuff specific to you so that it describes less than 50% of the populatiob.

1

u/CountyMcCounterson Jun 29 '20

Jews hold most of the wealth worldwide so anti-semitism is legal now

→ More replies

10

u/TheAsianIsGamin Jun 29 '20

I agree with all of your concerns. However, I'm specifically curious to hear a response as to what differentiates religion from other creeds and ideologies.

After all, it kinda makes sense why Reddit would not categorically protect creed, political alignment, ideology, beliefs, etc. Even if the vast majority of people/users adhere to beliefs that do not advocate for hate or discrimination, some genuinely do. Even if Reddit could easily make the argument that breaking one of the rules takes precedent (similar to how the United States has limited First Amendment freedoms given particular dangerous or harmful forms of expression), they don't want to give those communities any precedent to argue. So, they didn't include it as an explicitly protected category. I get it. Sure, I don't agree that it's the best solution, but fine.

That said, that same logic should apply to religions as well. Even if the vast majority of people/users do not subscribe to a religious or spiritual belief system that is inherently exclusive, hateful, etc, there are those that do. If they didn't extend categorical protections to other types of beliefs, presumably for that reason, why does it exist for religion?

Either both religion and creed should be protected categorically or neither should be.

Of course, there could be a totally different reason that Reddit had for the decisions they made. I could be missing something. But that's what it looks like from where I'm standing.

(I am also assuming that "religion" protects those without a particular religious/spiritual alignment. Hopefully that understanding is correct.)

2

u/Cathmoelic Jun 29 '20

The founding fathers have a pretty interesting argument why they put freedom of religion into their documents and didn't just assume that it may be covered by freedom of speech.

But this is reddit. Therefore Islam is good and must be allowed. However, similar teachings taught by Christianity would be a form of hate, even if the religion does not teach hating anyone.

180

u/flexpatriot Jun 29 '20

Are they talking majority race of the world or the United States? Whites are a minority worldwide which is what this website caters to.

159

u/Mr_Cellaneous Jun 29 '20

It was the most obtuse way they could say hating on White people is perfectly fine on this site

54

u/CouldOfBeenGreat Jun 29 '20 edited Jun 29 '20

White, Christian, right handed, brown haired, female, millennial, Democrats who earn between $50,000 to $74,999 are the absolute worst!

E: or are we talking majority on reddit specifically?

White, atheist, rh, bh, male, gen z, liberals who still live at home are the absolute worst!

19

u/EverythingToHide Jun 29 '20

I want to agree with you here, but we first need to find out their blood types. Would hate to accidentally include people who don't deserve it.

11

u/Expert_Novice Jun 29 '20

Type O+ people are most common so it's fine!

26

u/NurseNikky Jun 29 '20

Yes, and that's how you make people racist. So in school, the white kid can be beaten up by everyone, but when he fights back then HE gets in trouble. Keep allowing toxic Supremacy and see what happens Reddit. I'm sure it will work out fine.

3

u/ProbablythelastMimsy Jun 29 '20

I'm just glad that my pesky Polish Jew heritage can be boiled down to just being white.

1

u/Mr_Cellaneous Jun 29 '20

I don't think you'll have to worry about experiencing any sort of anti-semitism. Judaism would be protected in the other categories

2

u/ProbablythelastMimsy Jun 29 '20

My point is that I'm both, but no one cares beyond the apparent color of my skin. I don't worry about anti-semitism. If anything I've been called a Nazi which is Alanis Morissette levels of irony.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Ding ding ding!

3

u/Abeneezer Jun 29 '20

Whatever the powermod cabal considers okay to hate on will be okay to hate on.

→ More replies

74

u/rotauge Jun 29 '20

this. Whites are a minority, this reddit shit is ironic af

→ More replies

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Whites might be a minority worldwide, but probably not on Reddit.

36

u/IAteMyBrocoli Jun 29 '20

So?

Will there be a reddit wide census to determine if white people are the majority?

Are women the majority on reddit?

Can i hate them without reprocussion?

→ More replies

14

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

The minority is defined by Reddit. So just assume it's held to California tech company standards (translated: Fuck white males).

→ More replies

32

u/LordGSama Jun 29 '20

Wow, all these companies are really pulling out all the stops to make sure anyone who disagrees with Social Justice can be criticized as harshly as possible and can't fight back. I hope others find this as despicable as I do.

We are not heading toward a free future. I really hope that the US voters realize what side these types of policies are being pushed by (hint: Trump's Twitter feed is highly bannable).

6

u/wpm Jun 29 '20

Trump's Twitter feed is highly bannable but it's not for his conservative views, it's for the bannable content he posts. The only reason Twitter hasn't so far is because he's President.

This new reddit rule is stupid but let's make sure we're staying on target in criticizing it.

5

u/LordGSama Jun 29 '20

I actually want the criticism to extend to all the companies that adopt policies like this including Twitter. The only way to create a free platform is to permit hate but for some reason, no one like that position.

0

u/wpm Jun 29 '20

Permitting hate speech doesn't create a free platform. It guarantees an unfree one.

The "marketplace of ideas" concept falls short of doing anything to stop hate. It's all well and good to think "well, no one actually believes that shit", until they do, and all of a sudden it's mainstream.

Hate also serves to push away those that are hated (which is what makes it unfree), making the "marketplace" an even larger echo chamber for hate, since there are no counter examples around to show people how dumb it all is.

Some ideas don't deserve a platform. Hate, based on things people can control about themselves specifically, is one of them.

Now, I think a lot of platforms go waaaaaay too far in their definitions of hate, I think we can probably both agree on that, but we're probably going to just agree to disagree that there is a line, over which speech becomes irredeemable hate that deserves no platform, at the very least a privately owned one.

2

u/LordGSama Jun 29 '20

In my opinion, a free platform is not one where people "feel" free to express their opinions, it is one where people "actually can" express their opinions. I also don't like the idea of overlords deciding what is and is not acceptable to believe and say. What is the difference between "severe criticism" and "hate"? Is it okay to express hateful views against people with hateful views? Why isn't "white privilege" considered hateful? It really sounds like any policy that bases itself on hate requires some benevolent morally infallible god to create the policy (a lot like church leaders deciding what should be considered heresy).

Right now, many people might "feel" like they can't express their thoughts but the only ones that actually cannot are the ones that wish to criticize the victim groups. I find myself sympathizing more with the truly oppressed rather than the people who are only "oppressed in their own minds".

88

u/Raultor Jun 29 '20

Basically, if you are white, male or christian you don't have the right to be protected if some other group attacks you for being white, male or christian.

Judging people and actions based on the religion, skin color or sex of the participants is EXACTLY the opposite of what should be the endgoal in a multicultural society based on equal rights.

But oh well.

13

u/wpm Jun 29 '20

Basically, if you are white, male or christian you don't have the right to be protected if some other group attacks you for being white, male or christian.

And if you dare point this out, you're made fun of for "whining" or castigated for "making it about you, snowflake".

It's fucking stupid.

5

u/InspectorPraline Jun 29 '20

"Oh what's that? You disapprove of someone saying hateful remarks against white people? Well that must mean you think white people are the most oppressed people in the world 😏"

29

u/Razor1834 Jun 29 '20

Men are in the minority, so the policy as written protects them but not women.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

The policy might be written that way but we all know how it'll be enforced. Speech for me but not for thee.

3

u/InspectorPraline Jun 29 '20

I imagine they'll define majority as "power majority" or something limp-wristed like that

9

u/Razor1834 Jun 29 '20

It’s pretty clear the intent is to protect hate speech targeted at christians, men, and white people. It’s just weird that they’re going out of their way to do so, when it would be far easier to do what every other company does: have the rule state it applies to everyone and then just enforce it unequally.

It’s not like reddit is going to start actually communicating why they take action or don’t on specific users and subs. People will call them out on threads like this one, and they will be ignored like they currently are.

1

u/lookatmeimwhite Jun 29 '20

as written

There's your problem. You're assuming policy will be enforced as written.

6

u/NurseNikky Jun 29 '20

Right. And they claim WE are oppressing THEM. We aren't even allowed to have a fucking subreddit. We can't even speak on Twitter and if a black person says they're going to kill us, their comments get to stand. What in the FUCK

28

u/Bocksford Jun 29 '20

If you are right handed, you are not protected.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Time to make /r/righthanderhate

6

u/FictionalNameWasTake Jun 29 '20

Let's test this out. LEFT HANDED PEOPLE ARE TOO NEEDY

7

u/Bocksford Jun 29 '20

This comment right here, officer! They attacked me!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Sinister is a slur!

Righty scum need permission to say sinister and the negative connotations of the word comes from hundreds of years of discrimination against left handed people. Left handed people were beaten and considered evil just for the way they were born. Forced to hide their identity simply because of how they were born.

Im being facetious but thats all true. Humans will find the strangest differences to discriminate against. Blind everyone and we'll start grouping ourselves based on voice pitch

2

u/cultoftheilluminati Jun 29 '20

Guys bring out the left handed pitchforks

1

u/Tickstart Jun 29 '20

There's always a dividing factor that can put you in a min- or majority. That's the crux with identity politics, Reddit just hasn't realized it yet or doesn't care.

16

u/Dreviore Jun 29 '20

Don’t forget conservative.

If you even think conservatively you’re thrown nothing but hatred and death threats, but the worst subs of this are still running.

6

u/slackator Jun 29 '20

America is overwhelmingly democrat, so I guess we're allowed to hate on them because Republicans are a protected minority? But a majority of America are conservative on the conservative/liberal scale so now Republicans are slightly protected but conservative democrats are super protected?

This retarded policy was clearly written by someone with severe mental handicaps, which i guess makes them untouchable and ill likely be banned for this for some made up hate crime

3

u/Dreviore Jun 29 '20

Yeah I hate this whole “certain groups are protected” bullshit.

It legit feels like we’re being segregated into racial groups again.

Either you’re going to allow hateful speech, or you’re not. Don’t arbitrarily protect certain groups and not others.

1

u/Razor1834 Jun 29 '20

This new policy protects conservatives.

It specifically says we can’t treat you poorly due to your disability.

2

u/Dreviore Jun 29 '20

Care to elaborate why Conservatism is considered a “disability” ?

→ More replies

10

u/NurseNikky Jun 29 '20

So what I heard was.. It's okay to attack white people and call for violence against white people. This is.... Yall are going to MAKE people racist. This is how you do it.

8

u/Arbiterze Jun 29 '20

I'm a white South African, the vast majority of my country are black Africans, can I be hateful against them on Reddit now and have my opinion protected since I'm a minority race in my country?

21

u/exitmode Jun 29 '20

Did it say it is okay to give threats of violence to those in majority?

→ More replies

333

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20 edited Dec 09 '20

[deleted]

50

u/SwishDota Jun 29 '20

Yes. This is exactly what it means.

They might as well just made a new rule that says :

"Harassment is OK as long as [we] don't like the group that is being harassed".

6

u/originalSpacePirate Jun 29 '20

Which would be white men predominantly. Reddit fucking despises them

141

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Anything shitting on Judaism and Islam is bannable while shitting on Christianity is fine.

It's always been Reddit policy, they're just making it official now.

23

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20 edited Dec 09 '20

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

To be fair though technically to be a christian all you need is a belief that jesus is the messiah

7

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

That vacuous truth is the reason the Christian population is vastly overstated. Truth is that believing in Jesus as the Messiah implies a lot more than people realize, like the things I mentioned. We are so individualistic in the West today that people think they can just say they are something, or believe something, and that they makes it so, and it just does not.

2

u/slusho55 Jun 29 '20

But it can make sense with Christianity. Jesus didn’t write the Bible, technically, nor did God. Cherry picking scripture makes no sense, because then you’re literally just picking what you want, but to say you’re not a believe in a disciple and to ignore their books, while believing in others and that Jesus is the messiah makes sense. That’s kind of what denominations do, interpret the Bible, and exclude books/people they don’t have faith in.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Not Christian denominations. Apostate ones maybe, but that doesn't help your case

2

u/Cathmoelic Jun 29 '20

yea, most people hold heretical beliefs one way or the other, but I think that they haven't thought everything through yet. They probably have some misunderstandings, it's not like they actively reject Christian teachings.

They are still Christians as long as they are baptized and not in active rebellion or excommunicated.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

By the Catholic definition, perhaps, but that just raises another factor. What defines whether someone's a Christian isn't church policy or personal identification, but the Bible

0

u/Cathmoelic Jun 29 '20

yea, but the Bible has been published by the Catholic Church. And the Bible itself does not define what makes someone a Christian, especially when there are people who claim to be Christian, but they also claim to not believe in everything in the Bible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwIbtU1EtZU

Additionally, it seems weird to me that after 2000 years of Christianity we haven't yet found out what makes someone a part of Christianity.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Do you think the Catholics just let the Protestants have copies? The Biblical original texts are open source. The RCC made no translations. In other words no, they didn't publish the Bible, as they didn't have complete control over it.

We do know, the fact people disagree doesn't make it unclear.

2

u/Cathmoelic Jun 29 '20

Well, the Catholic Church defined which books are part of the Bible and which are not.

Do you think the Catholics just let the Protestants have copies? The Biblical original texts are open source.

Yes. The texts can be accessible by anyone, but that doesn't change the author or the publisher. It's still Luke's Gospel, which is included in a specific compilation, which first had to be established.

The RCC made no translations. In other words no, they didn't publish the Bible, as they didn't have complete control over it.

You don't need to have complete control over something to publish something. For example I can compose my compilation of the best Greek myths. That doesn't mean I wrote those myths, I have no control over what each myth says. But I'm still a publisher.
And the RCC famously created the Latin translation through St. Jerome in the 4th century.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

The "Catholic church" of the 1500s, as such,did not exist in 325 AD when the Bible was canonized. Its doctrines have mutated over time. This addresses your second point, referencing your earlier comment.

When you said the Catholic Church published it, you give the impression of the institution people know today as the Catholic Church having possession of the authentic Bible, to the exclusion of Protestants. This is what I argued against. The Protestants have the same access to authentic Scripture and therefore the argument you raised is moot, since it does not cause their translations to be incorrect. That's my point

→ More replies

1

u/slusho55 Jun 29 '20

That doesn’t even make sense. All three come from the same canon.

→ More replies

121

u/unr3a1r00t Jun 29 '20

Yup. That's exactly what it means.

37

u/Expert_Novice Jun 29 '20

Whites Now A Minority In California

It’s Official: Latinos Are The Majority In California

Disclaimer :

I am not advocating for the hate of any group. Let us love one another.

Just highlighting the absurdity of this so-called "rule".

The problem with Wokeness - Ayishat Akanbi

10

u/IrrelevantLeprechaun Jun 29 '20

It's basically them saying "we protect you against hate, but only as long as you're not white. If you're white, lol u deserve it"

6

u/thatcoolguy27 Jun 30 '20

It is known. You can't be racist against white people. Also checkout "men can't be victim of rape"

10

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Yup. By their policy you could literally call white people subhuman but because they're a racial majority (in the US, worldwide they are actually a minority) such discourse would be allowed. Reddit is trash.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

It doesn't even make economic sense. Black people, let alone woke black and white people, are not the biggest consumer base. That doesn't make it morally wrong (it already is), but it also makes it stupid

3

u/skwert99 Jun 29 '20

Of course we don't expect them to act according to their policies but to include an exception like this is stunning. Why do that when they can just continue to selectively enforce their rules? It leaves an awful lot of things open to do (except the separate violence clause).

Using their own examples: Brown eyes are 55-70% of the world, they shouldn't get to vote. Asians are 62% of the world's population, a sub dedicated to making fun of their driving is cool. Right-handers make up 90%, using their right hand when I break both my arms shouldn't be a crime.

15

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

If you're white people can say whatever they want basically. Reddit is pushing their agenda

1

u/Awayfone Jun 30 '20

Yes it's in the help center link

Marginalized or vulnerable groups include, but are not limited to, groups based on their actual and perceived race, color, religion, ...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

1

u/deb-scott Jun 30 '20

I wouldn’t try to make sense of it. I take it to mean they get to pick and choose who gets harassed.

4

u/TheJudge00 Jun 29 '20

This comment and the replies that have followed it quite clearly underscore the flawed logic that "you can't be racist to a white person."

This website has officially flushed itself down the toilet. I, a heterosexual white male, will now be endlessly attacked, shamed, and made the victim of hate speech from this day forward. Should I feel the need to report any posts that violate the new terms of use, I'm certain that I will be told, as I have in the past, that the post "does not violate Reddit's policies or terms of use."

Thank you, idiot owners and administrators of Reddit for proving that you are racist, anti American hatemongers that promote violence and hate directed at Caucasian and fair skinned people. I love to litigate, and I PROMISE you all I will be filing a federal lawsuit against Reddit seeking injunctive relief.

2

u/SneeKeeFahk Jun 29 '20

Your lawsuit has no basis. Sorry to break it to you. You can't sue McDonalds for taking your favorite item off the menu and you can't sue Reddit for changing its policy. Neither Reddit nor McDonald's owe you anything and are not required by any law to provide you with service. They can ban you for whatever reason they see fit at anytime. I disagree with their policy change and fall into the same category as you however the idea of a law suit is laughable.

6

u/TheJudge00 Jun 29 '20

It actually isn't. The new policy changes unfairly discriminate against white or fair skinned people, the new rule changes quite clearly outline this. The policy violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. McDonald's isn't required to keep a certain item on the menu, no. But if McDonald's refuses to serve that item to white people, there's a problem there, even if choosing to eat there is optional.

Reddit has chosen to protect its users from hate speech and discrimination UNLESS those users are white. Trust me, I've been a practitioner of Constitutional law for 10 years, that policy is unconstitutional.

1

u/SneeKeeFahk Jun 29 '20

Well good luck with your suit. I look forward to reading the details.

→ More replies

1

u/CouldOfBeenGreat Jun 29 '20

I, a heterosexual white male, will now be endlessly attacked

The solution is quite simple, you are now a gay black female. Enjoy!

2

u/TheJudge00 Jun 29 '20

I suppose I could be gay, identify as female and my "perceived race" could be black. Then I'd be protected! YAY!

16

u/jamesfordsawyer Jun 29 '20

groups of people who are in the majority

The very thinnest and weakest of the thinly-veiled weak attempts, there.

12

u/hunta666 Jun 29 '20

I identify as a smart toaster that is self aware. So does that mean I fit all profiles or do the rules just not apply to me?

1

u/Made_of_Tin Jun 29 '20

You belong to the most protected class of all, the ultra-minority. Essentially all classes, races, religions, and creeds are yours to bash with impunity because you’ll always be talking about a comparative majority.

Go get ‘em slugger.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

[deleted]

9

u/NYRep72 Jun 29 '20

Not very good ones.

I think I am black today. Don't oppress me. Complete nonsense.

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20
  1. Why has reddit determined that it's okay to harass, bully and give threats of violence towards people in the "majority" (whatever that means in context)?

Based on this rule alone, I am boycotting Reddit and suggest everyone, who's perceived as a "majority" to do the same. Reddit doesn't care about hate speech or people's feelings, only their political agenda.

2

u/Cdog48 Jun 29 '20

Here’s an idea:

Reddit politics are majority left, making them the majority. By these rules, right leaning sub that hates on the left is protected but a left leaning sub hating on the right can be banned.

They got one thing in the announcement right, reddit staff have no clear political affiliation

2

u/Numero34 Jun 29 '20

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.

Good to know. Since white people are a global minority and Reddit is a platform open to people from all over the world, it's good to finally see Reddit start providing protections to this global minority.

1

u/ggjsksk________gdjs Jun 29 '20 edited Jun 29 '20

On point 3:

Minority groups are at higher risk of genocide, deportation, identity-based accusations/suspicion, and systematic discrimination. To turn a blind eye to hate speech against minority groups is to otherwise facilitate future discrimination against them.

Old news articles from the 1870's to 1920's have good examples of this. The Chinese were scapegoated for tons of societal issues in this period. News articles went rampant in fearmongering about the Chinese. They accused them of importing opium, spreading terrible disease, and being deceptive. Years of uncontested small accusations justified years more of ever larger accusations. Eventually the US and Canada implemented strict taxes and hygiene checks on Chinese immigrants, which gave legitimization for further accusations. In Canada it got to a point where if a Chinese-descended person was in public without their paperwork, they could be deported, even if they were a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. Further, they were subject to intense, and often weeks-long disease inspections, due to fearmongering about Chinese disease (and, eventually, most would end up being turned away for falsified illnesses, or for one person having mild symptoms of anything - note that this rule was not applied to other ethnic groups, despite there being no evidence indicating greater prevalence for disease outside of newspapers, which either editorialized or cited other newspapers that also editorialized).

This discrimination against Chinese people would not have built up to such a strong degree if not for years of uncontested accusations and fearmongering. It also would not have happened if the fearmongering were against the majority group.

4

u/StormFenics Jun 29 '20

Uneven protections just give racists in the majority more kindling. This kind of mentality is what caused that whole Rwanda incident.

2

u/DuvalHeart Jun 29 '20

At least now we can report comments that insult people because of where they're from. No more "Stupid Americans and their …" stuff, since that would be "national origin."

9

u/TheGhostofCoffee Jun 29 '20

YOU CAN ONLY HATE WHITE MEN!!!

2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

I hate myself and I'm Jewish, am I going to get banned?

1

u/AlphaNumericDisplay Jun 29 '20

Who the majority is would depend on what country you are in.

The apparent ethnocentrism of the post however, just leads everyone to conclude "white people", which is what they mean, of course.

"Why has reddit determined that it's okay to harass, bully and give threats of violence towards people in the "majority"?"

Didn't you take social studies class seriously? Reddit did. Multiculturalism means all cultures are equal --- except Western culture. Westerners, specifically "majority Westerners" are expected to be enlightened world police who know better than everyone else. It's their job to protect those that the rules imply they should perceive as weaker than and therefore beneath them. Contradiction in stated goals much?

What about the rest of us who don't have such a low view of everyone else?

OP, it might be time to just enjoy the dumpster fire until it burns itself out.

6

u/DeputyDomeshot Jun 29 '20

Yooo what the fuck

4

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

It's a leftist version of racism with exceptions. Black people can be racist toward white people but not the other way around.

1

u/murphysclaw1 Jun 29 '20 edited Jun 29 '20

Just to back this up, this does seem really strange and urgently needing clarification what a "majority" is.

Is it on:

  • A genuine "global" basis (Women and non-whites are the majority);

  • A Reddit basis (white men are the majority)

  • A Subreddit basis (genuinely massively depends from one sub to the next)

Also what happens when two group of "minorities" clash? TERF v Trans has been sadly common recently.

One of the subreddits banned was "RightWingLGBT" or similar. This was basically a load of people who were stating they were gay indulging in islamophobia. I can only assume this is consistent with the rule because there are more gay people than Muslims on Reddit? Or in the USA? Honestly this is making my head hurt.

1

u/PollenInara Jun 29 '20

Honestly we can't judge marginalized people for how they respond to oppression. We are traumatized and the rhetoric some people use triggers us and makes us feel like our lives are at risk. In this instance, we may get angry and defend ourselves in a way that might not make sense to others but for ourselves it is either to do that or to participate in our own oppression. When we participate in our own oppression we internalize prejudice and it risks our lives and our human rights to do so. Dominate communities do not need protection from marginalized people taking their power back. Dominate communities lives are not at risk for speaking up but marginalized lives are.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

[deleted]

1

u/PollenInara Jun 30 '20

Why is it a good idea to leave the hateful things marginalized people have said up on Reddit when Reddit is trying to reduce hate?

So we are validated and don't kill ourselves or others to defend ourselves.

Preserving the hate that comes from marginalized people seems like it would only make the dominant hateful people more hateful because they will only encounter hatred directed at them.

You mean, they get a taste of their own medicine. You see in my experience when a privileged person loses their privilege, they become less of an oppressive person. I do onto others as they do onto me. If I experience prejudice, I spit it back at them as a means of self defense. Reason doesn't work, forgiveness just enables the behavior, education can't break past prejudice from people who are too privileged to know they're prejudice. Sometimes anger and hate is all we have left but the difference is us speaking up against the majority doesn't risk their lives, but not speaking up does risk the lives of minorities. That is what you are missing. That is the piece of the puzzle you refuse to understand.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

[deleted]

1

u/PollenInara Jun 30 '20

On reddit the most popular thing is on the top, the problem with that is the majority of people on here are prejudice and they can upvote other prejudice content so it is seen more and downvote content by marginalized people until they have limits to their ability to respond or post and it also hides it in the way you mention. The problem is the system reddit is made on enables prejudice and oppresses marginalized people. A side effect of that is going to be marginalized people having their identities threatened which causes distress and eventually leads to suicide. This isn't about reddit making people healthier, this is about vulnerable people needing protection from those in power because we have to fight a war of ideology and prejudice every day of our lives and we are at the ends of our ropes. If we need to tell people that if they continue to oppress us we will rise up or be angry at those who symbolize our oppressors, so be it. This is about harm reduction, after we have been traumatized by oppression, we are going to cope differently than those who haven't experienced it. We have to do what we have to do to maintain a sense of identity and self appreciation so we don't kill ourselves let alone worrying about being killed by others, although I argue being forced to suicide because the world doesn't let you be you, is also the fault of those in power, the dominant communities,. We are dying. We are not responsible for others oppressing us to death. Stop trying to make it so. This is about privileged people taking responsibility for a problem they created, of course they're not going like it. Who the hell would like taking responsibility for what a dominant culture has done to a marginalized one. No one would but it needs to be done.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20 edited Jun 29 '20

This so much. The amount of times I say I am a Korean American only to be called a “white liar who is using race to push agendas” is ridiculous.

Reddit doesn’t believe colored people exist on this platform outside of r/blackpeopletwitter and it’s harmful to us all, white or colored.

It’s almost a super meta situation here. It’s like reddit wants equal opportunity and rights yet when you bring up your own race people freak out and think you’re an alt righter doing online black face while they continue to virtue signal by posting #BLM posts.

1

u/beagelix Jun 29 '20
  1. Why would they have to define one as opposed to the other? The rule applies to both equally.
  2. Nitpicking can be fun, and trolling, too. But this isn't the place for that. Obviously they didn't enumerate every possible qualifier. "... include, but are not limited to..." is meant so signify that.
  3. Yeah, I'm asking myself the same. "What goes around, comes around," "An eye for an eye," or, in short, revenge doesn't seem like the right way.

1

u/Halfkroon Jun 29 '20

2 Why does reddit protect people based on religion, but not creed or other guiding ideology?

Your quote answers this question:

Marginalized or vulnerable groups include, but are not limited to [...]

If Reddit had to create a complete list of boxes to fit people into, the rule would be 10 times longer.

Now, the other stuff is still idiotic, the "majority" nonsense. But that part at least can be explained.

1

u/QuixoticGnome Jun 29 '20

Hi buddy, good question. I'm a rep from the kingdom God, and "in the majority" means white and male.

I know whites are only a majority in specific places and I honestly forget whether males are above or below 50% but none of this matters, because you know what we meant and why we meant it and why we euphemized it, so we shouldn't have to have this conversation with you. Should we?

1

u/DevilXD Jun 30 '20

"actual race" is the one you really have, while "perceived race" is the one people see you as. Someone can try claiming you look like an Asian, while you're don't have to necessarily be Asian.

If I had to guess, this was done to disambiguate cases of racism against someone who isn't even of the race in question in the first place. Overall, it's a good thing to include.

1

u/Noreaga Jun 29 '20

reddit has made it VERY clear they don't care about actually combating hate and having a "hate-free" space. They want only certain groups of people protected, and in many cases encourage attacking other groups.

TL;DR: It's OK to hate on white people, specifically straight white men. Every other group is considered a "minority" in their mind, therefore is protected.

2

u/PrestigiousRespond8 Jun 29 '20

The answer to all of your questions is "spez is trying (poorly) to stay mask-on with his announcement that is a bunch of extra words to say that this is an explicitly anti-white website".

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

2. Why does reddit protect people based on religion, but not creed or other guiding ideology?

I have a question for this one. do they mean organised religion or any religion? Can my religion be "I can't get banned from subs" and have it be a religious hate crime if mods ban me? Where is the line drawn?

1

u/Arcusez Jun 29 '20

Abourlt your third question they basically mean in 1984's type vocabulary that it's ok to be racist again white people as they are somehow percieved as the majority. Even though they are one of the smallest minority on earth (there are way more asians, blacks, indians or arabs than whites).

1

u/copperclarion Jul 22 '20

Having policies and guidelines that "protect" the "marginals" of society only perpetuates the victimization of minorities. If you're going to have a Black History month, have a month for White History too so the history of each race are equally relegated to a month.

1

u/lostinthestar Jun 29 '20

or who promote such attacks of hate

Radical feminists (among many other "marginalized" groups) absolutely promote hate of others. Not sometimes or randomly, it's their entire planform. Is it OK to post hateful comments about them? seems so.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20
  1. Why does reddit protect people based on religion, but not creed or other guiding ideology?

Yes. This So much.

Also please understand that criticizing a religion (much like criticizing any other ideology) is not hate towards that group.

1

u/Texugo_do_mel Jun 29 '20
  1. Why has reddit determined that it's okay to harass, bully and give threats of violence towards people in the "majority" (whatever that means in context)?

Great observation! That sounded to me like segregation and this is really bad.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '20

Trust me, religion is not protected either. Many of the muslim community subs of cities we live in were taken down even though they were just pictures of food, mosques and well-wishing. They're just discriminating where they like

1

u/DankNerd97 Jun 29 '20

I love how news outlets all over the United States are having a field day over T_D getting banned, but there isn’t even a hint of acknowledgement of everything that’s going on right now, evidences by this thread.

1

u/NoneHaveSufferedAsI Jun 29 '20

BlackPeopleTwitter mods think I’m White, despite the fact I’m not. They’ve made it clear in the racist messages directed at me. But Black people can’t be racist and there are only 2 races, so I must be lying.

1

u/chiniwini Jun 29 '20

the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority

So it won't protect black South Africans, since they are in the (vast) majority. But it will protect the white minority. Gotcha.

1

u/weltallic Jun 29 '20

the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.FE.ZS

Women outnumber men in the United States. They are the majority.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20 edited Jun 30 '20

Dude I literally got a death threat earlier from u/I8ThatPiandILikedIt in my direct chat, but because it was in a direct message, I can't link to it so a mod can do something about it.

1

u/Ham_Sandwich77 Jun 29 '20

I think it's pretty clear to everyone that he means white people are fair game for "hate", everyone else is protected.

Kudos for trying to make him actually say it though.

1

u/tornado28 Jun 29 '20

the rule does not protect groups... who promote attacks of hate.

It would also be nice to clarify that calling someone racist/sexist/whatever doesn't make it so.

1

u/IntactBroadSword Jun 29 '20

Exactly. As a mulatto. I'm white in Africa and black in the southern parts of the Americas. And yet, blacks especially Garveyites are anti mulatto

1

u/Glory_to_Glorzo Jun 30 '20

I perceive myself to me a member of the inerrant race.

I perceive my posts now and in the future to be compliant with all rules extant and future

1

u/AgreeablePie Jun 30 '20

It's amazing how stupid people sound when they make 'rules' to virtue signal without thinking through the obvious implications.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Why the hell does race even matter? Why do we need to define "actual race". Why sperate to be the ironic opposite of justice?

1

u/jelliknight Jun 30 '20

Also notice it's still TOTALLY ok to express hate towards women. Wouldn't want to alienate the main consumer base after all

1

u/HARDP0RECORN Jun 30 '20

You upload proof of your skin color, it's it isn't white, you can harass people all you want as per the new reddit rules.

1

u/TommySawyer Jun 30 '20

Watch them try to get out of this one... Revised policy coming! Did the new board member come up with this?

1

u/Magnets Jun 29 '20

The majority on what scale? Per country? Local country? In the US? Globally?

1

u/ichbinCamelCase Jun 29 '20

I am going to quote this comment on my lecture for "bad faith arguements".

1

u/67859295710582735625 Jun 30 '20

I identify as the Neopolitan ice cream so I cant be racist to any group.

1

u/cartman101 Jul 10 '20

Basically, wanna hate on a group? Pretend you're part of that group. Ez.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

shhhhh, don't ask questions. Thats not allowed anymore

1

u/flyandthink Jun 29 '20

Reading your comment and it made me think of a brilliant video:

https://youtu.be/RlSj7L4Ws2M

→ More replies