you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Spotted_Lady 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see no problem with echo chambers in themselves as long as everyone can make them. The problem is when the same mods ban in their soapbox subs and then apply that to their non-partisan subs or preemptively ban based on them not agreeing with them elsewhere.

It would be nice if they had a limit of subs per moderator. Like maybe no more than 100-200 where they are the top mod and maybe that many or a bit more for subs they are a lower-ranking mod, with maybe 500 total. I mean, it doesn't need to be as strict as here, but some sort of limit would be helpful.

If they instituted the debate pyramid, it would eliminate the need for minority-driven policies and assure better fairness. It shouldn't matter if I call someone contard, libtard, freak, the N-word, the F-bomb, sexist slurs, disability slurs, idiot, dumbass, or whatever. That would be name-calling and constitute lowering the debate pyramid as name-calling and slurs. And if I say we should "kill all [insert group]," that would be advocating violence and would not be allowed.

The founding fathers had the wisdom of giving a few strong rights to everyone instead of enumerating rights to each and every group per situation. I feel they should have added more caveats for certain situations. Like the First Amendment should have said that religious speech is allowed in all government contexts (regardless of religion, unless it involves heinous crimes, rape, or human sacrifice, though if your religion requires drug sacraments that hinders your job, that is a different matter and should be prohibited while in public) and that you should be allowed to express your religious beliefs in public while also representing the government, and that having a government or public role doesn't negate those. I mean mentioning Christ in class should be seen either as a subject (like comparative religion) or as an inherently private opinion and not an endorsement by the state. And I feel the 14th Amendment should have had a narrower scope with a sunset clause so it would only be in effect for 1-2 generations and then automatically repeal itself. It should only be applied to slavery, not to immigration, abortion, transgender, etc. And even the 5th Amendment, while I support due process, what about cases where there are exigent circumstances where you must extract information to save one or more lives? Many may differ on the above I'd rather not debate that. I just wish things would have been clearer or narrower in scope in some places.

But my point above is that Reddit should have a few rules for everyone and not special rules for special groups, and not treat hatred of one group as different from hatred toward another. If the n-bomb gets a permanent suspension, then so should "racist," "bigot," "homophobe," libtard, contard, ret-rd, fundie, boomer, troll, asshole, dumbfuck, Nazi, Commie, etc. Name-calling is name-calling and hate is hate. There shouldn't be "protected hatred" or "protected resentments."