Fired Reddit Exec Launches Competing Site (thenextweb.com)

An anonymous reader writes: "Dan McComas, the former second-in-command at Reddit -- and vocal critic of its more inflammatory groups -- wants to build a better Reddit, one that focuses on 'healthy, positive communities,'" reports TheNextWeb. Raising $3 million, Imzy.com quietly launched earlier this year with over 500 discussion forums, aspiring to become an advertising-free space where content creators can interact with their fans. Moderators and users of Imzy can be "tipped" with online payments from other users, while the site hopes to remain advertising-free by taking a cut from on-site transactions. But "at its core though, Imzy wants to provide a safe place to share and discuss without the fear of being harassed, a problem Reddit has struggled with for several years."

Comments

define healthy

[turkeydance]

oh, and positive, too.

Re:define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

am i the only one that felt the cult vibe from the website?

Re:define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

A community that focuses on giving wealth and general messages of positivity and encouragement to a person in a leadership role encased in a cutesy art style? Never.

Re: define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

A community where minorities and women are gods and the straight white man is not allowed unless he denigrates his own kind to bow to his new overlords.

Re:define healthy

[alvinrod]

Why it's what we're doing here of course, because we have a site that's healthy and positive, so healthy and positive is what our site doing.

I imagine they'll be about as healthy and positive as Fox News is fair and balanced.

Re: define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

No dissenting opinions allowed. The biggest progressive echo chamber imaginable, where no one is allowes to question this ideology. And no one is allowed to say anything remotely controversial or offensive because it might "trigger" someone's negative feelings and cause untold "psychological" damage.

Re: define healthy

[WarJolt]

No dissenting opinions allowed. The biggest progressive echo chamber imaginable, where no one is allowes to question this ideology. And no one is allowed to say anything remotely controversial or offensive because it might "trigger" someone's negative feelings and cause untold "psychological" damage.

Oh... so basically /.

Re: define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

I just signed up for an invite. Can't wait to troll them hard.

Re: define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why I'm registered in as a mulitracial trans 'man' refugee, rape and FGM survivor.

Bow to my hormonally enlarged clitoral stub.

Re: define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that will work.

However, it's pretty much impossible to regulate "positivity." I know debaters that can absolutely flay you, while using nothing but complimentary and positive language.

A place isn't interesting without debate, and debate isn't possible without opposition.

Re:define healthy

[bill_mcgonigle]

oh, and positive, too.

This is both healthy and positive. A good subset of the idiots will leave Reddit and go there.

The downside is that they'll all eventually say something that offends somebody and so the end-game is that all the users are banned.

Show me any person who isn't perceived as an asshole at least 1% of the time, even inadvertently.

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

Re:define healthy

[McGruber]

IMZY.com's definition of healthy apparently includes a Delusion of Anonymity. From the site:

Create different profiles to fit your various identities, or even participate anonymously, all easily under one account.

Re: define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

..only a slight amount of bias there buddy.. Of course, imzy would welcome such commentary openly. However, if you were to post

"I thought the bernie sanders worshiping marxist tax'n'spend omg everyone's a victim of straight white men sjw tards were pretty popular here?" on imzy, you'd probably be banned pretty quickly.

In contrast, slashdot allows much more open discussion which places it several cuts above most other sites and far above moronic hugboxes like imzy.

Re: define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

A community where minorities and women are gods and the straight white man is not allowed unless he denigrates his own kind to bow to his new overlords.

Jesus, butt-hurt and whiny much?

Re: define healthy

[AmiMoJo]

So, I checked out the site and it's invite only. Did you get an invite? Have you actually confirmed that it discriminates against straight white men?

There are too many perpetual victims on Slashdot these days.

Re: define healthy

[serviscope_minor]

A community where minorities and women are gods and the straight white man is not allowed unless he denigrates his own kind to bow to his new overlords.

It's terrible. That was literally the only place on the internet where a straight white man could feel comfortable and it's been ruined. There is officially nowhere else for you. You are now an oppressed minority.

Re:define healthy

[PopeRatzo]

Nope we'll just ignore it. We like /. just fine. It's a great platform to poke progressives on the political stuff that comes up far to frequently on a tech site.

This is what's known as the "I'm not mad, I'm actually laughing" defense. It never works, but don't tell them.

Re: define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 2016 and people have different opinions from mine? Lunacy!

Re: define healthy

[Type44Q]

Personally, I think they should've stuck with the perfectly good non-word healthful. ;)

Re: define healthy

[Mashiki]

It's terrible. That was literally the only place on the internet where a straight white man could feel comfortable and it's been ruined. There is officially nowhere else for you. You are now an oppressed minority.

"We demand xyz groups let us in, if they don't they're sexist/racist/homophobic!" Groups let them in.

Same said people who were whining: "We're creating safe spaces for xyz groups! Look how progressive we are!" People face palm from the hypocrisy.

Sorry, the real problem is the unbelievable hypocrisy and demands from the perpetual whiners when they want something and decide to invade someone else's places, while demanding privileges and expecting that content creators or societies bend over backwards for them. All the while, they're also running around and making segregated spaces while claiming they're ever so progressive and really, really, really, help people out. Yep it is terrible, that there's such a huge double standard.

Re: define healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot has been overrun by ignorant and spoiled kids who think their own personal outrage is somehow worth communicating while those of others should be hated, further fueling their own personal outrage and desire to communicate it to others... using the internet.

Re:define healthy

[Lehk228]

filled with SJW's

Re: define healthy

[joboss]

Reddit was already turning into something like that. I was very disappointed. I am really hoping for a free and open alternative to reddit that is dark, open, honest, filled with controversy and mods that don't give a damn about your spilt milk.

Re: define healthy

[UnknownSoldier]

That's a good summary!

Stupid justice whiners are ignorant of a few things:

* Why are they disrespectful to everyone who doesn't kowtow to their ideology?
* Why are they so insecure that someone has a different opinion?
* ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away,
* When opinions are so homogenized that it leads to cargo cult science you effectively have created reverse discrimination -- the very definition of intolerance,
* How the fuck is incorrect information supposed to be corrected with factual information, since by definition that could be seen as 'dissenting opinion' ?

When speech has to resort to censorship, you've already "lost." All that has changed is you've changed _what_ is being censored. How about growing the fuck up and stop being so insecure that you feel the need to impose _your_ values on every else who disagrees with your narrow-minded myopic perspective? True freedom in speech is respecting everyone's opinion even if it disagree with yours. America was founded upon the ideology of I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it.

Not everyone shares the same opinion, and that's OK. When individuality is marginalized then you have become the very thing you originally fighting against.

--
Cult, noun, A belief system that "Our way is the only way". Modern common examples include: Stupid Justice Whiners, Fundamental Atheism, Fundamental Theism, etc.

Re: define healthy

[serviscope_minor]

Sorry, the real problem is the unbelievable hypocrisy and demands from the perpetual whiners when they want something and decide to invade someone else's places

Trouble is that people like you seem to believe the entire world is your space, because when someone creates a new place (what this thread is about), people like you start whining horribly like someone has stolen something from you.

Sorry, the real problem is the unbelievable hypocrisy and demands from the perpetual whiners

Indeed, so when someone actually starts using their free speech and freedom of assosciation, the perpetual whiners like you are all over it because apparently they used their freedoms wrong and that makes you sad and cross.

Re: define healthy

[piojo]

How about Voat? https://voat.co/

Re: define healthy

[Mashiki]

Trouble is that people like you seem to believe the entire world is your space, because when someone creates a new place (what this thread is about), people like you start whining horribly like someone has stolen something from you.

You seem to be kind of dense, so I'll use smaller words. See it's not me that believes the entire world is my space. I have my spaces, it's when those perpetual whiners want to invade those spaces that are mine and take them away. Easy isn't it?

Indeed, so when someone actually starts using their free speech and freedom of assosciation, the perpetual whiners like you are all over it because apparently they used their freedoms wrong and that makes you sad and cross.

Very strange, considering the people(aka progressives) who are the perpetual whiners that want people not to have their own spaces(like golf courses, lounges, etc) and demand that they allow admittance are applauded. When those same people(progressives) then turn around and create those spaces on their own where others aren't allowed in...they're also applauded. You should also remember that making statements against those "spaces they're creating" is also racism, homophobia, sexism and so on.

This isn't rocket surgery. If need be, I can explain it again but you should be smart enough to figure it out.

Re: define healthy

[DThorne]

Well, I think it's a bit like porn - hard to explicitly define but know it when I see it etc.,but then I went to the site itself...
The My Little Pony vibe is not doing it any favours, at *all*. Frankly I would welcome a break from the constantly toxic, competitive snide attitude that many sites have, but not at the expense of it becoming like those "good news newspapers" that only do feel good crap that reads like excerpts from My Life is a Bowl of Cherries. There is value in dissenting opinions. What's needed is strict policing on material that crosses into personal attacks, which reddit makes no attempt to stop. It's a waste of bandwidth. Don't, however, waste everyone's time with the Happiness Channel.

Re: define healthy

[serviscope_minor]

it's when those perpetual whiners want to invade those spaces that are mine and take them away.

So why are you whining all over this thread then, given that this is about creating a whole new place? The founders of the new place haven't taken anything away from you yet you whinge and throw insults like you're 5.

Re: define healthy

[Maritz]

Quite why you don't want the SJWs getting together is weird to me. Why don't you just go do your own shit? Do I already know?

Re: define healthy

[Mashiki]

So why are you whining all over this thread then, given that this is about creating a whole new place? The founders of the new place haven't taken anything away from you yet you whinge and throw insults like you're 5.

Reading skills are a problem for you huh? I understand, maybe reading rainbow will help you out. Especially since you can't figure out the continuity of the argument in the first place or that you can't figure out how to respond to anything else. You need me to use some small words to explain it to you? By the by, those weren't insults they were observations on the state of your replies.

Re:define healthy

[Methadras]

NewAge Cultism coming right up. Served with a dash of safe space and a hint of checked privilege

Re: define healthy

[Coren22]

There are too many perpetual victims on Slashdot these days.

Totally agree. So, I guess my question is, will people be free to talk about their points of view, even if it is contrary to the groupthink? Will people be free to talk about the harm of certain positions as long as they aren't directly harassing? Or will it turn into Twitter which is censoring viewpoints contrary to Brianna Wu and other perpetual victims?

Guy blocked for breaching terms of service, while not even knowing what breached the ToS.
http://www.battleswarmblog.com...

While advocating the gangrape of Sarah Palin is perfectly acceptable and doesn't breach the acceptable use terms:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Re:define healthy

[Coren22]

Please, point out a single news organization that is fair and balanced according to your definition.

You make fun of Fox news, which is hilarious, as the rest are just as partisan, but on your side instead of "theirs"

Re: define healthy

[Coren22]

S/he may have been modded down for being insulting, but s/he wasn't censored, or banned as s/he would have been on Imzy.

Re: define healthy

[Coren22]

You know what would be really fun? Trolling one of the SJW on Imzy into their typical harassment, then get them banned for harassment.

Re: define healthy

[AmiMoJo]

It would really, really help if you understood under what conditions Twitter bans people.

One post is rarely enough, unless it's doxing or contains illegal material. To get banned there needs to be a pattern of behaviour. Even then, the amount of non-abusive content will be considered, so accounts that are registered and do nothing but post abuse are more likely to go than ones that are used for other stuff too.

The other thing to remember is that people posting on the internet about how Twitter was so unfair to them and free speech!!1 are not very reliable sources. They are usually very difficult to property investigate too.

Re: define healthy

[Coren22]

So, point to a single instance of the banned account abusing. Also, why did the rapper advocating for gang rape of Sarah Palin not get banned? She after all had numerous tweets in this tirade. Inciting for rape is illegal, and Palin has already indicated her intention of bringing a civil suit in the case.

Re: define healthy

[UnknownSoldier]

I guess everyone needs a hobby, but yup, that would be funny to see! :-)

I'm all for it, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

A social media platform that excludes the hate machine element?

As much as I agree with the idea, I wonder if people would get behind something like that.. Anonymity is very good at fuelling assumptions that the other party is in a fighting mood and quickly results in people being defensive instead of constructive.

Also it sounds like something where constructive criticism might easily get confused for "malicious opinions" and be discarded, resulting in a filter which removes far too much of the message along with the noise.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[dadelbunts]

Oh no no. I guarantee you it will still have the internet hate machine elements, just for "acceptable" topics such as all white people being racist and how REAL women are all superobese.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[Distan]

It looks to me just to be "take what is killing reddit and amplify it", not an attempt to build a healthy reddit.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[Mashiki]

A social media platform that excludes the hate machine element? ....

That's a pretty fancy way of saying "the people who disagree with me, and I can't handle competing opinions or even facts at times." Just remember that there's an entire group of people out there that believe facts are harassment, if you need shining examples all you need to do is go look at the batshit crazy on tumblr. But that constructive criticism? Those same batshit crazy people, especially those that the media like to parrot will simply believe that criticism is harassment, or sexist, or racist or simply misogyny. They don't want facts, opinions that are contrary to their feelings.

Re: I'm all for it, but..

[joerdie]

Being liberal and/or gay does not mean you can't handle decenting opinions. Try to go outside and talk to more people. We gay liberals like a good debate and our opinions are just as entrenched as yours.

Re: I'm all for it, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

The gays generally aren't so bad, but the feminists are. You know the type, the ones who won't even listen to what the other side has to say before calling you misogynist or telling you to "check your privilege".

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[HornWumpus]

I give him points for thinking outside the box and attempting to monetize 'the crazy'. If he can draw them all, the rest of the web will thank him.

Think about the % that 'gofundme' and other spamhandling/begging web sites get, just for being a virtual highway on-ramp. This is that, plus mod bombing for pennies/downmod. All he needs to do is implement 'peak mod pricing', for when the pissing contests get heavy and he's richer than the pope.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[PopeRatzo]

In other words, a platform dominated by faggots and libshits who can't handle real debate with people who actually fundamentally disagree with their bullshit.

OK, then. I'll just put you down as a "No" on the "healthy and positive communities" thing. Thank you for your feedback.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[smallfries]

I don't think they want to amplify the circle-jerk: this reads much more like "the circle-jerk is too intense for some delicate people, lets slow it down folks, take our time and move more softly..."

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[SunTzuWarmaster]

There is a part of me that hopes his site is successful and that all of the people who cannot handle criticism leave Reddit and go there.

There is another part of me that is fearful of the above situation resulting in reddit-as-the-new-4chan.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[Tukz]

tits or gtfo, newfag!

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[serviscope_minor]

and how REAL women are all superobese.

Right, because that's a thing.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[dadelbunts]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/2...

Re: I'm all for it, but..

[mukinrestak]

I do believe that's a misspelling of dissenting.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[BarbaraHudson]

One person's perception of hate is another person's truth.

You would not believe how many people who label themselves as transgender get really unhinged when transsexuals say male cross-dressers don't belong in women's washrooms. F*ck the LGBT political correctness BS.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[dadelbunts]

Especially considering what they do. A street fighter or tomb raider will undoubtedly be pretty fit as their profession requires them to be.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[BarbaraHudson]

It's not okay to be 250 lbs and 5'4" unless you're a gorilla.

I guess they would say that a doctor who points out how unhealthy it is would be accused of fat-shaming too. We are in an obesity epidemic. Fat-shaming is needed, just as in the past shaming smokers worked. Ditto for shaming racists. Obesity is ugly and smelly and a huge health risk. If fat-shaming is what it takes, I for one welcome our fat-shaming overlords.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[BarbaraHudson]

"the people who disagree with me, and I can't handle competing opinions or even facts at times." Facebook has prior art.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[AmiMoJo]

Is there really no way to differentiate genuine trolling from people who simply disagree?

I'm starting to see why the -1 troll mod is abused so much.

Re: I'm all for it, but..

[mrbester]

Corrections to spelling are just another example of the patriarchy extending its influence (men wrote the dictionary, donchaknow) and you're part of it for maintaining the status quo. Shame on you.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[Hognoxious]

We must destroy reddit in order to save it.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[serviscope_minor]

OK, so which one of those has been shopped to look "superobese"?

Or are you just one of those people who loves posting irrelevant links for giggles?

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[BarbaraHudson]

The shaming set the stage for the laws.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[joboss]

Draw them in, lock the door, toss key.

Re: I'm all for it, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's not feminists either. SOME. And very vocal. But is it the redneck idiot who waves his shotgun and marries his sister like his grandpa did the yardstick for the WASP? Hell no.

What the "feminists" you see are doing is a power grab. They see the world as wrong, they're not in charge, therefore it must be those currently in charge that are inherently fucking things up, and these are women, and the ones in charge appear to be all men, so it must be men fucking things up. Ergo patriarchy. Some see this and want change, but are blindsided by their basic assumption (men are deliberately or unwittingly) creating the problem, women will FIX the problem (what if women are no fucking better than men are? not a thought they have. EVER). Others see it as a way to get power they wouldn't get otherwise. And these ones are the ones telling all men and especially all women, that men are rapists, myscogynists, and unable to control themselves, and that women ARE ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE of defending themseves, so you have to give these women your power so that THEY can protect you fromthe raping and hate from the men.

And some, like Anita Sarkeesian, have found that fuck the power, they can get hella rich and bilk women for vast amounts of money for fuck all (and then after failing to live up to all promises do it all again AND STILL GET MONEY). They're just scamming, but they use the same words.

These people, all of them, aren't feminists in the same way as WBC aren't christians, or ISIS aren't muslims.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[Raenex]

Is there really no way to differentiate genuine trolling from people who simply disagree?

Troll: Some off-topic "f1rst p0st" gross-out story.

Opinion: Catering to trannies is a bad idea.

Oh, but we can't have "incorrect" opinions like that in our safe space!

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[AmiMoJo]

Well, neither Reddit nor Twitter have banned opinions like the one you gave, so I guess there is nothing to worry about.

As for safe spaces though, yeah, incredibly someone who is transgender might want to discuss transgender issues they are facing with a sympathetic group on occasion, in which case such an opinion wouldn't be welcome. I have no obligation to invite you into my home to state your opinion.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[tnk1]

Looks pretty saccharine to me, and therefore not to my tastes, but it doesn't have to be. I just won't go there.

Freedom of association is important. Hopefully those who are in such a community will understand its value and be supportive of the existence of, if not the values of, other communities that they may not agree with.

Re: I'm all for it, but..

[alexandru_preoteasa]

So "no true feminist" huh? Right... sorry but I've heard it before, not buying it.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[Raenex]

Well, neither Reddit nor Twitter have banned opinions like the one you gave, so I guess there is nothing to worry about.

But we aren't talking about Reddit, we're talking about the new "safe space" the fired CEO from Reddit is hoping to create, so that's a straw man.

As for safe spaces though, yeah, incredibly someone who is transgender might want to discuss transgender issues they are facing with a sympathetic group on occasion, in which case such an opinion wouldn't be welcome.

Then let's be clear we aren't talking about "trolls", just people with "offensive" opinions.

I have no obligation to invite you into my home to state your opinion.

Why yes, I do believe in free association and rules for private property. But it's funny how that argument flies out the window when it comes to bathroom rules, baking cakes, or having "men only" clubs.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[stealth_finger]

It's not okay to be 250 lbs and 5'4" unless you're a gorilla.

I guess they would say that a doctor who points out how unhealthy it is would be accused of fat-shaming too. We are in an obesity epidemic. Fat-shaming is needed, just as in the past shaming smokers worked. Ditto for shaming racists. Obesity is ugly and smelly and a huge health risk. If fat-shaming is what it takes, I for one welcome our fat-shaming overlords.

So basically push out and marginalise everyone who doesn't subscribe to your way of thinking and doing things? That's shameful and you should stop! Seriously, stop it, let people get on and worry about their own lives, you don't need to tell everyone what is best nor do you even know.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[stealth_finger]

It is, in feminist circles. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem...

This is part of 'intersectionality' where feminism crosses over with anti 'fat-shaming' types who think it's a-ok to be 250lbs at 5'4".

When even the feminist propaganda boils down to what you look like naked then you know it's a lost cause. Women need to come to terms with the fact it's other women putting all the pressure and shame and whatever on each other.

Re: I'm all for it, but..

[stealth_finger]

These people, all of them, aren't feminists in the same way as WBC aren't christians, or ISIS aren't muslims.

Nope, if someone claims to be a thing and believes they are that thing then they represent it just as much regardless of what others part of that thing do or say.

Re: I'm all for it, but..

[stealth_finger]

Maybe it's decanting.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[BarbaraHudson]

We did it with tobacco. Saved a lot of misery and a lot of lives. Drastic situations call for drastic measures, and damn political correctness. And obesity is a deadly epidemic that is spreading fast.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[stealth_finger]

That's just bullshit all the way down. A deadly epidemic? Good one. Shall we do gingers next? Make sure no ginger gets to have kids and we can eradicate this terrible affliction in only a few generations. For the good of man kind and all that.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[BarbaraHudson]

You're going to hate the facts. More than 1/3 of American adults are obese. Obesity is #2, right behind tobacco at #1, as causes of death.

And with fewer people smoking because of the stigma associated with it from shaming smokers, obesity becomes #1. Sounds like a deadly epidemic to me.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[Coren22]

The only one that actually made sense was Nabooru from Legend of Zelda, the before on that one was totally unrealistic, but WTH, Cortana? She's a holographic representation of an AI, now we are defining what body type an AI should have?

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[Coren22]

Does having red hair lead to diabetes or heart disease? Does red hair somehow cause people to be at higher risk for life threatening disorders? The only thing I know of being at higher risk of as a red head is getting a sunburn.

On an unrelated note, why is Chrome telling me it is redhead? That isn't a real word is it?

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[Coren22]

http://www.battleswarmblog.com...

Twitter sure has.

No harassment, just unPC opinion.

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[AmiMoJo]

A report by the person who was banned, with zero evidence. What am I supposed to do with that? How can I verify what he was posting prior to being banned?

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[stealth_finger]

That was obviously not a real suggestion but sure, let's take it to conclusion. Increased risk of sunburn = increased risk of skin cancer. Also red hair is a leading cause of bullying into schools leading to low self confidence and potential for self harm and/or suicide or worse. Plenty of reasons for the think of the .... types. While we're at it, why do we continue to let such an evil, toxic substance as dihydrogen monoxide be completely unregulated and part of almost every facet of life? (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html). If we're going to get rid of anything even possibly remotely bad for us then surely, dhmo has to be top of that list?!

Re:I'm all for it, but..

[Coren22]

I think you have put me in a bucket I do not reside in. I am not a "think of the X" type person, I am just mentioning that smoking has real risks, and causes real harm. Having red hair really doesn't cause real harm.

I am a reformed smoker, but I am not one who tries to limit what other people do to their bodies. I don't agree with smoking being banned in many of the places where it has been banned, though I do agree with limiting it in places where the air handling gear isn't up to the task. I think the ban Maryland implemented on smoking in bars is absurd, and not based on facts.

If you want regulations around DHMO, you are welcome to do so, you should look at the EPA for those though.

Is it for children ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I clicked the link and visited the site. It looks like it was designed for Barney fans.

Re:Is it for children ?

[Tokolosh]

Strange. Smells like Teletubbies to me.

Re:Is it for children ?

[dsmatthews9379]

I think it is aimed at the lonely, isolated, urban, single child, female, teenager, market segment, which is actually rather large so they may make a lot out of it eventually.

Re:Is it for children ?

[Coren22]

As an autistic person, I take offence...Even I wouldn't go to that site.

Awesome

[CrashNBrn]

We need something better than Usenet... Oh wait, nothing has been better than usenet, as not a single damned "service" allows you to easily filter information.

Re:Awesome

[CrashNBrn]

Apparently still not allowed to mention UN... aiight.

Re:Awesome

[ottawanker]

Because porn is better when it has been uuencoded, just like records sound better than CDs.

Re:Awesome

[negRo_slim]

I'm so sick of the doxing boogeyman. It's freely available information, you should never try and stop people from sharing information. Now if someone uses that information to break the law then by all means prosecute but let's please stop with the fear monger and simply hold people accountable for their actions not the information they choose to share.

Re:Awesome

[AmiMoJo]

What makes it doxing is that it's done maliciously, to harass the victim. If it's so easy to get that information, why bother posting it? It's done to organise harassment.

Re:Awesome

[SuperKendall]

Real harassment is illegal, which is the original point. Simply republishing public information is only harassment in your mind.

Frankly I think it is stupid to even be annoyed by doxing, and YES I have been "doxxed" in the past, some moron thought he was being clever by publishing my name and address on a photography forum I frequented - even though I already posted under my full name and said where I lived in my profile. In response, I gave him my phone number and said if he had an issue he should call. Never did, and never posted again...

If people start sending you threats or making threatening calls, that is great - then you can take real legal action against them (or illegal action depending on your preference and inclination).

Re:Awesome

[tepples]

Would "It's OK to provide basic contact info for someone if you provide corresponding contact info for yourself" be a workable rule? That should allow white hat doxing, which is done without intent to harass.

Re:Awesome

[AmiMoJo]

Simply republishing public information is only harassment in your mind.

No, that can be a crime too. For example, requesting public information on a building with the intent to rob it is conspiracy. Giving someone's home address, even if it is public information e.g. on an electoral register, to someone who you know intends to harm them makes you an accessory to any crimes they commit. Intent matters in the eyes of the law.

If people start sending you threats or making threatening calls, that is great - then you can take real legal action against them

True, but look at it from a commercial perspective. If your web site has a reputation for patrons having to go to the police or take civil legal action because you make zero effort to police it, then you are unlikely to make much money.

Re:Awesome

[GuB-42]

Usenet works when people are well behaved. We used it at school and it worked great, because our newsgroups were private and you don't want to be too much of an asshole because you are communicating with the same people you meet IRL on a regular basis.
On the greater internet, it is spamfest. Usenet got a surge in popularity because of alt.binaries were efficient filesharing platforms but real public newsgroups are pretty much dead.

Re:Awesome

[mlw4428]

Ah yes. nothing better than downloading 30 different "pieces" of a file, separately, to rejoin and decompress....unless you used a third party tool that could read binary and download the other pieces automatically. And there's nothing better than asking a question and getting told to RTFM despite the manual not answering (at least in any clear terms) the question. Usenet was great for what it was, forums were a bit better, Stackoverflow (and its other iterations) have proven to be far more valuable for information seeking. As for file sharing...torrents are 100x easier to deal with.

Re:Awesome

[stealth_finger]

just like records sound better than CDs.

FALSE

Re:Awesome

[Coren22]

So, since you speak out against doxing, do you support or condemn the usage of doxing by the feminist side in gamergate against those who were not engaged in anything more than voicing their opinion on the issue? Do you support them calling up people's workplaces to get them fired for supporting gamergate?

If you don't support it, then why didn't you speak out against it? Why do you still support these people all the time on /.?

If you do support it, isn't that kind of hypocritical to support it when it is your side performing the attacking?

Re:Awesome

[Coren22]

If someone's response to a query is to state RTFM, you should just reply that you already did, so could they point out where in TFM the answer is, because it wasn't clear at all. :)

Put it right back on them and point out how much of an asshole they are being.

Re:Awesome

[AmiMoJo]

GanmrGate is one huge shitstorm and I'd condemn anyone who doxes. Since when was it a movement against feminism though? And I'm not sure what my "side" is either, but as far as I know none of my friends or the people I have defended here have doxed anyone.

Re:Awesome

[Coren22]

http://www.inquisitr.com/15484...
http://sjwar.blogspot.com/2014...
http://gamergateharassment.tum...
https://angelwitchpaganheart.w...

You can ignore the problem and act like it doesn't exist, but that doesn't make it stop happening.

I don't call GG a movement against feminism, as they literally only espouse one opinion, that gaming journalism is corrupt. The side that is anti-gg I would describe as peopled with a bunch of feminists who try to make everything about them. After all, the original incident was about Zoe Quinn getting a positive review from a journalist who was sleeping with her, and what did Anti-GG focus on, but that it was mean to drag Zoe into it, even though it wasn't about her, but about the journalist being unethical.

Re:Awesome

[AmiMoJo]

Your really need to learn the difference between compelling evidence and innuendo mixed with out-of-context tweets on some shitty blog. Your links are a tabloid rumour piece with no links or evidence, just he-said she-said, an anti-SJW blog, another anti-SJW blog and another blog with a few old tweets that get constantly recycled.

I'm not going to tell you that every person who calls themselves a feminist is perfect and never does anything bad, but that's quite different to what GamerGate is. For example, the allegations about Quinn have been shown to be false beyond all reasonable doubt (still waiting for a link to that review), yet GG supporters keep bringing it back up. If they cared at all about ethics, they would start by being ethical and retracting that allegation.

Re:Awesome

[Coren22]

For example, the allegations about Quinn have been shown to be false beyond all reasonable doubt (still waiting for a link to that review), yet GG supporters keep bringing it back up. If they cared at all about ethics, they would start by being ethical and retracting that allegation.

Feel free to come up with any citations supporting that position. Did the journalist not sleep with her? Did he get fired for conflict of interest? Did Kotaku fix their conflict of interest policy because of this?

Oh wait, that last one actually happened.

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam...

But then again, it is usual for you to just dismiss every citation given, but to give none of your own. I have seen this behavior repeatedly from you, as well as being willfully blind to that which is inconvenient to your positions. No surprise there that you are unwilling to even acknowledge that which doesn't support your position about how horrible all the GG people are, and how all the Anti-GG people wear white and are angelic in nature.

Re:Awesome

[AmiMoJo]

I can't prove a negative, obviously. It's up to you to prove your allegation. Blogs are not proof. The alleged review would be proof. Post a link to it. Even if they deleted it, it will be archived somewhere.

Re:Awesome

[Coren22]

So, rather than follow the links I provided that give links to the actual things, you want me to hold your hand through it? I cannot visit Kotaku from work, so all I can give is the links I have given. If you are going to be willfully ignorant, that is your problem, and not mine.

I can't prove a negative, obviously.

So then why do you claim:

For example, the allegations about Quinn have been shown to be false beyond all reasonable doubt

So, either you can prove it, or you can't. It sounds like you are stuck on the word "review" which is a term that comes from the anti-GG campaign, not from GG, that merely talked about a series of posts he made about Quinn while they were at least friends, if not more.

If you want lots of links to read through, you should also read this entry on the same blog:

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam...

As it goes through and provides all those citations that even Wikipedia doesn't seem able to provide, and goes through the Wikipedia entry section by section disproving tons of it with citations. Feel free to refute anything that is said there since you know so much more about the situation.

Here are the articles you asked for BTW, which you could ahve found quite quickly on your own:

Nathan Grayson has, provably[SIC], written twice about Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest in a favorable manner without disclosure at both Kotaku, on March 31st, 2014
[ http://api.viglink.com/api/cli... ]
, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun on January 8th, 2014
[ http://api.viglink.com/api/cli... ]
. It was proven that Grayson and Quinn were close together since January 10th, 2014
[ http://api.viglink.com/api/cli... ]
and had at least known each other since June, 2012
[

SubjectIsSubject

[p0p0]

Moderators and users of Imzy can be "bought" with online payments

FTFY.
Sound like a pretty bad idea to me at first glance.

Re:SubjectIsSubject

[Mashiki]

That's because it is a bad idea. Just look at reddit and the number of times moderators have been caught taking bribes, payoffs, or outright payments from companies or other people to press or repress particular opinions. Nothing kills a community faster then shit like that.

Only good news!!

[Hans Lehmann]

Reminds me of a newspaper startup back in the 80's(?) called Good News, that only printed uplifting and cheerful stories. Needless to say that experiment didn't last long.

Re:Only good news!!

[Dr. Spork]

Except this is even sillier, because this guy is counting on the decency of the internet users themselves to produce the "safe" content. I picture him building a beautiful, elaborate sandcastle on a public beach full of 9-year-old boys who love to sew chaos.

Re:Only good news!!

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Reminds me of a newspaper startup back in the 80's(?) called Good News, that only printed uplifting and cheerful stories. Needless to say that experiment didn't last long.

Both editions are now collector's items.

Too Many Assholes For This To Work

[zenlessyank]

You can never escape the assholes. It is impossible. There is always going to be someone there to hate on you.

Re:Too Many Assholes For This To Work

[110010001000]

Screw you! Everyone I know on the internet is nice! Er...wait...

Re:Too Many Assholes For This To Work

[Falos]

There's going to be /something/ about you I don't like. Some of us learn to not make that a dealbreaker. Usually as schoolchildren, but late beats never.

Re:Too Many Assholes For This To Work

[zenlessyank]

That isn't the issue. Sub-human types never learn/understand that. Hence my post. Welcome to planet motherfucker.

Re:Too Many Assholes For This To Work

[zenlessyank]

Shiny, Happy People.

Can someone from that site answer a quick question

[Iamthecheese]

I understand the value of a place like this. A positive, clean environment where I can feel safe. I'm tired of the harassment and constant fighting I see in other sites. I can't wait to join. I just have a quick question. The lobotomy, does it come free with membership or do I have to pay separately?

Oh HELL no

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I went to the page, and my browser immediately started asking me for "permission to send me notifications", ala "in-browser nagging and begging".

Instant turn off. Jesus fucking christ, can't you even wait until someone joins before starting to pester the shit out of them??

Also, alll the stuff about "healthy, positive communities" sounds like codespeak for "SJW's run this place". As if Reddit wasn't already infested with all the "safe space" and "triggering" and "micro-aggression" bullshit, this looks to be built for SJW's from the ground up.

Yeah, umm thanks, but I'll pass on this.

Re:Oh HELL no

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't even mention the acronym SJW without a gaggle of the crybabies coming out of the woodwork to call you a meanie it seems.

Re:Oh HELL no

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the SJW tactic. They swarm and bully people. They amplify the drama to drown out rational thought.

Re:Oh HELL no

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Websites are trying to push notifications on us before we even have a chance to view their contents, how is that not abusive? I wouldn't mind seeing this kind of thing is this way on my third visit or so within a week, but otherwise it's just assuming too much.

Imagine eating at a restaurant for the first time and before you even have the chance to order something, the waiter picks up your wallet and half-way through putting a "member club" card into it he asks you "do you want to be a member?".

Re:Oh HELL no

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Your pseudonym is appropriate, JustAnotherOldGuy. . . . It's called technology advancement.

"Shut the fuck up, N00b. I've bought and abandoned more technology that you can shake your tiny micro-dick at."

Re:Oh HELL no

[goose-incarnated]

Also, alll the stuff about "healthy, positive communities" sounds like codespeak for "SJW's run this place"

The only problem with that is SJW means "Someone I don't like because I'm a fuckwit".

Shaming language. Basically, "I can't win this argument, so lets nuke this conversation from orbit."

The only reason to use shaming language (insults, etc) is because you already know, in advance, that your argument has no basis in reality.

Go on - prove me right and call me names.

Re:Oh HELL no

[goose-incarnated]

You can't even mention the acronym SJW without a gaggle of the crybabies coming out of the woodwork to call you a meanie it seems.

Aaah typical stuff from those who like to say "SJW", which is essentially know as "making shit up".

If other's opinions bother you so much, there's a great new site you can go to - a "safe space" - where I'm sure you won't be bothered by people "making shit up". RTFA.

Re:Oh HELL no

[serviscope_minor]

If other's opinions bother you so much, there's a great new site you can go to - a "safe space" - where I'm sure you won't be bothered by people "making shit up". RTFA.

You seem to have this peculiarly uniform view of the world where everyone who disagrees with you fits into a very specific category, no matter how inaccurate. I suppose that helps you deal with differing opinions, for very small values of deal, by dismissing the person rather than the argument.

What's particularly funny is that when you and people like you seem to get really, REALLY bothered by other people's opinions (like on this thread) and by their actions when they're not imposing anything on you (again like this thread). I mean you could just ignore it, but given how much ACs and of course you swarm all over the thread, I'm guessing you're drawn to it like a moth to a flame.

Then people lime me swarm over it because a good internet argument is of course fun.

Re:Oh HELL no

[goose-incarnated]

If other's opinions bother you so much, there's a great new site you can go to - a "safe space" - where I'm sure you won't be bothered by people "making shit up". RTFA.

You seem to have this peculiarly uniform view of the world where everyone who disagrees with you fits into a very specific category, no matter how inaccurate. I suppose that helps you deal with differing opinions, for very small values of deal, by dismissing the person rather than the argument.

Not really - I almost never offer insults. It takes an incredibly long thread of receiving insults before I offer the first one.

What's particularly funny is that when you and people like you seem to get really, REALLY bothered by other people's opinions (like on this thread)

Where do I appear bothered? I merely suggested that people who want safe-spaces can generally find them. You can see from my posting history, I never, ever try to shame people into submission. I never try to shout down opposing views with claims of "Idiot", "Stupid", etc. I never need to.

and by their actions when they're not imposing anything on you (again like this thread). I mean you could just ignore it, but given how much ACs and of course you swarm all over the thread, I'm guessing you're drawn to it like a moth to a flame.

Then people lime me swarm over it because a good internet argument is of course fun.

Great fun indeed - I await your first argument with anticipation.

PS. Have you ever considered that your "arguments" in the form of insults attracts support from only a very specific type of person? I've only ever seen the argument-by-insult by religious or political zealots. As a lifelong atheist, I've gotten used to argument-via-insult.

You should ask yourself whether you want your arguments to appear like Russel's teapot or something from the Westboro Baptist Church. While on the topic of introspection, you might do well to examine your need for derogatory and inflammatory responses - why do you feel the *need* to use shaming language - language that is designed to shut down the argument?

Re:Oh HELL no

[Raenex]

Didn't they (they being Mozilla, but I don't think other browsers are any better) learn that users hate popups yet?

Mozilla has demonstrated over the past several years it knows what's best for users. Their desires or "needs" are irrelevant.

Re:Oh HELL no

[serviscope_minor]

Not really - I almost never offer insults.

That's only true if you take a rather narrow definition of insults such as actually resorting to invective. It's perfectly possible to be insulting without such coarse means. For example the style of your post previously was clearly, though somewhat ineffectively, designed to be so, in a casually dismissive manner.

Where do I appear bothered?

The way you approach these threads, such as using "subtly" insulting language, dismissal of arguments without addressing them belies a discomfort in that you feel the need to do such things.

I never try to shout down opposing views with claims of "Idiot", "Stupid", etc. I never need to.

You do however resort to shouting down opposing views with claims of SJW which is functionally identical.

You do however appear to try to be careful with your very specific choice of words in order to weasel very specific claims while your actions are completely against the spirit of those claims. You're not fooling anyone, you know.

Re:Oh HELL no

[goose-incarnated]

Not really - I almost never offer insults.

That's only true if you take a rather narrow definition of insults such as actually resorting to invective. It's perfectly possible to be insulting without such coarse means. For example the style of your post previously was clearly, though somewhat ineffectively, designed to be so, in a casually dismissive manner.

Well, what can I say - I don' believe microagressions are a thing. You obviously do, so you type abuse into your responses because, from *your* point of view you believe you've been attacked. From *my* point of view no insult has been given.

Where do I appear bothered?

The way you approach these threads, such as using "subtly" insulting language, dismissal of arguments without addressing them belies a discomfort in that you feel the need to do such things.

I never try to shout down opposing views with claims of "Idiot", "Stupid", etc. I never need to.

You do however resort to shouting down opposing views with claims of SJW which is functionally identical.

Nope. Firstly, me pointing out that the majority of the SJW posts are highly inflammatory, discriminatory and, in many cases, based on very little evidence is in no way "shouting down opposing views". Secondly, the Social Justice Warriors call themselves this - what exactly is wrong with me addressing people by the very moniker they chose for themselves? As a group, you are free to chose how you want to be addressed.

You do however appear to try to be careful with your very specific choice of words in order to weasel very specific claims while your actions are completely against the spirit of those claims. You're not fooling anyone, you know.

The danger with reading between the lines is that it's probable that you get the wrong message. My posts are almost always unambiguous. Microaggressions, almost by their very definition, are felt only by the thinnest-skinned recipients; hence, if you feel my post is an attack via microaggressions, then you are an extremely sensitive individual. IOW, you're the outlier, I'm the norm.

Re:Oh HELL no

[serviscope_minor]

From *my* point of view no insult has been given.

From my point of view, no insult has been given, only a feeble attempt at an insult. Nonetheless, I can spot a feeble attempt a mile off.

At this poit you seem to be more or less declaring (not directly, but implicitly) that insults are only direct attacks. Interesting, really. Perhaps you should try watching whatever channel shows parliametrary debates in teh UK, you might learn a lot.

Nope.

Yep!

Firstly, me pointing out that the majority of the SJW

There we go again. SJW serves for nothing more than a placeholder for a miscellaneous grab bag of evils which have hurt your sensibilities on the internet. There is no coherent definition of it, nor is there a coherent use of it. It's even less credible than when a politicial saya they're doing something ebecause of "peadopholes, terrorists and criminals". It's a phrase designed to shut down arguments without reason.

Therefore usiong the phrase "SJW" is your equivalent of shouting down something. Funnily enough, it only works within your tribe, and your fellow SIWs (opposite of SJW?) seem to buy it. However, the people you attempt to use it on are apparently not so easily fooled (I'm sure some are, there are idiots everywhere), but onetheless, it's an obvious rhetorical trick and one that works very poorly.

Really, I believe you can do better, and given that I like a good argument, it's in my interests that you do so.

The danger with reading between the lines is that it's probable that you get the wrong message.

Thej danger of not reading between the lines is one can suffer from exceptionally naive interpretations. Observing what one has chosen to omit is often as informative as what they have chosen to put in.

My posts are almost always unambiguous.

They are written clearly, but one has to be precise to deduce the correct meaning. That's good: I enjoy precision in language.

Microaggressions,

I must say you seem pecularly obsessed with "microaggressions". Out of the blue, you brought them up no less than twice in this post. I think it probably ties into your use of "SJW", above, and indicates why it's a shout-down tactic but why it ironically doesn't work on the people you intend it to.

You appear to have labelled me as an "SJW", whatever one of those happens to be. In your mind, SJWs always talk about microaggressions and things. Therefore, the reasoning seems to go, because I'm and SJW, I must be talking about microaggressions. The trouble of course with using naive and simplistic labels is that they are innaccurate.

So, I ask, why on earth do you keep bringing up "microaggressions".

Well, reading the rest of your comment, it seems that you think that perhaps insluts without direct invective are microaggressions". How charming! I'm not 100% clear what a microaggression is, but I think you should really try watching some parliamentary debates. There's plenty of aggression alright, but there's nothing "micro" about it. There's also no direct invective either. You should watch it, you'll learn a lot.

I also like how you're attempting to cast me as an unusually thin skinned and sensitive individual (i.e. another dismissal) based on me pointing out your weak attemts at subtle insults. It appears you're at it again, but your strength in such matters has clearly not improved. You might wish to reflect on the idea that one can see something and note its presence without being affected by it.

Next time, try using some actual arguing involving reason and such things. Failing that you seriously need to sharpen your sophistry, rhetoric and insults if you wish to be taken seriously. Your current style, which seems to revolve around shallow rhetoric and feeble insults (think rapier like wit, but where the rapier is one of those $2 plastic ones you buy for a toddler) leaves much to be desired.

A better reddit?

[Anonymous Coward]

What with blackjack and hookers?

What is harrassment?

[thomasdz]

As we've learned from the new Social Justice Warriors movement, many people feel "harassed" just by comments or actions that aren't intended to be harassing... hell, I've probably scared at least three people to their safe place just by this post alone.

Re:What is harrassment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you don't have know that you're harassing someone to harass them.

The legal definition of harassment is repeated undesired contact with the intent to cause (psychological) trauma. If you are told to stop calling them, and you don't, then you know you're "harassing".

However, the claims of psychological trauma are so over inflated today that SJWs say they get PTSD from Twitter -- Even though Twitter has a block function, and the service must be interacted with by the user via their choice. It's not like people can tweet @you unless you actually go to twitter, unlike a phone where anyone in the world can call and cause your phone to ring repeatedly. The problem is that "harassment" is claimed over things that you can close your eyes to make disappear. Some claim that certain people are very sensitive and get their PTSD "triggered" by certain phrases they read. If they know they are this psychologically damaged and yet willfully engage in risky behavior, such as reading a book, then they should seek help, not punishments for those who wrote words that offended them.

Imagine if history teachers had to provide "trigger warnings" and allow black students not to have to learn about slavery because it triggers the manifestation of their ancestral PTSD in their own minds. This actually is a thing. Some professors are catching flack for refusing to put trigger warnings on history... These type of "hypersensitive" people are mentally ill, and should be in an asylum (provided they're not faking for elevated victim status, which they are). Should we make the entire world a padded cell just because there are a few crazies about? If reading a book could "trigger" you, then you should know better than to be on Twitter or the Internet in general -- It's not the author's fault.

No one is responsible for what goes on in your head but you. If you can't be held responsible for the thoughts you think, then how can you hold anyone else responsible? If you wish to punish others for your own actions, such as thinking certain things, then you are legitimately insane, IMO.

Re:What is harrassment?

[fredgiblet]

Indeed. Disagreement is harassment to many people these days, and an attempt at an honest conversation can easily turn someone into a shivering wreck.

Re:What is harrassment?

[AmiMoJo]

Care to answer your own question? Presumably you think there is some limit to what one person can do to another.

Re:What is harrassment?

[serviscope_minor]

Care to answer your own question? Presumably you think there is some limit to what one person can do to another.

Nope, it's on the internet so it doesn't count. You see it's just words which are harmless because mere speech has no effect so it's not important. But not allowing it is censorship because speech is so important!

Re:What is harrassment?

[quantaman]

As we've learned from the new Social Justice Warriors movement, many people feel "harassed" just by comments or actions that aren't intended to be harassing... hell, I've probably scared at least three people to their safe place just by this post alone.

After reading the comments I think a lot of people here need someone to build them a safe place to protect them from Social Justice Warriors.

Re:What is harrassment?

[Rockoon]

Care to answer your own question? Presumably you think there is some limit to what one person can do to another.

Another SJW story and animojo posts a lot... and here he craftily tries to change the argument from "say to another" into "do to another"

You people are despicable and vile. We are talking about speech. The limits to speech are extremely narrow on purpose, and you would know that if you werent a fucking SJW.

Re:Extremely Dangerous

[HornWumpus]

Cash for mods with true believers on both sides. If it works, he'll be rich.

But I doubt it will get the dual critical masses required to really monetize 'the crazy'.

It's a good cynical try, I especially like the fake idealism, all while setting them up. How much money do you think you could extract from (for example) an obsessive Wikipedia article 'owner' per year? (Answer: a lot) The trick will be getting the emotional commitment from SJWs, then letting them find something to fight about, which should just be a natural thing.

Steps:
1. Collect SJWs, let them form up circle jerks.
2. Wait for inevitable slap fight.
3. Profit from the mod bombing as each circle does it's own 'Animal Farm'. Until each SJW is just jerking alone and paying.

Now that I think about it, it will only take one critical mass. As long as SJWs have each other, they will never run out of things to fight about. The usual trolls will provide any sparks needed.

How does their moderation work?

[Megane]

If it's another "everybody can upvote/downvote every post, all the time" site, then it'll end up the same as Digg and Reddit.

Re:How does their moderation work?

[serviscope_minor]

then it'll end up the same as Digg and Reddit.

So, it'll end up worth 500 thougand sollars and 4 billion? At the same time?

I don't get reddit

[future assassin]

it looks like someone used craigslist css to for a forum and tried to make it seems like Usenet?

Re:Can someone from that site answer a quick quest

[sumdumass]

If you have to ask you will never know. But your credit card will be charged regardless. Welcome to the new age of safe places.

I wish them luck, but...

[Lendrick]

The term "safe space" makes me think of a place that's moderated for ideas certain people don't agree with, as opposed for just trolls and harassment. The people who make a website interesting are the ones who are willing to have real discussions, and you aren't going to draw those people in by censoring ideas. The only way for a popular "safe space" to form on the web is if it starts out as an open discussion board, becomes successful, and then the "safe space" people come in and demand that it be made safe for them.

Re:I wish them luck, but...

[fredgiblet]

Zactly, but the thing is that those people are "wrong" and thus can be safely ignored. Why? Because The Powers That Be disagree with them, therefore they MUST be wrong.

Re:I wish them luck, but...

[pr0nbot]

There is such a thing as the quality of a debate, whereby people are expected to make their points with civility. If that's what's meant by a "safe" version of reddit, then I can see the merit. For example, I no longer look to Slashdot for tech discussion, because the comments appear to be dominated by uninformed and vitriolic opinion. (Next time there's a linux-related story, compare the discussion on slashdot with, for example, lwn.net.) Browsing the comments on stories like this is more of a guilty pleasure; it's kind of interesting to see just how one-sided the /. community appears to have become. Stick comment filtering on 2 and count the number of comments that are just variations of a sneering rant about SJWs and censorship.

Re:I wish them luck, but...

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

The term "safe space" makes me think of a place that's moderated for ideas certain people don't agree with,

That is exactly what it is.

"Safe" in their context means "nothing that might upset them, or make them think, or be faced with an unpopular opinion or viewpoint."

Re:Voat.co already exists

[Anonymous Coward]

What this guy's proposing is the exact opposite of Voat. He wants to out-SJW reddit.

Am I the only one

[rsilvergun]

getting tired of people railing against social justice? Anyway, I'll just leave this here.

Re:Am I the only one

[BarbaraHudson]

From your link:

“In these days of political correctness” talking about no longer making jokes that denigrated people for their culture or for the colour of their skin. And I thought, “That’s not actually anything to do with ‘political correctness’. That’s just treating other people with respect.”

The prophet Carlin would be rolling in his grave. Next thing you know, I won't be allowed to make tranny jokes.

Re:Am I the only one

[SuperKendall]

The problem with your link is that Political Correctness does not equate to "treating people with respect".

The people who are "politically correct" usually have a separate groups of people for whom they show utter disdain. All is does is shift WHO they make fun of, and ramps up the level of cruelty...

Meanwhile even the people who "political correctness" are meant to help, it does a disservice to - pretending like all people are equal damages those who are truly not in the end.

Indeed the real goal SHOULD be to "treat other people with respect" but that is very far from what people who proclaim themselves as "SJW" really do.

Re:Am I the only one

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

The prophet Carlin would be rolling in his grave. Next thing you know, I won't be allowed to make tranny jokes.

Ron White tells a joke that starts off, "You know what fuckin I hate about trannies?"

The crowd goes silent in shocked horror, and after a beat, he continues,

"The damn things won't shift out of 'Park' unless you have your fuckin' foot on the brake."

Re:Am I the only one

[BarbaraHudson]

Gotta love Ron White.

Re:Am I the only one

[pla]

Am I the only one getting tired of people railing against social justice?

Yep.

I mean, make no mistake, we all wish we didn't need to rail against SJWs. But until they kindly FOAD (or just go back to cowering in their basements in terror of the real world), they'd better get used to the fire.

It already exists

[fredgiblet]

It's called Tumblr. At least for the values of "Healthy" and "Positive" that he's likely solving for.

The unhealthy balances the healthy

[EmperorOfCanada]

The unhealthy balances the healthy by providing an outlet. Maybe there is some spill-over, but I find that in a discussion on Python Programming there is very little politics, racism, etc. There are excellent forums where people can crap on Trump supporters, or others where they can kiss the Trump ring. For the most part I would say that the "healthy" parts of reddit stay more pure than similar discussions in Slashdot. I don't know how many slashdot threads I have seen that started out with a metallurgical breakthrough where someone's comment mentioned Ayn Rand, and then proceeded into a huge libertarian knife fight.

So maybe 4chan levels aren't needed but if someone wants to set up an area where they hate some group, then great, now it will be less likely to spill over into my discussion of new features in C++.

Re:The biggest problem with this plan...

[BarbaraHudson]

It's one letter off from "lazy". They were too lazy to think of a good name.

Location, Location, Location

[SuperKendall]

"wants to build a better Reddit, one that focuses on 'healthy, positive communities,"

So he's building a retirement community then...

Certainly nothing on the internet.

I remember

[ooloorie]

I remember when disgruntled guys creating new USENET groups didn't end up getting $3 million for their trouble.

looks like some children's PBS show

[FudRucker]

who is his target audience? children under 12?

Twitter

[tepples]

So it'll be like Twitter from back before Twitter was a microblog host.

Re:2016?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

What does "© 2016" mean? Another website that can't even use UTF-8 properly?

Context is everything

[rsilvergun]

nobody complains about a roast, because it's understood you're there for fun. It's the random bit of nastiness thrown out at LGBTs that Gaiman and thoses "SJWs" are railing against.

I'm not seeing it

[rsilvergun]

what people and what groups. Specifically. I'd like to know. I do see them angry at Nazi's. And I do see them angry at police officers who feel they can get away with extra force against blacks. You'll noticed I said 'extra', not excessive. The problem being that cops feel safe using _more_ force and that makes the likelihood of things getting out of hand higher...

You're words are hollow. What I hear is the same technique Karl Rove pioneered. I'm not even sure I'm aware you're doing it. It's a simple technique: Whatever negative traits you're side has you accuse the other side of having. See "Swift Boating" for the best known example of this ever (and by no means the most egregious).

So again, you show me a case of a "Social Justice Warrior" treating someone who deserves respect with disdain. Be specific, and citations would be nice.

Your post

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

by serviscope_minor (Score:0, Troll)

I think your post has been analyzed and rated appropriately.

Re:The biggest problem with this plan...

[headbulb]

I don't think it's lazy, It's just that many of the good names are being squated on.

Squatters are a huge problem on the internet and should have been put a stop to in the beginning.

What the hell?!?

[bjwest]

What is this, the official My Little Dragon website? The front page looks like a place for five year olds to play, not educated adults to converse. I really don't see any good conversations or arguments coming from that place, so I'll not be signing up for an account.

Perfectly defined

[beastofburdon]

You have just provided the perfect definition of a SJW.