I’m glad. But you were bound to get something right one of these days. 
The SPLC labels Black Separatists as hate groups. I disagree. I think they’re racist, but I think their racism has very different motives than coontown’s. I checked out coontown, and other than on free speech grounds, it’s impossible to defend.
But I don’t have to defend it. The principle of allowing anyone to say any damned fool thing they want, within the law, is reason enough to ignore it. The antidote for bad ideas is good ideas.
(I would not object to labeling hate sites as such, but I think the decision on which “-isms” are hate is problematic.)
It’s rather pathetic that the best idea the bright minds of SDMB can come up with is the Scarlet Letter.
I like where you are going with this. Perhaps a letter that can be tattooed on a forehead for shameful behavior. Since behaviors matter even more than words. I wonder what other punishments the creative ruling classes can devise for heresies?
Nope, because I never once justified an illegal action. I spoke explicitly about shaming people with speech.
You know, the topic of this thread. Heck, the thread is about Reddit, where it’s always been explicitly against the rules to reveal private information about anyone, or to follow them around or do anything other thank talking about them.
Who are “you guys”?
Let me explain this to you, using small words.
You want to use societal pressure to make it clear that some behaviour isn’t acceptable.
You can do that one the subjects that, for the 1000th time, I happen to agree with you on: racism, homophobia, sexism, sexual harassment, &c.
We can confidently sit here and state: “Those opinions are wrong. People who hold those opinions are wrong. They ought to be shunned, ridiculed, &c”
We can do that because, at the moment, as fleeting as it is, we are more or less in the majority.
That is not, in fact, always the case. In fact, in all the cases I named above, not long ago, we, the right thinking people, were not in the majority. We were on the other side.
With gay rights, that was not that long ago. You really ought to remember it.
So, knowing that “right thinkers” are not always in the majority, are you comfortable with not attacking ideas, but attacking people
Because that’s what you say there.
Now, no, you have not condoned “illegal” acts (I assume you mean "against the law passed by through a legislature elected by the majority). That said, the thought process, the exact process you used, was used, and has been used, as justification for things.
But, you protest - I don’t want them to DIE! Just lose their jobs and be driven from polite society for saying things I don’t agree with!
You’ll forgive me if I don’t trust you to remember that distinction.
I’m sure you’re very brave and confident, being in (in many cases) on the side of the minority.
But, having been on the side of the minority more than a couple of times, and remembering how dangerous it could be, I’m inclined to let those people who are (frankly) wrong speak, and not really hold it against them. In some cases, I’ve told them to STFU. In some cases I’ve told them this was neither the time nor the place. In one or two rather extreme cases, I have decided I couldn’t deal with them (but, to be fair, that tended to be because they were jerks about a lot of things). But when it comes to, say, hiring decisions, or being excited because the people on a message board agree with me, not so very much.
You seem to be convinced your ideas will always hold the majority, and that you’ll never find that you believe in something that is self-evident but not a view held by the majority (that people of the same sex can marry, for instance - I mean, it was obvious to me. Less so to others in, say, 1994).
I am not, and I would be a lot happier if society generally accepted the idea of free speech, even speech we did not agree with.
I’m perfectly fine using economic or societal pressure to remove certain types of speech. I say that as someone who is against all forms of censorship by the government, because that’s actual censorship and not the whining fake censorship that some people expect when their speech receives umbrage when they had expected uniform agreement.
Also, as society moves towards agreeing with my personal tastes in what’s accepted, I’m fine with ceding more power to private organizations knowing that they’ll more than likely agree with me. If society was moving the other way, I’d be against it, but because I benefit, I’m not.
Well at least you are honest.
I think that we should use economic and societal pressure to crush the socialist thinking. And since corporations are powerful they can easily fire those who agitate for pro-labor positions. Consequences. But I don’t think the shame brigade is intellectually consistent and I am sure they’d beg the government for special protection from consequences for their offensive speech.
It’s true that private corporations have the legal right under the current system to quash speech which they dislike for any reason whatsoever. I don’t think that’s a good thing - racism might upset Apple, for instance, but so does talking too loudly about where it’s getting its products. Hating fat people makes reddit look bad; so does criticizing reddit’s moderation policy.
Worse, corporations have a historic dominance these days over the public square - if you wanted to discuss social issues 15 years ago you went to Usenet, 30 you did it in person, and now the biggest way to be heard is on websites owned by big business.
Free speech for those who own businesses and fora and free speech for those who don’t are not equal concepts, and I’m dismayed to see so many supposed left-wingers taking the extreme pro-corporate position on this issue. Freedom of speech for those who own big servers isn’t something to celebrate, even though Coontown were scumbags - it’s “freedom of the press if you own a press”.
So you support forcing groups you don’t like into wearing badges to identify and stigmatize them in real life? I’m not sure what point you’re making, other than that fascism is okay if it is used to enforce leftist goals.
Agree completely. Marxists are an existential threat to our well being and way of life. Every single one of them should be lined up against the wall and shot, because that’s exactly what they’d do to us if they got into power. Might makes right, and we should crush our enemies before they do the same.
Godforbid; ‘leftofacists’ would have us all judging each other based on our devotion to racial hatred.
We already had this fight at the turn of the century. Err, the previous century, I suppose. It didn’t end well for the corporations. Also led to a couple of world wars, but who’s counting ? That’s just being nitpicky. Crush on, brave Internet strikebreaker !
Huh, r/coontown is toast. Good riddance. Reddit put their site’s users before those endlessly hating, violence cheering, scum. Heh, a former mod even did an AMA afterward (no link).
What, both of them?
Exactly! Just like you’re advocating! 
Reddit is now censoring posts and communities on a country-by-country basis
I don’t really care either way, Reddit is a company out to seek profit (which they are having some trouble with I think) like all other companies, but I wonder if they’re not testing the line where censorship will endanger the faithfulness of their core audience. Digg used to be much bigger than Reddit, but made some bad business decisions and lost it all on the ground. If they’re not testing the line now, what more would it require to do so?