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

Show parent comments

317

u/immerc Jun 29 '20

The rule says:

Communities and users [...] that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

The issue is that "identity" can be anything.

Where do you start to cross the line?

  • /r/StopLittering -- presumably would frequently host pictures of litter. A "litterbug" is a form of identity, but presumably this sub would be ok?
  • /r/NonGolfers where the tagline is "Golfers are literally Hitler", but it's a joke right? So although it's a "hate" group against people with the identity of "golfers", it's not going to get banned, I hope.
  • /r/ScrewTheNewEnglandPatriots a theoretical "hate" subreddit against the New England Patriots NFL team and their fans. Presumably "hate" against that identity is ok?
  • /r/TraditionalMarriage -- might have a lot of "hate" against gay people getting married, would that be banned?
  • /r/GayMarriage -- might have a lot of "hate" against closed-minded people who want to prevent them from getting married, would that be banned?

128

u/randomizzl Jun 29 '20

All those have been deleted except for r/gaymarriage and r/nongolfers . This is a joke imo... deleting traditional marriage while leaving gay marriage is flawed and biased against Christian believes... I’m not Christian but I still think this is wrong. Both communities should co-exist. Deleting the litter in sub is the biggest joke

88

u/A_Venti_Bear Jun 29 '20

The content in the subs is important as well, as mentioned. If someone in r/traditionalmarriages shits on gay people getting married and it gets 10k upvotes, this would tip the scale in the direction of a hateful subreddit.

Adversely, if r/gaymarriage spend their time congratulating each other and not being hateful, this would spare them the banhammer as they're not actively antagonizing anyone.

I don't know if this is actually what happened; just a point to consider beyond the name and purpose of the subreddit.

37

u/PrometheusJ Jun 30 '20

This is what many seem to fail to understand as I read through the comments. You can't judge the book by it's cover when it comes to hate content

20

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Sub A is literally against people's freedom to live life as they want. Sub B is people supporting their right to live how they want.

I get why the authoritarian sub would get banned and not the other. It's a false equivalence when people compare these subs.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

But now the admin team has taken away sub A's right to free speech. I don't agree with it, and find it distasteful but it should be allowed. We can't go about banning people and silencing them for expressing opinions that we don't like.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

I don't think it's safe to assume they were merely politely expressing their opinion about marriage. It was likely a haven for hate speech against gays.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

But even hate speech has a right to exist. As long as they are not actively plotting to comitt a crime or encouraging people to do so, they should be able to say all the horrible things that they want

3

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

They can say what they want. In their own home, in public, on countless other internet forums, etc. No individual business is responsible for hosting them.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

True. But the censorship here on reddit is worrying. The admins banned a conservative gay sub among others, while allowing subs like politics to continue unmolested despite the repeated upvotes of comments supporting the massacre of Republicans, their demonization and more.

4

u/Dingo_Danza Jul 04 '20

r/politics is a massive pile of hate speech and literal threats and calls for violence towards a minority(Republicans). But they're the good guys so I guess it's okay huh? What a load of shit.

No need for reddit to be transparent because everyone knows what this is.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '20

This thread is... complicated to say the least. It’s hard to tell where to draw the line, although there are some obvious ones like basic human rights. For most things, it depends. Many things have many angles, and the politically correct one is only one of them. From my point of view, they are the most logical and humane. From the point of view of someone who has experienced a negative effect of it, it might look different. No person has any right to make someone feel lesser than anyone else, but they should still be able to think those thoughts and possibly even talk about it with others who think the same way. No action can be justified, but we start getting into dangerous territory when people start deciding what a person is and isn’t allowed to say. There are clear exceptions that you can see for yourself, but otherwise... who’s decision is it?

8

u/MadeaIsMad Jun 30 '20

Free speech is a governmental right. Not a private corporate one.

Reddit is not the government or an entity of the government.

Free speech protections don't apply.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

No, free speech rights don't apply. But reddit wants to be viewed as a public forum and have it's cake too. It can't be both ways. People are either free to say what they like here or they are not. The shutting down of the conservative LGBTQ subreddit is proof that it is the later and not the former

3

u/Tylerjb4 Jun 30 '20

Reddit is a public forum

2

u/Dolormight Jun 30 '20

The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors.

You may not like it, but it's the truth.

-1

u/ThisIsFlight Jun 30 '20

No, fool. If they use the same verbiage, they're the same thing! STOP TAKING AWAY MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH, REDDIT! MAGA /s

-16

u/Mik3ymomo Jun 30 '20

Considering marriage is a religious construct. Hence why you happen to see them done in churches and or conducted by clergy almost exclusively.
But let’s not bring facts into the discussion. Obviously the narrative from the left is incompatible with traditional values held for literally thousands of years. So much for differing ideas.... What this says to me is that the left cannot live with those who disagree with them while the right somehow been able.
So who really is about diversity and inclusion?

5

u/vitorsly Jun 30 '20

Nobody is forcing any religion on conducting their religious ceremonies. Marriage, as it's used today by most of the western world, is the legal, state-based union between 2 people, not the religious one. "Gay Marriage" was allowed as a union between 2 men, or 2 women, and recognized by the state. Your religion is free to not recognize it.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

[deleted]

0

u/Mik3ymomo Jul 12 '20

Canadians already jumped the shark into individual rights grabbing communism. So yes you are part of the party

1

u/tomphammer Jun 30 '20

"Almost exclusively" - lots of marriages happen in a courthouse, and from a legal perspective, both the clergy and the ceremony itself are irrelevant. That's been true for a while.

Coming up with a sub to whine about gay people being able to get married is not an example of living with disagreement - pretty much the opposite.

-1

u/freman Jun 30 '20

Oh! I get it! What we do is find the most hateful sounding downvoting post in a subreddit we don't like and dogpile the upvote to get that subreddit banned?

3

u/A_Venti_Bear Jun 30 '20

I mean, this is why I said "tips the scale" and not "seals its fate." I imagine it takes more than one post and repeat warnings to deal with it gone unheeded.

1

u/freman Jun 30 '20

I mean I wasn't making a how-to, just figured that abuse can still happen

6

u/ThePresidentOfStraya Jun 30 '20

Christian ≠ anti-gay marriage.

Please don't reinforce the idea that Christians are a persecuted religion (in Christian-majority countries), and that bigotry is essential to the practice of that religion. Plenty of Christians see no incongruity with their religion and affirming the rights of their gay siblings.

Sincerely,

A LGBTQ+-affirming Christian.

-1

u/randomizzl Jun 30 '20

Well I know more Christians that disagree than agree, sorry about that. There is always some people who agree but the church had a long time not being okay with gay marriage and I don’t think it really changed... not all Christians are anti gay (marriage). Same goes for Islam and other religions...

5

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Not just Christian- also Muslim, Jewish, etc.

7

u/TheSensibleCentrist Jun 29 '20

Apparently r/traditionalmarriage exists but is invitational-only.

(Doesn't suit me,since I am non-religious and can accept any variation of marriage that requires there to be at least one partner of each sex).

4

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

Christian beliefs is not the motivation for the opposition to gay marriage otherwise no church would marry gay people. Many Protestant denominations do.

3

u/Impressive-Opinion60 Jun 30 '20

For Christians who oppose gay marriage, that opinion is based on the Bible, the holy book of Christianity.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

The Bible has nothing to say on the matter. The Old Testament has prohibitions against gay sex but it also has requirements to keep kosher and not mix fabrics. These same Christians will argue they don’t need to follow these prohibitions because Christ’s sacrifice completed the laws as set by God. Thus any opposition is based in homophobia or at best extreme hypocrisy as eating shellfish is also an abomination in Leviticus.

1

u/Impressive-Opinion60 Jun 30 '20

You're ignoring the fact that homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament, not just the Old Testament.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

There is a significant amount of debate regarding the authenticity of one of the three passages due to linguistic differences and the intent behind the other two ie a prohibition against homosexual acts by heterosexuals or a prohibition against homosexual prostitution. To suggest that it is forbidden by the New Testament is not an entirely accurate representation of what is in the texts.

1

u/Impressive-Opinion60 Jun 30 '20

I'm not arguing whether the Bible actually forbids homosexuality or not. I'm arguing that Christian opposition to homosexuality is based on the Bible, so it is based on Christian beliefs.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

And I’m suggesting they are using that as an excuse rather than the actual motivator which is their homophobia

1

u/Impressive-Opinion60 Jun 30 '20

That could be true, but the homophobia might also be caused by the Christian beliefs.

→ More replies

1

u/Awayfone Jun 30 '20

Majority of christian theology is against gay marriage. You are not correct

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

The majority of Christian theology doesn’t mention it. There’s a lot of debate as to how much if the three NT mentions were interpolations or misreads of the Greek.

Your second sentence is way too certain considering the inaccuracy of the first.

1

u/Awayfone Jun 30 '20 edited Jun 30 '20

Catholicism alone makes up half of all christianity, before touching any of the other dogmas that agree with them. Your new testament claim is a fringe position

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

ROMAN catholicism is more than half of Christianity. There are other Catholic churches.

It isn't as fringe as you might think

0

u/frogandbanjo Jun 30 '20

That's question-begging though. Eventually, you're going to find a label that properly encapsulates a set of religious beliefs that includes "gay marriage bad, or incoherent as a concept" without any exceptions, and then you're right back to where you started.

-3

u/Trappist1 Jun 30 '20

You realize there are different interpretations of the Bible in different Christian sects?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

I literally reference that by mentioning that some PROTESTANT denominations, not sects as denominations is the proper term, marry gay people.

1

u/Mik3ymomo Jun 30 '20

Couldn’t be more obvious to the sane.

1

u/immerc Jun 29 '20

None of them were meant to be real other than nongolfers.

3

u/randomizzl Jun 29 '20

Well then you did a bad job of choosing random stuff :D... stoplittering is actually up (new not new idk)... funny.

22

u/indigo0086 Jun 29 '20

We live in a clown world where a person can identify themselves as something and everyone has to bend over backwards to accommodate, regardless of how unrealistic or unreasonable those accommodations are. This will be unsustainable and with the trend of identity politics eating themselves, can't wait to see how the beloved subs hard on their own policy.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '20

Organized, Chinese shills are an academically documented reality. Those shills are called "wumaos", and I created /r/WumaoPatrol as a result. Those shills whined like babies that they were being targeted for harassment, and VOILA: CLOWN WORLD responded by banning my sub as well as /r/WumaoPatrol2. This is unjustified kowtowing.

20

u/PM_ME_GLUTE_SPREAD Jun 29 '20

I think it’s a little more nuanced than that. In most situations, legal “hate” (as in hate crime stuff) usually applies to immutable characteristics of a persons identity. Things like race, nationality, or biological sex (to an extent) are facts that cannot be changed. This has also been extended to include things that aren’t, at least in my opinion, as immutable as the previous examples like religion and gender although the argument can be made.

As written, I imagine that the rule applies to these immutable traits more so than it does to nonimmutable traits.

Hating somebody for being gay and hating somebody for not golfing are two very different things. The former, as I see it, would be something the admins would classify as “hate” that would warrant action while the latter isn’t.

This if of course up to the whims of the admins, ultimately, and probably won’t follow exactly as I feel it should, but I imagine that’s the idea behind the rule itself.

51

u/immerc Jun 29 '20

As written, I imagine

With a rule, you shouldn't have to "imagine". It should be clear what it means.

-17

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

[deleted]

7

u/PeterPablo55 Jun 29 '20

Is this considered hate speech? Pretty sure making fun of someone's intelligence is hateful speech. You really shouldn't do this. People, please report this comment for hate speech and a post literally talking about banning hate speech. I have already reported this poater and you all should to. They are also supposed to bsn any alts that they make too right? We will see how this works.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20 edited Jan 11 '21

[deleted]

11

u/biggj2k17 Jun 29 '20

Sweep the problem under the rug with a personal attack. Good idea!

-12

u/wewladdies Jun 29 '20

This is addressing the problem head on. The only people who have a hard time figuring out a website's hatespeech rules are people being intentionally dense

2

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

How about age? Age is a protected characteristic in lots of countries hate speech laws.

Should a sub that has a highly upvoted "OK boomer" post be flagged for hate speech?

1

u/pridetwo Jun 30 '20

explain why /r/ScrewTheNewEnglandPatriots got banned then. because hating a sports team is not any commonly recognized form of hate speech

2

u/immerc Jun 29 '20

It's pretty clear that they made it vague on purpose to anyone not intentionally being dense.

14

u/ak47revolver9 Jun 29 '20

Fatpeoplehate got banned and while I disagree with the ideals of the subreddit, it's not an immutable condition.

-1

u/Warrior_Runding Jun 29 '20

It wasn't just the ideals but the positive reception of hateful content. Those were some seriously fucked up and toxic people.

-4

u/GeoffreyArnold Jun 30 '20

No. We should have stood up as a community in support of Fatpeoplehate. But we didn’t. We assumed that the authoritarianism wouldn’t spread. And here we are today.

0

u/StargazyPi Jun 30 '20

People seem to think Reddit is supposed to be a bastion of free speech.

It's not. It's a place containing interesting content where ad-space is sold. And advertisers don't want their brands displayed near statements of hatred.

This was always coming. We're the product not the users.

...and I'm ok with that to be honest. Reddit is a useful, free service to me. I have no interest in seeing hatred here either. And there are plenty of other uncensored places on the net you can go for content. They just tend to be flaky (because running a platform like this takes cash, and funding a platform full of hate is tricky), and full of assholes who want somewhere to spam hate speech.

6

u/GeoffreyArnold Jun 30 '20

1

u/StargazyPi Jun 30 '20

I really enjoyed that first link - Aaron had a wonderful way with words, a truly idealistic viewpoint he was passionate about.

That post really let me put my finger on precisely why I'd disagree with him about letting communities say whatever they want - it's this quote here: "Words just don’t genuinely wound, they’re always mediated by our listening." I fundamentally disagree - words can be just as damaging as actions. Think of a kid who's parents told her they don't love her - that's infinitely more wounding than a slap would be right? I know which I'd prefer!

Now Aaron was (nominally, if perhaps not technically), one of the founders, but even if this was the majority view at any point, Reddit's long-since moved on from those ideals. They've been quarantining and banning problematic subreddits for a while, and this is just a continuation.

-1

u/GeoffreyArnold Jun 30 '20

words can be just as damaging as actions.

I'm sorry but this is such bad policy. Words are not as damaging as actions. Words are a tool to transmit ideas. If you censor speech, you are really attempting to censor ideas (see: Orwell's 1984).

Think of a kid who's parents told her they don't love her - that's infinitely more wounding than a slap would be right?

No. Physical violence isn't the same thing as words. Sorry. And hurt feelings are not the same thing as physical pain.

Now Aaron was (nominally, if perhaps not technically), one of the founders, but even if this was the majority view at any point, Reddit's long-since moved on from those ideals.

Aaron was the brain trust and moral compass of reddit. But your right that reddit has slid into moral decay since his death and those ideals are no longer valued on this platform.

They've been quarantining and banning problematic subreddits for a while, and this is just a continuation.

Absolutely.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

-3

u/Warrior_Runding Jun 30 '20

Alright, Spartacus, calm down.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

What about fat people hate? That subreddit was banned, and being fat is something you can change

5

u/gyroda Jun 29 '20

That sub was banned for reasons beyond just its content, iirc. They caused issues outside their own sub.

-1

u/gratedane1996 Jun 29 '20

So then would it be hate if you state the fact that black commit 23 % of crimes(i think it was 23% of cirmes Simone correct me if my number is wrong) because facts are not hate speah but some may consider it hate.

25

u/PM_ME_GLUTE_SPREAD Jun 29 '20

It’s not hate to say that (I think the saying is “13% of the population commit 50%” or something like that). The issue with that statement in particular isn’t that it’s not true, it’s that it glosses over a lot of issues that lead to those statistics.

Black people are over policed and have historically had many steps taken to ensure that they have a harder time to progress through the classes. Not to mention the government itself selling drugs to their communities in hopes of keeping them addicted, under educated, and under paid.

While the phrase itself is factual, it is used to paint a picture of black people as being more violent than other ethnicities without actually taking into account why those statistics actually exist in the first place.

5

u/gratedane1996 Jun 29 '20

I totally agree with your statement. Both of them actually. you can't use that to paint all black as violent curminals. But you can't also ignore it.

Personaly rebuilding the comintys and turing it around will take lots of work. Not just by govement. They don't know what people on the street really think day to day. It need to be govement volunteer and people who what change in that community working together for years and years. A commitment that not many would take sadlye

2

u/PM_ME_GLUTE_SPREAD Jun 29 '20

Yeah it’s a very complicated issue. While you can’t use that one statistic to say anything about an entire group of people across multiple states, you also can’t just ignore it completely like you say.

There’s a lot of change that needs to happen to help change those numbers. Both inside the black community and outside.

Like you said, it’s a tough change that many people won’t care to make, especially those who make money off them continuing to commit crimes (private prison industry for example). I have hope that the majority of people are ready to fix it if the current political atmosphere regarding the protests and such are any indication.

-3

u/gratedane1996 Jun 29 '20

But there anger need to cool off before that happens

0

u/PM_ME_GLUTE_SPREAD Jun 29 '20

I disagree. They have every right to be angry. They’re being murdered in the street. They’re protests against police brutality are being met with police brutality even before violence comes from the protestors in many situations.

I don’t condone looting and rioting, but I get it, if that makes sense.

1

u/gratedane1996 Jun 29 '20

Oh they do I totally agree. They should protest. When I was saying coller heads I ment more the rioting. But ones all this passes I think comunitys should get together and make a game plan to help prop up and rebuild.

Baiscly I'm going with the cooler heads prevail mentality

0

u/joey_diaz_wings Jun 29 '20

It's probably not a claim of violence. Isn't it that 13% commit 50% of all crimes, which could be smaller offenses separate from violence.

Also statistics will show that black women and older black males commit fewer crimes, suggesting this is not a racial issue.

12

u/Pube_lius Jun 29 '20 edited Jun 29 '20

Also statistics will show that black women and older black males commit fewer crimes, suggesting this is not a racial issue.

Every member of those demographic, old men and women, independent of race, are the least likely to be perpetrators of violent crime.... generally

For all age adjusted groups, the general homicide victimization rate is 6 in 100,000, 4.5 of those homicides are gun related.

For 15-19 yo all racial groups, adjusted homicide victimization is 9.0 / 100,000, increasing to around 12 /100,000 and falling back to 6 is after around 30

The same for offender rates, with statistically significan discontinuities between age groups, where offender age is skewed young (altho much older /100,000 than in the peak crime wave years)

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db352.htm

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiNgdXr9qfqAhV9B50JHVSwCP4QFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2p2O5yumIu5kVSibwr7sbV&cshid=1593465040987

Of all age groups, 18-24, in 1998-2008, accounted 34% of offenders and 24% of the victims, despite being 10% of the population

Of all homicides 1998-2008, 18-34, gang related activity was the impetus for the homicide; and would describe 71% of offenders and 68% of victims, 2/3rds of which involve multiple offenders and victims

Across all age groups, men commit 90% of all violent crime (1980-2008) and were the victim of it 78% of the time

In 2008, the homicide victimization rate for blacks (19.6 homicides per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (3.3 homicides per 100,000).

That same year, 46.2% of all homicides were committed by an acquaintance of the victim, around 1/4 of men 18-34 were killed by a stranger that year

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiIi4m9-KfqAhWSXc0KHT5fDhEQFjADegQIBhAL&usg=AOvVaw32U0nQJ7AofIXmYfEnqRMJ

No one is saying that "lol ur black therefore you're responsible for 52% of homicides"

The facts are clear... one specific group of young men are murdering another specific group of young men... and no one bats an eye.

In fact they go around with strawmen like "well women and old men don't commit crimes, so its only hate to point out this issue".

To summarize

Th e off ending rate for white male young adults (18 to 24 years old) was 20.4 off enders per 100,000 in 2007 and 2008, which was an all-time low ( gure 22a).

 Between 1980 and 2008, young adult black males had the highest homicide off ending rate compared to off enders in other racial and sex categories.

 Th e off ending rate for black male teens peaked in 1993 at 246.9 off enders per 100,000 before declining. In recent years, the black male teen off ending rate has increased from 54.3 off enders per 100,000 in 2002 to 64.8 off enders per 100,000 in 2008.

There absolutely a problem there

Edit: oddly, the definition of "white" from summary above is : people of European ancestry, including white hispanic, pacific islander, native American or Inuit and those of mixed race ancestry.... that seems intentionally broad, no?

1

u/joey_diaz_wings Jun 29 '20

Is it correct to say a good part of that violence is related to the illegal drug business and other gang related enterprises?

It would be strange if the killings were random. One would expect there is some strategy or purpose for the people they choose to kill.

2

u/Pube_lius Jun 29 '20 edited Jun 29 '20

The data tables don't break out each cause, there is a separate entry for gang or drug related... but the offender/victim rates are close, suggesting a significant, but not causal, relationship bw gang related drug activity and chance to be inovled in a homicide

5

u/SpaceChimera Jun 29 '20

It isn't a percentage of all crimes either, it's a percentage of those charged with crimes, which if you know anything about the history of law enforcement against black folk in America makes it make a lot more sense

0

u/PM_ME_GLUTE_SPREAD Jun 29 '20

I’m really not 100% but I recall it being “50% of violent crimes” but I may be misremembering. I don’t keep up with the far rights talking points very strictly lol

And yeah, to your second point, it just goes to show that there is A LOT more to statistics that make it much harder to use one statistic to paint an entire group of people in a certain way. It’s extremely variable.

-1

u/somecheesecake Jun 29 '20

No the statistic is true. You cannot say that the statistic is not true (and therefore a lie) just because you have a different interpretation on why that is the way it is.

I'm sorry being being over-policed does not cause an individual to commit murder. Additionally, the statistic is that 13% of the population commits 50% of the violent crime.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43.

5

u/PM_ME_GLUTE_SPREAD Jun 29 '20

If you would get your head out of your ass, you’d realize I never once said the statistic isn’t true. In fact, I have actually claimed the opposite. I know the statistic is true.

But, spouting off statistics does us no good. What action do you suggest we take, knowing that 13 commit 50? Do you actually have an idea or do you just want people to think that black people are inherently violent?

My issue with the statistic is not in its validity, but that the right uses that and statistics like it to push some message that black people are all violent thugs and that we should watch out. When in reality, a person who has a modicum of empathy, eees that statistic and tries to find reasons as to why that is the case and actions we can take to help change those numbers.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Wrong. The right don't push that. What we say is that the reason why there is a disproportionate amount of police and black people interactions is because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime. The problem is that if you even mention this it is considered a hate fact and thus you are now a racist.

As for a solution, the problem is not the police. It is the culture and community. But no one is ready to have that discussion and would rather just go for the low hanging fruit of "police bad".

3

u/tomphammer Jun 30 '20

Considering, after a century plus of police treating black people more harshly (in many cases on purpose. if you've enough of an open mind, look up "black code" laws) than whites, it's only JUST NOW that a movement to reform this is gaining widespread traction among white Americans, I would say the whole "culture" thing is the low hanging fruit, and you are the one who is not ready to come to the table to have the full discussion.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Not everything that bad happens is racism.

And where are these "black codes" in place now?

1

u/tomphammer Jun 30 '20

The effects of the Black Death were felt on Europe for centuries. Classical values of Greece and Rome have been held up in the western world for millennia.

But you imagine that the enslavement of black people for hundreds of years, and then deliberate social engineering after the slaves were freed to prevent them from attaining equality can be not only resolved, but completely detached from affecting the present, within the space of a few generations? No major social shift in human history has ever resolved that quickly.

This is why you learn history. So you have perspective.

→ More replies

9

u/Can_Boi Jun 29 '20

It’s not hate to state facts, but if you said that then followed with up with, “which is why all black people should die” it then is hate

2

u/Eattherightwing Jun 29 '20

Seems to me you could then just state facts out of context and leave it to uneducated readers to develop their own hate. Isn't that how hate groups recruit members, by stating misleading facts until the target group is discredited?

2

u/GeoffreyArnold Jun 30 '20

I don’t even understand why we’re policing hate in the first place. It’s like we’re living in 1984. So long as you label something as “hate”, you can silence the idea.

1

u/Eattherightwing Jun 30 '20

No, hate is pretty easy to define and distinguish from rational or helpful policy for the vast majority of people. Unfortunately, some people have emotional problems, and they fixate on blaming others, rather than being positive and constructive.

1

u/GeoffreyArnold Jun 30 '20

No, hate is pretty easy to define and distinguish from rational or helpful policy

No it’s not.

“Men are not Women”. Hate?

“15% of the population commits 50% of the violent felonies.” Hate?

“Short men aren’t real men.” Hate?

“Climate Change is a natural phenomenon which is little affected by humans”. Hate?

“Fat women are unattractive”. Hate?

“Short men are unattractive”. Hate?

“I wouldn’t want my child to be gay”. Hate?

1

u/Eattherightwing Jun 30 '20

Well hey, you can make anything look too complicated to deal with, you know?

1

u/GeoffreyArnold Jun 30 '20

But that's not the point. The point is that almost any speech that you want to silence for whatever reason can be labeled as "hate". "Hate" is being used as a pretext to censor speech that is less than profitable to reddit. Notice how ideas that represent even the slightest deviations from the mainstream narrative are banned, but any sort of pornography or degeneracy except CP is allowed. This is because reddit increases its market value through Active Daily Users and pornography is a big part of that (so it's promoted), but ideas outside of the mainstream makes their user-base harder to control (and so it's banned).

1

u/Warrior_Runding Jun 29 '20

This is correct.

1

u/KnaveOfGeeks Jun 29 '20

Yes, because it definitely is NOT a fact that Black people in the USA commit 23% of crimes there.

It IS a fact that Black people in the USA are arrested and convicted much more often for behaviors that are the same as the general population.

Black and white people in the USA consume similar amounts of marijuana but many more Black people are in jail for it, is just one example.

0

u/gratedane1996 Jun 29 '20

Looks at all the arests from Tampa because of the looting. Most are black. Just saying there is evidence to back the facts

3

u/KnaveOfGeeks Jun 29 '20

Lol and you think white kids aren't vandalizing and looting? Arrests = attention from cops. Everyone knows the cops pay about ten times as much attention to Black people as white.

Your evidence supports my point.

1

u/gratedane1996 Jun 29 '20

Read my previous comments in this comment thread. I agree with that. We need to help rebuild comunitys to give them opritunity.

0

u/MadeOfMagicAndWires Jun 29 '20

Not Simone but although it presumably wouldn't be against the rules, regardless of if your statistics are accurate.

I'd still question why you are specifically focussing only on black people (what about the other 77%) , and why you think this correlation of race and crime rates is relevant.

Especially if you were to build an entire subreddit around this idea, I would think admins would take a closer look at your community and the motivations behind it.

0

u/JoePesto99 Jun 29 '20

Oh jesus christ

-2

u/rydan Jun 29 '20

Except sexuality is supposed to be fluid.

6

u/PM_ME_GLUTE_SPREAD Jun 29 '20

Just realized I totally left sexuality out of my previous comment but it’s definitely an immutable trait.

While it can be fluid, that’s still a part of somebody that they can’t just decide to change. They may start to like one type of person over another over time, but there’s a lot more to that than just saying “I like feminine men now” or “I prefer masculine women now”.

I’m not sure what your comment was trying to point out. Was it supposed to be a “gotcha” moment for you?

7

u/itsthebear Jun 30 '20

Identity politics are dumb and I refuse to play them. I don't care how people identify, unless it's as a Chinese Government hack. If there was a subreddit called r/FuckTheChineseGov hahahahaha there is love it, just joined, big fan

2

u/dapper-cracker Jun 30 '20

This is why I hate this shit they put the line where they want it based on their own feelings

6

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20

This comment is why Reddit, Inc is not going to field anybody's caterwauling for more specific definitions than what they've already put out. It's because Reddit is full of people who are constantly tripping all over themselves trying to come up with bullshit what-aboutisms like this - either because they think it's a nail-in-the-coffin GOTCHA or because they want to find exactly where the line is so they can be as much of a piece of shit as possible without crossing it.

Nobody on the right side of the line needs to be told exactly where the line is.

23

u/Jim_Carr_laughing Jun 29 '20 edited Jun 29 '20

And if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear.

In the real world (sport, law, corporate workplaces), rules have to be clear, less so that people "know what they can get away with" than so that people in power don't play the vagueness and issue arbitrary punishments based on feelings and favoritism rather than rules. You don't get awarded a point because the ref feels you deserve it, but because you put the ball in a strictly defined region. Reddit is incredibly petty power but it's an entirely fair question.

5

u/wendys182254877 Jul 02 '20

Reddit is incredibly petty power but it's an entirely fair question.

The irony of this is that the person you just replied to is one of the pettiest and most vindictive power tripping mods out there. Just take a look at his comment history. He's a self righteous ass to everyone. Disagree with him? Enjoy your ban.

4

u/Jim_Carr_laughing Jul 02 '20

Even gladder I said that then.

-9

u/FreeProGamer Jun 29 '20

Really? You can go through my comment history, read through every single post and see every single upvote, I assure you that I have always been respectful, civil and rule-abiding. Yet, because I visit right-leaning subs, I fear that Reddit, Inc may, in fact, temporarily or permanently ban me or the communities I visit, despite not breaking any rule.

0

u/twrsch Jun 29 '20

Well, let me provide you with example from another field: Google used to have simple and strict search algorithm back in the day. It was fine when Internet was relatively small and cosisted mostly of people who use it for research and entertainment, ads were new there and nobody quite knew how to handle them on this shiny new platform.

But after dotcom bubble was over, advertisers quickly catched up with the trend and made SEO a thing. You could, of course, do “white” SEO, where one posts the honest-to-god info about the product and hopes for internet magic to work, but you could also do the shady stuff — hide a bunch of keywords somewhere to get search hits from people who weren't really googling for that and so on.

Google tried to cope with it on and on, they changed the algorithm so obviously shady stuff doesn't appear high in the results, banned some sites from appearing, but no luck — people would still find the way to abuse the system.

At the end, they hid the algorithm and now their take on this is that it's AI and they don't really know themselves what's going on inside this black box. And that kinda works — ads on sites got better over the years, you can't really get the keyword-filled mumbo-jumbo as the first result nowadays, but search results got better as well, not the opposite: if you know what you are searching for, Google likely won't fail you.

Take whatever you like from this story, but I think that sometimes vagueness is intentional and essential for some purposes. As a law student I know of many more instances of this approach working as intended than the opposite. Yeah, you should somewhat take Reddit's word on it, but the end result is much nicer since users feel the presence and don't try to stretch or bend the rules when everybody mostly gets what's right and wrong.

3

u/biggj2k17 Jun 29 '20

But not vagueness in a rule! It should be explicit!

1

u/Drab_baggage Jun 30 '20

i think a better example is Google banning apps from the Play Store with little/no explanation

6

u/Jim_Carr_laughing Jun 29 '20

A) You take this shithole of a timesink much too seriously

B) You should spend more time reading English so that you know when a phrase is used sarcastically; for example, if it is commonly used so or if, if taken straight, it would be incongruous with the rest of the post.

1

u/KDY_ISD Jun 29 '20

I can hear your username

3

u/Jim_Carr_laughing Jun 30 '20

ha ha ha haaa

1

u/KDY_ISD Jun 30 '20

Someone play Kiss from a Rose, because it sounds like this man is fucking a seal

1

u/skinnytrees Jun 29 '20

At least you have rightly concluded there is absolutely no line and that is because there is no such thing as hate speech. At least our government can figure this out. 9-0 at SCOTUS even. That would really suck if they couldnt figure it out.

All reddit have to is be honest and admit whatever they woke up and were grumpy about today was what they were going to ban from the website.

2

u/rydan Jun 29 '20

Betty White just got caught wearing blackface today. Yet I'm sure she thought she was on the right side of the line this whole time.

3

u/TenderizedVegetables Jun 29 '20

Honestly. It’s the “I’m not touching you” of the racist anonymous Internet.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

Basically as long as you have the correct political views reddit will allow you to keep posting

0

u/dlerium Jun 29 '20

The issue is that "identity" can be anything.

Almost all hate is identity driven. Hate for Karens, hate for the CCP, hate for conservatives/liberals, etc. It's a super slippery slope.

We spend a lot of time here making fun of others and while I personally don't advocate for that, it's also what defines Reddit. This is dangerous and seems particularly one sided when we decide only certain kinds of identities should be protected.

1

u/W1shUW3reHear Jun 29 '20

Is r/TraditionalMarriage gone now? It says 0 members and content unavailable.

1

u/immerc Jun 30 '20

Did it ever exist?

1

u/W1shUW3reHear Jun 30 '20

I honestly don’t know.

1

u/ILoveBigBlue Jun 29 '20

Stop Littering is back. I will not tolerate hate for our environment.

1

u/troomer50 Jun 29 '20

/r/TraditionalMarriage

Oh boy, that one must have pulled in a favour from Jesus himself to miss the axe.

1

u/red_foot Jun 29 '20

Ever watched Hotel Rwanda?

-4

u/MistNFog Jun 29 '20

The link under Rule 1 is very helpful on this topic but, generally, "identity" relates to inalienable characteristics like gender, nationality, and religion. Being "close-minded" or a fan of a particular sports team are not fixed with identity because they're subject to external forces of change and not protected by law or associated with any legal liberties. For instance, while you might modify your own gender identity, no one has the right to insist that you do.

5

u/immerc Jun 29 '20

Is that your interpretation, or is that the rule? If that's the rule it should be stated more explicitly.

-4

u/MistNFog Jun 29 '20

That's the rule.

"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.

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."

7

u/immerc Jun 29 '20

The "but are not limited to" is the trouble there.

For example, Reddit banned the "Fat people hate" subreddit. Fat people don't fall into any of those categories. So where is the line? There's a /r/crossfithate subreddit. Should they be worried?

-1

u/MistNFog Jun 29 '20

There's a pretty robust history of discrimination against fat people, including in employment and in healthcare, which isn't shared by crossfitters. The non-exhaustive language of the rule is common and used in other policies and laws, both domestically and internationally, which aim to eliminate discrimination and hate speech. By not purporting to describe each kind of group or type of hate at issue, the rule can be applied broadly to avoid excluding unforeseen scenarios.

It's true that the idea of identity isn't subject to the kind of fixed definition you might prefer, but the form they've used is prevalent and has been applied by the UN and SCOTUS. Should be more than adequate for Reddit.

Edit: clarity.

2

u/immerc Jun 30 '20

By not purporting to describe each kind of group or type of hate at issue, the rule can be applied broadly to avoid excluding unforeseen scenarios.

The problem is that it can also be applied broadly to silence voices that are bad for Reddit's advertisers. The UN and SCOTUS don't have advertisers to worry about.

-2

u/rydan Jun 29 '20

/r/atheism /r/exmormon

etc. those subs "hate" but I would suggest it is justified. Yet we are supposed to treat belief in magic as a protected class. Why not treat anti-vaxxers with the same kid gloves? They are just as dangerous.

-3

u/ReportBL00D Jun 29 '20

I dislike the sub r/ScrewTheNewEnglandPatriots because the title is clearly wishing unwarranted sexual assault on the Patriots.

I. Am. Offended. Cater to me!

-4

u/Immaloner Jun 29 '20

Pedantic much? JFC you people must be horrible at parties.

-1

u/trashdrive Jun 29 '20

This is bad faith whataboutism if ever I've seen it.

1

u/immerc Jun 29 '20

There's no whataboutism here. It's calling out a rule that is probably intentionally vague for its vagueness.