I was suspended from Reddit for a week for asking the mods about why they removed a post of mine.
I asked once, they said "Go away." then muted me for three days. I waited three days and then asked again, but this time reminded them that Reddit Moddiquette specifically states that they have an obligation as moderators to address questions about removal of content. I also reminded them that it also states that they should never moderate based on personal opinion.
Rather than a reply, I instead received a message from the admins telling me that my account was suspended from all of Reddit for a week for "moderator harassment."
Make no mistake, friends. This censorship is very purposeful and is being supported at the highest levels of Reddit management. This is not just "some website." Reddit is in the top ten most viewed sites on the entire web, and was top five I believe at some point. What they allow and don't allow to see the light of day carries *vast* influence. They're using that power to push the agendas they want pushed, and to specifically censor that which they disagree with. It's absolutely despicable behavior and until it stops, this subreddit will continue to document it.
Thanks for the post, OP.
Every. Single. 'BIG'. Reddit sub mod can all go blow tranny dick.
Yes, every single on of you. Especially **N8TheGr8**, **GallowBoob** & **AwkwardTheTurtle**.
Just look at 10 of the latest comments from any of those toolbag blow out faggots. Bough & Paid Faggots
Most of the major subs, especially any having to do with "news" are now nothing more than cesspools of rabid Shareblue propaganda.
The admins are well aware of such disinformation campaigns and actively support Shareblue.
Makes ya wonder how much of that enormous Media Matters propaganda budget is lining admin pocketbooks. :/
They banned me for calling out how the mods there break the first rule of the sub (no domestic US news) when they want to post Trump spam. The mods post the stories themselves, so they break their own rules. I crossposted an example to shitpoliticssays and they banned me for "brigading".
The mod there who does this most often is maxwellhill. He's also fucked over other subs in the past.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/axn1z1/top_rworldnews_mod_umaxwellhill_blatantly_breaks/
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/reddit-maxwellhill-moderator-technology-flaw/
Edit: Also, hope you don't mind - I crossposted this to r/conspiracy.
> I was suspended from Reddit for a week for asking the mods about why they removed a post of mine
​
I've been permanently banned from r/conspiracy for questioning a Mod's actions one time.
I've had two comments removed in the last two days, and I only know bc I checked the thread while logged out. I didn't get anything from Auto mod, either.
One was in a thread that was completely removed, but the other was a link to a YouTube vid (that was linked to the parent comment) on Dissenter. YouTube had deactivated comments, hence my link. Already a banned domain, I guess.
Glad you're back.
Just absolute insanity
Every average person that sees this stuff will be instantly redpilled.
American economy is doing absolutely amazing right now and the average person knows it. Wages going up for the first time in years.
Trump has 2020 in the bag and his message is spreading across the world as many people like him are being elected.
By "redpilled" I mean that they will understand that there is something fishy going on, and that the msm and reddit/facebook/twitter censoring everything means you shouldnt trust anything you read on here.
It does carry a certain unsavory connotation (at least from my experience) and is kind of cringey. I mean you’re free to say it and use it, but that doesn’t mean you should. But that’s just my two cents, do with it what you will.
What "connotation"? You jsut said "I don't like it" without giving any sort of reason.
No, it's fine. It means someone being shown the truth. A truth that may well change their entire world view.
It fits very well. If you believe otherwise, you may, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously unless you actually explain your reasoning.
Entirely depends on who he’s running against. Hillary was probably the most disliked nominee in 50+ years and trump still lost the popular vote and would’ve lost if not for [80000 people in 3 states](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/donald-trump-will-be-president-thanks-to-80000-people-in-three-states/?utm_term=.756d60025baa&noredirect=on). The Trump 2020 campaign is looking incredibly strong but so was the Clinton 2016 campaign, at the end of the day people vote for candidates and not campaigns.
This is a bummer, and the problem with subreddit mods having personal bias take over overstepping what it means to be a mod. THAT BEING SAID this subreddit tends to be a bit of a circlejerk in praising people for *legitimately* fucking stupid comments.
Associating the hate crime on assaulting ANY member of a group because a sizable percentage of them have ass-backwards views and practices with throwing godamn soft frosted beverages at the safe little motorcade of a madman that has sent human progress back several years at best. Nobody wants that sad sack of shit in their country and they are demonstrating that in a way that does no physical harm.
If you don't like someone's politics, the way to go about things is to make intelligent, adult points to critique their stance.
Throwing shit at them just makes you look like an ineffectual idiot. It is purely juvenile behavior and means you have no intelligent point to make, just are operating on unthinking emotion. It is an attempt to censor without any reason or logic, something this sub was made to point out.
In this case, the assailant is the sack of shit, and that whole little little rant is simply projection.
The world has made their point intelligently a thousand times over, sometimes a stupid man stupid deserves a stupid response to get the message that he’s not wanted. Nobody’s fucking “censoring” trump.
And inability to acknowledge the majority of my argument which is bringing Muslims into the argument for no sane reason just kinda reinforces my point that this sub is well intentioned but very 2 dimensional alt-right echo chamber (or worse. it’s really hard to believe anyone capable of operating a keyboard still supports trump as much as the people on this thread seem to)
No, you have not made any point, that is the point.
Maybe you have explained yourself and been out-debated. Had your talking points debunked.
So your answer to that is to get violent.
This makes your stance not only rejected, but the violence makes your whole ideology pitifully juvenile.
You have made zero intelligent remarks here, just silly shaming attempts with no factual backup.
This is where the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" comes from.
You blame others for being a 2 dimensional echo chamber, because that is exactly what you are use to. Stop hanging out with rabid leftist that promote violence instead of intelligent discussion.
Or don't, just don't expect to be taken seriously anywhere else when you go on with your "Orange Man Bad!" nonsense.
Hooo boy. Talk about ranting and not making points. and yet you wonder why people just quarantine your ilk to dumb subs without even bothering to engage with you.
It’s because the liberals in Britain will actively welcome Muslims into the country acting like they do no harm, but the moment a foreign president with differing views comes forth they froth at the mouth like sniveling infants and throw their food like chimps.
>It's assault. And furthermore it prevents any opposition from speaking in public lest they be attacked.
This is actually news to me, but I haven't been following it closely or really at all. Who is refusing to speak in public lest they be attacked with a milkshake?
Assault is assault. It’s wrong across the board, it’s wrong when people from the alt right do it and it’s wrong when people from the left do it. It’s wrong period, and discourages civil, rational discourse. It encourages censorship derived from mob rule, in turn radicalizing people.
If you honestly cannot see that, you have a problem and I hope you go get help for it because a well adjusted and mature adult who has their priorities straight doesn’t condone assault/political violence from anyone at all or think of it as understandable and/or negligible.
I never said it was morally right, I said it doesn't rise to the level of violence. And I just don't think it matters, regardless of where it falls on the moral spectrum. In a world where people are shot or run over for their political beliefs, I have a really hard time caring when someone is being a jerk to someone with a milkshake and that person throws their milkshake on them. Like, who cares? Why do you care?
It’s definitely violence. Throwing things at someone with a malicious intent is definitely violence, even if it’s relatively seemingly minor. And as for your statement about not caring cuz there’s worse things out there: that doesn’t fucking matter at all. Like, two wrongs don’t make a right. Also, why even bring up Heather Heyer’s (I don’t know if I misspelled that pardon me) death? Sure it’s relevant to the conversation insofar as it’s an example of political violence, yet it’s irrelevant aside from that. To go back to the first part of this point, though, two wrongs quite frankly don’t make a right. Lastly, not caring about something doesn’t make it not violence. Violence is violence regardless if you care about it or not. At least be honest here if you’re going to subjectively cherry pick instances of violence that you care about.
If you still can’t see my point, let me use a counter example: Would you not say that one woman chucking her shoe at Bush Jr wasn’t violence? To apply your standards, it didn’t necessarily matter (least of all to anyone’s personal interests), and people didn’t care a lot when it happened if I remember correctly (a rather poor standard really if it’s to decide what’s violence or what’s not violence.). Yet, that would definitely be an example of political violence.
Another counter example would be the very example you bring up. Using your own reasoning one could subjectively say it didn’t matter because it was a symptom of a growing problem on the far left, and if I had shakier morals that were that of an ideologue, I could just as easily say that I didn’t care frankly about her death as it was a response directed at antifa‘s violent behavior and thuggish attempts to silence anyone and everyone that is left of Karl Marx.
You are looking at this all wrong. That is just way too much time and effort spent arguing and caring about nonsense like this. I don't care if jerks get milkshakes thrown at them. I'm not going to throw a milkshake at anyone. I'm not going to condone or encourage anyone to, either. I'm also not going to care if it happens because it does not matter. It does not matter. It means nothing, it is indicative of nothing about society, it is not a microcosm or metaphor for anything. It is a few jerks throwing milkshakes on a few other jerks. It does not matter.
It’s political violence nevertheless, so you seem to really subjectively pick and choose which instances of violence you care about. And if you wanna think that you can, just don’t pretend to care about political violence then.
If it’s in a liberal democratic republic or a comparable system that guarantees freedom and the ability to affect political change legitimately within the system (in principle and at least somewhat in practice), then unequivocally yes.
Now, if it’s within a system that’s a tyrannical authoritarian state which doesn’t guarantee freedoms and the ability to affect change (both within principle and practice), then the only two qualifiers I would stipulate is 1) that every other means of affecting change must be exhausted first, and 2) civilian and innocents casualties are limited to their absolute bare minimum. I’ll use the galactic empire as an example as it’s easier and less likely to piss anyone off genuinely: the rebels tried everything they could’ve before resorting to guerilla warfare, the state fit the criterion above, and the rebels didn’t at all go around out of their way killing innocents and civilians, they only struck against military targets.
To tie this back to our current reality, day, and age: we don’t live in one of those tyrannical systems here in the US, and we can certainly affect political change here arguably. In the U.K. it is less like that but it’s similar enough that it still doesn’t warrant political violence. And even if one were to say violence there against one’s opponents as acceptable, the people getting milkshaked have a stronger case for that. As such I’d recommend NOT arguing in favor of violence in this context given how the center and right have a stronger case for reacting in such a way in the U.K. Not that I’d condone it, but still. Don’t make the argument that would backfire on you.
So to answer your question: under our current system, yes, I unequivocally oppose all political violence.
That's a pretty big qualifier for saying that you seem to really subjectively pick and choose which instances of violence you care about. And if you wanna think that you can, just don’t pretend to care about political violence then
Edit:
My point is you have your own subjective qualifiers for what is acceptable political violence, but if anyone disagrees with you about something silly, then they must be morally bankrupt. And I reject that.
The qualifier is literally “is the system fair and will it let you affect change without violence?” to shorten it. If the answer is yes you’re indeed being morally silly (cases of self defense aside as well). I’m not simply saying “this person disagrees with me therefore they are morally faulty”, rather I am saying “they are morally bankrupt therefore I disagree with them (along with other reasons pertaining to what they say).”.
So yes I care about political violence when I see footage of antifa beating people in the streets, when I see footage of some sick fuck running people down with his car, and when some assholes dressed in black chuck milkshakes at people they disagree with, actively attempt to physically harass them and bar them from town, and/or a gang of black clad delinquents start storming a legally approved rally, stabbing a child and being physically aggressive (link below). I care when people who are glorified NEETs LARPing as and playing at being communist or Nazi revolutionaries are in the streets making discourse almost impossible to occur when they go around beating people.
-MDL (Muslim Defense League) acting violently:
https://youtu.be/QVDtmAb68KM
(Sorry I couldn’t find the original footage I saw of them where it had a better view of the violence. And I’d like to say I understand it’s Rebel Media but I hardly think that on the ground footage can be doctored.)
That qualifier is entirely subjective. Why is your subjective qualifier the moral high ground and everyone else is morally bankrupt? Unless you have an objective measurement to use, you're just as guilty at picking and choosing as I am.
Yes there is a degree of subjectivity to this. When I said subjective prior I was more referring to a specific kind of subjectivity-subjectivity based on ideology rather than universally applying principles of right and wrong. Sorry if that didn’t come across clearly, that’s on me.
Nor did I say “everyone else” is morally bankrupt. For one I’m fairly sure my “armed revolution is only good in a tyrannical system that won’t let you change” is a common idea. It’s derived from the Just War Theory. Furthermore, you’re implying I’m presuming moral superiority. I’m not, I’m just as capable as you or anyone else of making morally wrong decisions.
Lastly, if you take objection with the Just War Theory, prove it wrong then.
Edit-here’s a Wikipedia article explaining the just war theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
>If you honestly cannot see that, you have a problem and I hope you go get help for it because a well adjusted and mature adult who has their priorities straight doesn’t condone assault/political violence from anyone at all or think of it as understandable and/or negligible
This is what I was referring to about the "everyone" and "morally bankrupt." So yeah, I can honestly see that we, as good, law-abiding people shouldn't throw milkshakes on people. But, I just don't care. I don't think it rises to the level to constitute "political violence." It's silly. People who do it are jerks, but they aren't violent. Sure, that's my subjective take on it, but that's because the concepts of both politics and violence are inherently subjective. There is no objective measurement you can use for either term. So, it goes back to my original point. Milkshaking isn't violence. It's annoying for the people are it happens to, but it's not like they're getting shot or run over.
55 comments
53 u/NorseGodLoki0411 [M] 02 Jun 2019 02:56
23 u/Nosam88 02 Jun 2019 05:04
12 u/Terminal-Psychosis 02 Jun 2019 06:48
2 u/OkCustard 02 Jun 2019 17:32
3 u/kummybears * 03 Jun 2019 17:07
2 u/NorseGodLoki0411 03 Jun 2019 17:22
1 u/kummybears 03 Jun 2019 17:23
1 u/Brian1701A 03 Jun 2019 18:40
1 u/3FingersOfMilk 04 Jun 2019 01:21
32 u/Sydviciouz 01 Jun 2019 21:24
24 u/DJfexul [OP] * 01 Jun 2019 20:04
20 u/Vid-Master 01 Jun 2019 21:35
-19 u/DJfexul [OP] 01 Jun 2019 21:46
17 u/Vid-Master 01 Jun 2019 22:22
-27 u/DJfexul [OP] 01 Jun 2019 22:40
18 u/fergiejr 01 Jun 2019 23:38
-21 u/DJfexul [OP] 01 Jun 2019 23:44
8 u/warnerrr 02 Jun 2019 09:25
-1 u/DJfexul [OP] † 02 Jun 2019 12:02
10 u/Terminal-Psychosis 02 Jun 2019 06:46
-1 u/Lord_Stark_I 02 Jun 2019 10:26
1 u/Terminal-Psychosis 03 Jun 2019 13:33
-1 u/DJfexul [OP] 02 Jun 2019 12:03
4 u/--shaunoftheliving 02 Jun 2019 15:35
0 u/DJfexul [OP] 02 Jun 2019 15:36
3 u/Vid-Master 02 Jun 2019 11:41
6 u/gaelgal 02 Jun 2019 11:34
2 u/mikehawkson33 † 01 Jun 2019 22:17
0 u/mikehawkson33 † 01 Jun 2019 22:16
-8 u/JarblesWestlington 02 Jun 2019 03:24
7 u/Terminal-Psychosis 02 Jun 2019 06:53
1 u/JarblesWestlington * 02 Jun 2019 20:22
2 u/Terminal-Psychosis 03 Jun 2019 13:39
1 u/JarblesWestlington 04 Jun 2019 17:18
2 u/silva-gunner 02 Jun 2019 07:16
-20 u/WeDoNotSow 01 Jun 2019 23:31
14 u/DJfexul [OP] 01 Jun 2019 23:45
-8 u/WeDoNotSow 01 Jun 2019 23:48
19 u/ArchwingAngel 02 Jun 2019 00:17
-17 u/WeDoNotSow 02 Jun 2019 00:39
18 u/ArchwingAngel 02 Jun 2019 00:47
-13 u/WeDoNotSow 02 Jun 2019 00:52
13 u/ArchwingAngel 02 Jun 2019 00:53
2 u/Lord_Stark_I 02 Jun 2019 10:30
-1 u/WeDoNotSow 02 Jun 2019 11:30
3 u/Lord_Stark_I 02 Jun 2019 11:41
-1 u/WeDoNotSow 02 Jun 2019 11:51
3 u/Lord_Stark_I 02 Jun 2019 12:07
0 u/WeDoNotSow 02 Jun 2019 12:17
1 u/Lord_Stark_I 02 Jun 2019 12:27
0 u/WeDoNotSow * 02 Jun 2019 13:43
2 u/Lord_Stark_I 02 Jun 2019 17:45
-1 u/WeDoNotSow 02 Jun 2019 17:49
2 u/Lord_Stark_I * 02 Jun 2019 17:53
0 u/WeDoNotSow 02 Jun 2019 18:31