Slashdot Mirror


Radical Leftists Built Their Own FOSS Alternative To Reddit After It Banned Them (vice.com)

eeplox shares a report from VICE, adding: "Community-built sites like these are very much needed since Reddit announced they were going closed source": After r/LeftWithSharpEdge was taken down, ziq [one of the subreddit's members] decided to leave Reddit and create an independent anarchist community free from its rules. Raddle.me, which was originally called Raddit.me, is an "alternative that is focused on community building and openness, and not controlled by a corporation," ziq told me. The original name was intended to sound similar to Reddit, but was later changed to avoid potential trademark issues. Raddle doesn't have advertisements or run analytical software, so its size is difficult to calculate -- but that's by design. The site is meant to be an alternative to social networks that profit by monitoring user behavior and serving advertisements. "We have no ads, no tracking, no user profiling and we don't collect or share any user data with anyone," ziq said. The site is community-built and anyone can contribute to the code.

Ziq's commitment to privacy is an appealing virtue for Raddle's users. "I'm always very uneasy about the lack of concern for privacy online," Tequila_Wolf, a user who posts frequently to Raddle, told me in a direct message. "When you have friends on government lists who get harassed at every border because, say, they are members of Anarchists Against The Wall, you know you don't want to get on that list." Raddle ultimately came out of more broad problems ziq and Emma saw with Reddit. Ziq complained about how it has increasingly become a recruiting ground for the alt-right, the social network's overemphasis on America (r/politics, a major subreddit, only discusses U.S.-based politics, for example), and the fact that the site's code isn't open source, among other issues. Emma mentioned what she says is a problem with harassment on the site. "To me, the biggest problem with Reddit is how its administrators ignore the routine harassment and witch-hunts of marginalized people that takes place, with r/The_Donald being the most prominent example," she said.

118 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. perfect NSA honey-trap by turkeydance · · Score: 5, Interesting

    sign up. log on. wave to the camera

    1. Re:perfect NSA honey-trap by leretard · · Score: 1

      there is absolutely no need for honeypots

      the internet itself is the honeypot
      and considering the place the internet has in our lives
      our society itself has become the honeypot trap

      you're already in

      sorry, it really is that bad
      prepare for civil war

  2. No way to create communities. by Lordpidey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right now the site seems to have no way to create forums (The equivelant of a subreddit), this concerns me, as if conversations are to be sequestered to an appropriate forum, then certain viewpoints can be silenced simply by not having an appropriate forum, turning the site into a large echo chamber.

    --
    Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
    1. Re:No way to create communities. by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's the perfect forum for everyone to sit around and agree with one another all day.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:No way to create communities. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      That may be by design...either you're alt-left, or you don't join.

    3. Re:No way to create communities. by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I think you've just summed up the far left pretty well there.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    4. Re:No way to create communities. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, they ARE leftists you know.

      Are they? Leftists are collectivists. TFA says these people are anarchists, which is the polar opposite of collectivism.

    5. Re: No way to create communities. by Bartles · · Score: 2

      Yes, anarchists that want free health care and college.

    6. Re:No way to create communities. by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Are they? Leftists are collectivists. TFA says these people are anarchists, which is the polar opposite of collectivism."

      These are not the anarchists you're looking for.

      By the way, collectivist anarchism*1 predates anarcho-capitalism*2 by how much? a whole century?

      *1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      *2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    7. Re:No way to create communities. by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 1

      ...turning the site into a large echo chamber.

      So... Like Reddit?

    8. Re:No way to create communities. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By the way, collectivist anarchism*1 predates anarcho-capitalism*2 by how much? a whole century?

      *1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Very interesting link. So these people want to eliminate the government, and replace it with an organization empowered to coerce people into following a set of rules.

      Wow. No wonder they can't get anyone to take them seriously.

    9. Re:No way to create communities. by pots · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is absolutely wrong, it's literally the opposite of true. I realize that rhetoric in the US has corrupted the terms "political right" and "political left" but dude, come on.

      To repeat the historical origin, which I'm sure you've heard but... I don't know man. Anyway: the terms "political left" and "political right" come from the French Revolution. Supporters of the king (i.e.: "the dude in charge," "the government," "the authority") sat to the right in the hall where the National Assembly convened. Those opposed to the king (i.e.: anti-"the dude in charge," anti-"the government," anti-"the authority") sat on the left.

      Thus the left were the anti-authoritarians, anti-establishment, and in the most extreme examples: the anarchists. They are people who want less top-down rule. The right were the opposite of those things. Where you fell on this spectrum generally reflected what you feared the most: authoritarian rule, or mob rule. Fascism didn't exist yet, but the two extremes of the left-right political spectrum are typically given as anarchy on the left and fascism on the right.

      I don't know how these terms have become so corrupted in the US, but a guess: the US rebelled against rule by a central authority, and most of the popular rhetoric centers around anti-authoritarianism. "All men are created equal," "Democracy is good," yadda yadda. Thus both sides of the political spectrum have to make claims about being anti-authority, even while they may simultaneously give pro-authority speeches about needing "strong leadership" and so on.

      "Collectivism" falls nowhere on this spectrum. A preference for working or living as a group does not imply a central authority, nor does it reject a central authority. There is no reason why an anarchist can't be a collectivist, nor any reason why a fascist can't be a collectivist. In fact, anarchist collectives are common. Here's the first example a search turned up for me.

    10. Re:No way to create communities. by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By the way, collectivist anarchism*1 predates anarcho-capitalism*2 by how much? a whole century?

      *1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Very interesting link. So these people want to eliminate the government, and replace it with an organization empowered to coerce people into following a set of rules.

      Wow. No wonder they can't get anyone to take them seriously.

      Is that so different from what the Alt-right and most of the Republicans/Tea-Party want to do? They want to smash the current democratic government and all it's structures (or what remains of them) and replace them with and authoritarian leader or possibly a clique of political oligarchs masquerading as a democratically elected body that heads an organisation empowered to force everybody to follow their set of rules and their social norms. The only place where the Republicans/Tea-Party and the Alt-Right differ is that for the former the resulting social order has to be a christian theocracy whereas the Alt-Right is flexible on that point.

    11. Re:No way to create communities. by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The existing power structures (big government, big business, big anything really) lead to people in power and institutions and systems who protect their own power. The most delusional political activists think that if only we wiped the slate clean we could rebuild a new world order where nobody takes advantage of anyone else and it'll be so great people will join voluntarily. Which I suppose is a step up from communism where everybody will be forced to work for the greater good. The problem is that power structures appear out of nowhere almost instantly, even in kindergarten you can observe leaders, followers and outsiders as well as the power of social influence and social sanctions. Having a valuable resource to use or trade that others don't is a power structure, obviously private property is power. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner is obviously a power structure, creating the rules for a shared resource is power. The only way to avoid power is if we all became totally self-sufficient hermits, the War Games solution - the only way to win is not to play.

      Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding is those who confuse perfect competition with laissez-faire capitalism, that regulation hampers competition and deregulation will lead to more and better competition. Let me try to put it bluntly: Perfect competition presumes that vendors will engage in an intense, cut-throat competition to destroy their own profits and livelihood without any structural costs, barriers to competition, transaction costs, lack of transparency and without creating or protecting any unique brand or features. It's an entirely fictional concept to begin describing basic elements of capitalism which is why a lot of people have heard of it but understood so little. Basically almost every class following it is about how that's actually not true due to reality like economics of scale or network effects, how actual customers are relatively uninformed creatures of habit that don't all instantly jump ship because the competition is $0.01 cheaper, how to create your own unique brand that people prefer like Coke vs Pepsi, how to protect unique features through intellectual property rights (IPR) and so on.

      Particularly people fail to see how the prisoner's dilemma works when it's repeated, like if you lower prices and steal my customers I'll have to lower prices and steal your customers, we'll both lose money so let's not be idiots. Or when they all switch to terms that are unfavorable for the customers like forced arbitration. This kind of tacit collusion is why we need checks and balances, not just inside the branches of government but between the government and citizens, manufacturers and consumers, employers and workers and so on. If all the choices are bad you don't really have any choice, of course unless you have a gun to your head you in theory always have the War Games solution but practically it can be almost impossible. For example I doubt many people can avoid signing up for some kind of phone service, you can pick your poison but it's hard to not play the game. Unless you want to be a hermit in a cave again, something has to curb their ability to dictate terms, create lock-ins and shut out the competition. If they don't play nice now, they certainly won't play nice when the gloves come off.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:No way to create communities. by smallfries · · Score: 1

      I thought they aspired to be a circlejerk?

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    13. Re: No way to create communities. by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Yes, anarchists that want free health care and college.

      Which is not the oxymoron that you think it is.

      Anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, and many forms of collectivist anarchy could cover that function nicely. You're just so accustomed to everything being 'provided by' an overarching government that you can't fathom any other system. (These other systems may fail for whatever reason, but our current solution isn't the only feasible one.)

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    14. Re: No way to create communities. by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sorry, but that's not what they are arguing for, mostly because they are totalitarians masquerading as anarchists.

      They want it provided by the rich, which really means, they want the rich taxed by an all powerful government so they can get what they want.

    15. Re: No way to create communities. by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sorry, but that's not what they are arguing for, mostly because they are totalitarians masquerading as anarchists.

      Oh, I totally agree with you there. They're anarchists in the '80s punk rock sense, which is just to use it as an excuse to break things. Most people seem to be pretty authoritarian and most governments seem to reflect that fact.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    16. Re:No way to create communities. by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "So these people want to eliminate the government, and replace it with an organization empowered to coerce people into following a set of rules."

      No.

    17. Re:No way to create communities. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Left and right of the French revolution are ancient history. The left won.

      Even in France, the words mean something different now.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re:No way to create communities. by shurdeek · · Score: 1

      It's not really accurate. It's more accurate to say that anarchism tends to oppose hierarchies, but that's not fully accurate either, because anarchocapitalists are usually ok with hierarchically operated companies, and conservative anarchists tend to have conservative positions on family.

      I must admit though that it's not clear to me how you can have collectives that work beyond the scale of Dunbar's number.

    19. Re:No way to create communities. by shurdeek · · Score: 1

      Well, if you want to be exact, then this is more of a quantitative than qualitative distinction. You can already exit an existing state, or create a new one, it's just very costly (as you have to physically move yourself, your family and all your property, redo all existing contracts or move them to other providers) and/or there is a violent opposition.

      I also think that systems bigger than Dunbar's number need to be either (hierarchical) planning or markets in order to work. And, once you have hierarchies, their primary goal becomes to perpetuate the hierarchy and to silence opposition (through propaganda and, if necessary, violence). So I don't really understand how collectivist anarchism is supposed to work. Unless there is no interaction beyond the scale of the local community, and I find it unlikely that apart from a bunch of wierdoes or psychopaths anyone would want that.

    20. Re:No way to create communities. by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Radical leftists can't trust stupid ordinary people to do anything.

      Trust is so non-scientific. So truthy. It must be ejected.

  3. I don't have a problem with this by Snotnose · · Score: 2

    It's FOSS, good for you. Hopefully your site won't exist in a year but if it does, good on you.

    I'm not afraid of opposing ideas. I'm afraid of people afraid of opposing ideas.

    1. Re:I don't have a problem with this by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Wow, a quip as clever as that will get you a standing ovation at next year's Oscars.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:I don't have a problem with this by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      What I do have a problem with is this weird alt-right slashdot summary. "Leftists" aren't even a thing in the US, and even using that term shows the post to be both political and outside the mainstream.

      There is a lot of crappy stories we've put up with if we're still here, but I'd never hang out at a political site.

    3. Re: I don't have a problem with this by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

      SoylentNews was at least up during recent "offline mode" downtime of Slashdot.

  4. Good for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Listen - I may not agree with them on every position - and may even see them as harmful to some of their own goals... but I do see them as a somewhat helpful kind of crazy.

    Why? Because for the past generation or so, we really haven't had any real forces of extreme leftwing pushing anything in the US. Not that this is a bad thing on it's own, mind you - but compared to the insanity of an extreme right wing pushing every button on every part of the societal machine, it's actually destabilizing to have the left version largely missing for so long.

    Now, I certainly hear an opposing idea just while I'm typing this - that we have Democrats or college campuses, or something - and if you think of that as extreme left wing, you have no idea how the rest of the world thinks.

    Without an extreme to exist as a philosophical sounding board, or as a 'wall' of what's too extreme to bounce against, the left of today in the US is largely crippled in culture - and obsessed with minor points of political correctness/friendiness to business, rather than actually tying to advance a real agenda of change.

    I'd actually LIKE to have a crazy left to actually exist out there, willing to be grumbled about and dismissed. I'd like to have something Michael Moore can say "Geesh - those loonie lefties", then make a point that plots a 'sensible middle ground', rather than having nationalized healthcare like many modern democracies seem like some loony idea by reflexive 'moderate' idealists.

    So go, you crazy folks - be extreme and let me disagree with you. It's cool with me.

  5. Lather, rinse, repeat by Wuhao · · Score: 2

    It's all well and good to make another site, but let's be honest: reddit does about as good a job as anyone is going to do with a centralized discussion service. The only possible way to improve it is to create a decentralized alternative.

    1. Re:Lather, rinse, repeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean like Usenet?

    2. Re:Lather, rinse, repeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We already had Usenet. Why on earth did we stop using it?

    3. Re:Lather, rinse, repeat by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      S/N ratio.

      It's generally better now. But the first rule of Usenet is don't talk about...No carrier.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. Fools by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >"We have no ads, no tracking, no user profiling and we don't collect or share any user data with anyone

    Two things will happen if the site survives a significant length of time:

    1) Whoever is funding it will become a dictator, deleting posts and banning posters with whom they disagree, without admitting they're doing it and in fact doing their best to keep the fact a secret.

    2) When the money runs out, they'll convince themselves that 'just a little bit of advertising is OK', and slowly sell out.

    1. Re:Fools by Marful · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points to mod you as "Insightful"...

  7. "turing the site into" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    turning the site into a large echo chamber.

    *walks into newly constructed giant echo chamber*

    You know what the problem is with this place? It's a giant echo chamber!

    *walks out of giant echo chamber as people stare after him*

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  8. Wait, wait ... leftists are now being banned? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then what's left on Reddit?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Wait, wait ... leftists are now being banned? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Anti-left isn't pro-right. Just because I don't like Stalin doesn't mean I'm a fan of Hitler, dammit.

      Get it into your thick skull that being against one kind of cancer doesn't automatically mean that someone adores a different kind. They're BOTH abhorrent. I know that it's unfashionable to look for a middle ground and that you treat those that try like the blue-helmet soldiers that try to stand between Israel and Palestine, getting shot at by both sides.

      And frankly, I wonder why I stand here. Please go ahead and kill each other. Preferably completely. Maybe some sane people will emerge from the fallout and rebuild after those cancerous "You're not with us so you're one of them" assholes are gone!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Great, more echo chambers by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, that's just what we need now.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  10. Re:They're too far to the left even for Reddit?! by Phydeaux314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Reddit is too big to lump into a single category. It has multiple communities from all across the political spectrum.

    Is /r/latestagecapitalism left wing? Yes.
    Is /r/thedonald left wing? No.

    Typically reddit puts up with subreddits as long as they don't advocate or end up used to commit violence. Both /r/politics and /r/thedonald want each other gone, but it's not happening until it becomes evident that purpose of the subreddit itself is problematic. It's not the level of political extremism, it's what the sub is getting used for and advocates for that dictates whether or not it's allowed.

    Calling liberals or conservatives a "cancer on our nation that should just fuck off and die" isn't actually against the rules. Saying "so-and-so is a liberal/conservative, here's his/her address, go get 'em wink wink" is against the rules. If you have enough of the latter on your sub, it's getting the boot.

    --
    Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
  11. Re:Liberals create echo chamber by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you think Liberal == Radical Leftist, then you have your head up your ass.

    Peoples' political views can fall across a wide spectrum. It's convenient to demonize your opponents by shoving them all to one extreme end of that spectrum. Convenient and wrong.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  12. Re: How typical of leftists by Phydeaux314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Left winger here. I'll happily debate politics with people interested in a calm (if passionate) rational discussion. I will not waste my time arguing with somebody spewing racist dogwhistles with no intention of listening or thinking about the points made.

    --
    Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
  13. Unverifiable claims are not to be trusted. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    The claims of "no ads, no tracking, no user profiling and we don't collect or share any user data with anyone" is unverifiable and possibly already untrue. It's not wise to put much stock in such claims. This is one of the problems of the modern website: even altruistic admins who want to set up a valuable service that genuinely does not advertise to user, track users, profile users, collect data, or share data about users can't be trusted. StartPage.com and Ixquick.com are websearch sites run by the same organization. This organization makes privacy-minded claims about what it collects about its users but there's no way to know if these claims are honored.

    Server-side free software is great for the admins; that's a big step toward letting the site admins control their computers (which everyone deserves to do for their computers). But free server-side software won't help us verify privacy-respecting claims because there's no way a site's users who aren't site admins (in other words, the majority of the site's users) can tell what happens to the data the server gathers or is offered. It's possible Raddle.me runs software that is different from what the site admins acquired before reddit stopped publishing their site's code.

    So if Raddle.me uses Javascript, it's very easy for the site to send the visitor code that will track how the site is used, and allow the site to collect more information about users than typically shows up in server logs. And even if Raddle.me doesn't send its visitors Javascript there's plenty of information in server logs to do some profiling, tracking, and make something saleable from that data.

  14. Reddit is already leftist by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Gosh, I wonder what it's like when anyone to the left of Mao looks like a right-winger to you. You have to be pretty seriously gone for Reddit to look like a nest of conservative snakes. But here we are.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  15. Re:Right has zero access to "societal machine" by psycho12345 · · Score: 1

    So explain Roy Moore? And maybe, just maybe, those Right wing positions are anathema to most people and thus were rejected over time? Women do exist, yet somehow conservatives continue to treat them like statues that occasionally double as sex bots.

  16. I'm not clear. by EzInKy · · Score: 2

    Just what is a radical leftist? Additionally, what differentiates a radical leftist from a radical rightest? Does the radical mean you act on your beliefs instead of just espousing them?

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:I'm not clear. by Known+Nutter · · Score: 2

      Radical used to mean you fly planes into buildings. Now radical means you light a trashcan on fire or throw a bike rack through a window.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    2. Re:I'm not clear. by RedK · · Score: 1

      Both are actually good examples of radicals. We could simply sum it up with "Radicals are people that resort to violence to solve disagreements" though even that mostly ignores pacifists who are radical in their ideology ("Healthcare must be free and paid for by the government for all living organism in the universe" would be a radical position for instance).

      Depends if you think radical is a synonym for extremist or absolutist, or if you want radical to stand on its own.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    3. Re:I'm not clear. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> Just what is a radical leftist?
      Same as a radical rightist, (other than political agenda). Those that attempt to silence anyone with views that don't exactly mirror their own.

      >> what differentiates a radical leftist from a radical (sic) rightest?
      Political alignment/agenda, that's all.

      >> Does the radical mean you act on your beliefs instead of just espousing them?
      No, because everyone acts on their beliefs at some level.

    4. Re:I'm not clear. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > We could simply sum it up with "Radicals are people that resort to violence to solve disagreements".

      That definition has some difficulty with its broadness. It includes the homeowner who shot down the drone over his private property. It also includes the Allied military freeing the Holocaust victims at Dachau. It also includes divorced people who murder their former spouses.

  17. Re:Right has zero access to "societal machine" by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

    ...right wing lunatics were not regularly killing police, smashing stores, burning things... Antifa and BLM are meanwhile happily doing all those things on a regular basis.

    In point of fact, most terrorism is the US comes from right wing lunatics.

    I hold no truck with antifa vigilante goons, but to suggest that any group in the US is regularly killing cops shows a disconnect with reality.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  18. Re:Right has zero access to "societal machine" by Ayano · · Score: 1

    Then why doesn't the right build their 'societal machine'? There's Gab, and the founder isn't from a technical background (more a former YC VC) which shows in their work as they aren't getting sharp engineers making their platforms.

    The radical left here pretty much built their platform from scratch with a dash of FOSS from reddit, you're telling me there's no radical right than have the technical know how to do the same?

    --
    I don't read AC
  19. Voat? by Khyber · · Score: 3, Informative

    So, I'm guessing Voat wouldn't have them, either? That alone should probably tell you most of these people are fuckwits of the highest order in the first place.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Voat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Voat is only for right wing extremism.

  20. Re:Right has zero access to "societal machine" by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Then why doesn't the right build their 'societal machine'?

    They have. The bailout of 2009 triggered a strong reaction on both the left and right. On the left, there was OWS, which never had coherent objectives, and has faded away as a movement. On the right, the Tea Party was formed, which today effectively controls the entire Federal government and dozens of state legislatures.

    The radical left here pretty much built their platform from scratch with a dash of FOSS from reddit, you're telling me there's no radical right than have the technical know how to do the same?

    So you are impressed that the left setup a sub-Reddit, but you think the right is incompetent because they are merely running the country?

  21. Nope, just another echo chamber. by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What they really dont like is the presence of anyone who does not agree with them.

    So they have gone and made their own little club, out the in the back shed, where they can make sure anyone who does not agree with them will be kicked out (the equivalent of the 'no girls!' club sign). They will make their big plans there, all competing to out do the others in how 'revolutionary' they are.they will virtue signal until they are red in the face and their 'community' will slowly shrink as anyone who isnt revolutionary ENOUGH this week gets excluded.

    Meanwhile the rest of the world will get on with actual life, something they will be less and less in touch with.

    Sad? yes.
    Pathetic? yes.

    But hey, its no different 'because its on the internet', the only odd thing here is that someone thinks its newsworthy. Its not.

    1. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      What they really dont like is the presence of anyone who does not agree with them.

      So they have gone and made their own little club,

      I see no problem with this.

      Meanwhile the rest of the world will get on with actual life, something they will be less and less in touch with.

      Sad? yes.
      Pathetic? yes.

      But hey, its no different 'because its on the internet', the only odd thing here is that someone thinks its newsworthy. Its not.

      The only odd thing here is that a media article admits to the existence of radical leftism. I've gotten so used to people pointing at radical left ideology and claiming that it's centrist.

      An article that admits the existence of a radical left is newsworthy. The actual existence of a radical left is not.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    2. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by dryeo · · Score: 2

      To be honest, a lot of the time it is centrists being called radical leftists.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be honest, a lot of the time it is centrists being called radical leftists.

      I'm a centrist and i've never been called radical left, I only ever get accused of being rightwing. Apparently the view that rules should apply e regardless of race or sex is a rightwing view. Me saying that if black-only or women-only clubs are acceptable then so are whites-only or men-only clubs apparently makes me some sort of nazi (in my case a black one).

      The left is now mostly a speech-suppression movement which is antithetical to a free society. For example, I am a lifelong atheist, but I have never in my life campaigned to prevent religious propagandists from talking at a university.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    4. Re: Nope, just another echo chamber. by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      news at ten.

      People on the left say people to the right of them are ..... on the right of them..... not in their center.

      and still the internet has a clue what they are all talking about, but thinks it is probably a good idea to give them all guns and ammunition and let nature take its course.

    5. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      It's relative.

      In the US, the "radical left" means people who call for universal government-provided healthcare, a strictly progressive tax scheme in which those with the most income pay the highest proportion of it in taxes, and a well-funded system of universal education under direct government administration.

      Here in Europe, we call those people 'centrists.'

      In works the other way too: Those who are on the center-right in the US would be seen as a radical fringe in Europe. They support such ridiculous ideas as letting just about anyone legally buy and own a lethal weapon, and shutting down the public education system in favor of a system of privately-run schools that can teach any ridiculous nonsense without any form of oversight. That stuff might fly in America, but over here it sounds like insanity.

    6. Re: Nope, just another echo chamber. by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      how about
      1337 haxorz, internets, and webshits
      rather than pansy boy trapped in mums basement in negative equity on a ninja loan.

      right wingers for webshits.

    7. Re: Nope, just another echo chamber. by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      who cares, 1337 haxors made a reddit clone.

    8. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "In the US, the "radical left" means people who call for universal government-provided healthcare, a strictly progressive tax scheme in which those with the most income pay the highest proportion of it in taxes, and a well-funded system of universal education under direct government administration."

      you'd think christians would take this way as confirmation of being a christian, shame they don't practise what they preach.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    9. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As society as increasingly become more racially tolerant, the racial equity movements have had to turn to increasingly ephemeral explanations (micro-aggression, etc) to justify African American problems.

      The broad hiring of Latinos nation-wide in low wage labor positions, the mass hiring of South Asians in IT positions and how it has mostly worked without broad resistance has really made African Americans reliance on "racism" as the principal source of their present problems increasingly less believable.

      So they've turned to increasingly more comprehensive and inescapable explanations of white racism. Whites are generally now assumed to be racist in ways they aren't considered capable of overcoming. In the 1960s you could support civil rights and have black friends and easily not be considered racist -- in fact, you were probably considered suspect by conservatives. Now that's not good enough, you have to permanently accept your inherent racism.

      Questioning this narrative of course makes you "obviously racist" and trying to seek alternative explanations for African American suffering (broken families, gang membership and high levels of criminal participation, poor work ethic in school or labor force participation) gets you shouted down or worse.

    10. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      Sadly, that's a pretty good summary. Many people (not just blacks but LGBTQ, etc.) are attempting to cocoon themselves into a status of "permanent victimhood." This is why so many of these groups have a particularly unique vitriol against Asians, often classing them, along with the evil whites, as the "bad guys" in their narrative. Most Asians refuse to accept victimhood status and instead work their asses off to achieve a high status both in academia and the professional world. They are definitive proof that being historically oppressed doesn't make you a permanent victim, and as such, many minority communities resent them for exposing their victim hustle.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    11. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      It's relative.

      In the EU, radical right means people who want minimal interference in their lives, the right to speak their minds, defend themselves, and the right to keep most of what they have earned.

      Here in America, we used to call these people 'average americans.' Now, they're labeled 'conservative' by progressives masquerading as 'liberals' (another term tainted to the point of uselessness).

      It works the other way too: Those who are on the center-left in the EU would be seen as a borderline communist fringe in the US. They support such ridiculous ideas as massive wealth redistribution and forced public education systems that impose whatever doctrines the most influential marxist factions want on children, both without any functional form of oversight. This leaves the average citizen without much to call his own while he must answer to a half dozen government entities, many of which are unelected. As we saw with the soviet union, the EU is well on its way towards its own collapse That stuff might fly in Europe, but over here it sounds like tyranny.

    12. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I deliberately phrased my descriptions from a European perspective to highlight how American politics as viewed by someone on the outside. A touch of hyperbole seemed appropriate.

    13. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      I deliberately phrased my descriptions from an American perspective to highlight how European politics as viewed by someone from the outside. A touch of hyperbole seemed appropriate.

    14. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by Jahoda · · Score: 2

      I'm a centrist and i've never been called radical left, I only ever get accused of being rightwing

      I'm going to stop you right there, because, like most Americans I am pretty centrist as well. And I get called "extreme left" by the those on the right, ironically because they have moved so far right they can no longer even gauge what is where anymore, and I also get called "right-wing" by pretty much any liberal under 30, because I believe that the world is not black and white and there is nuance in everything.

      Both angles, both sides: if you don't toe the line, you're the problem, and everyone is the extremist fanatic except them.

    15. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      LOL!

      I was just going to post something about their moderation system consisting of Nazi ratings and here you are.

      ROLMAO!

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    16. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      This seems to be pretty much the way it is now. I've walked the same political path for over 20 years now. When Obama got elected I got labeled wing because I wouldn't get on board with the Obama bashing.

      Now that I won't get on board with the rabbit Trump hating I'm suddenly a alt right nut job.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    17. Re: Nope, just another echo chamber. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      The 21st century left is becoming a mirror image of the far right albeit with different scapegoats.

    18. Re: Nope, just another echo chamber. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Jesus believed in free healthcare and wasnâ(TM)t a big fan of the wealthy and privileged. Iâ(TM)m sure heâ(TM)d be on board with taking from those people so that everyone would be able to get treatment when they need it including those people (something that you Randroids always forget)

    19. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Now that I won't get on board with the rabbit Trump hating I'm suddenly a alt right nut job.

      Why would anyone hat on rabbit Trump? Rabbits are cute!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    20. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Isn't sex segregation a right wing thing? Same with colour segregation.
      As someone on the left, I agree with you that

      if black-only or women-only clubs are acceptable then so are whites-only or men-only clubs

      I also can't imagine campaigning to stop anyone from talking at a university, though I will ignore them and encourage others to do the same.

      I think the problem is that America has a totally screwed up idea of what left is. There's actually people down there who think the Clintons are left wing along with the rest of the democrats.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    21. Re: Nope, just another echo chamber. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Nope just laughing at the idea that Jesus didnâ(TM)t believe in free healthcare. I often wonder if some of these loons have ever read the New Testament.

    22. Re: Nope, just another echo chamber. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      It will definitely be a miracle if Slashdot ever supports Unicode. You canâ(TM)t even support apostrophes? Seriously?

    23. Re: Nope, just another echo chamber. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      'If they will not work, they shall not eat'

      That new testament?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    24. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      yes well that's exactly what extremists do, mate, they don't allow any other opinion ... be it left or right , in western bipolarity ? extremes are extremes, try to visualize it not as two reeee (is this the lameness filter?nope)tards standing opposite eachother on a straight line ... one dimension : left-right
      see it a circle, bent by the gravitational pull of self-righteousness on both sides, they actually stand back to back on exactly the same point : thou shalt not speak that which i don't say, right ?
      and that is how it is, left AND right, i never understood the simplicity of it, i spent 10 years in a nationalist movement myself as a kid, the old man hung with nazis, but back then that was fashionable here. VMO, TAK all that flanders natio-shiiiiii t (is this the lameness filter? nope)
      where the shy a+ grade kid was too shy and scared to speak up, the 15 year old hormone bag wasn't , action-reaction : i have one conclusion on both sides
      they're exactly the same
      but one thing i myself stick to is that both can speak whatever they want , its a long way from shooting, i have seen it here long and long enough, the house was always full of hardware (and i'm not taking nvidia), everyone collecting it, probably arming for the return of "uncle dolf" ... but no one ever pulled a trigger on a n i gger (hah hah OMG an N-word) the hard core however DID go out on week-ends looking for a fight ... well, not especially to row amongst themselves, that DID happen
      no lynchmobs though, never seen it
      all organisations got banned, uncle po did a sweep with the rise of the police state, everyone got a chance to turn their weapons in registered or not
      and the police state was born ... now take a guess how many of the old-skool got stuck in the military or police after that ?
      i betcha fiver not the punks or hippies
      but still, the mindset and basic rules of conduct is pretty much the same, the dresscode differs but its all about us against them with a few old farts on top being holier than thou
      on both sides
      maybe if they were allowed to speak that would shine out soon enough
      both sides
      if this oversimplified version of reality is enough for them, its not for me, i perceive my environment in three dimensions ... two more than left and right, its ever changing, nothing rigid and orderly about it due to this thing , illusion or not thats been dubbed time, cos im a crazy person i sometimes drift away, i get unstuck , fall through a hole in spacetime and end up in another dimension were everything is weird
      and full of normals, i have never been able to fold my head into simply one dimension
      if i can explain it like that, probably why they kicked me out when i was 17 .... not really roll-over material
      YET STILL ... free speech is absolute flter error : lameness filter encountered are you kidding me ? on slashdot ?

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    25. Re:Nope, just another echo chamber. by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      yea post-edit , sorry for that, and dont go to banny on the n-word there, its slashdot dude and its meant to be funny, like muhammad cartoons, okay ?
      i just wanted to give you a buddhist koan before you go to bed
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      now is that left or right ?

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    26. Re: Nope, just another echo chamber. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Those are the words of St Paul. Who was I talking about again?

  22. Psst. Democrats are right wingers too. by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    The Left has a firm chokehold on EVERY button of the "societal machine"

    You mean Democrats. Democrats are not left wing. Democrats are right wing. Democrats despise people who work for a living just as much as Republicans do, they're just less honest about it.

    which is the reason Trump was elected

    Trump was elected because Hillary was nominated. Hillary, who was a right-wing trainwreck of incompetence, warmongering and corruption.

    right wing lunatics were not regularly killing police, smashing stores, burning things... Antifa and BLM are meanwhile happily doing all those things

    Antifa and BLM are regularly killing police? On what planet?

    1. Re:Psst. Democrats are right wingers too. by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Informative

      Antifa and BLM are regularly killing police? On what planet?

      I would guess he's talking about the high-profile shooting of five Dallas police officers and the subsequent victims' relatives' lawsuit against BLM. However, we don't have any evidence the shooter was a member of BLM, just that he was angry over police shootings of black men. He was once a member of the New Black Panther Party, but they kicked him out because they thought he was too dangerous.

    2. Re:Psst. Democrats are right wingers too. by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

      The shooter was ex-military, too:

      Veterans account for 13 percent of the adult population, but more than a third of the adult perpetrators of the 43 worst mass killings since 1984 had been in the United States military. It is clear that, in the etiology of mass killings, military service is an important risk factor.

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    3. Re:Psst. Democrats are right wingers too. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Part of the reason Trump was elected was Hillary organised to vote for him in the primaries.

      FTFY:

      An email recently released by the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks shows how the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party bear direct responsibility for propelling the bigoted billionaire to the White House.
      In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase Clinton's chances of winning.
      The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called for using far-right candidates "as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right." Clinton's camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be "elevated" to "leaders of the pack" and media outlets should be told to "take them seriously."
      The strategy backfired â" royally.

      So, it was Hillary, a right-wing incompetent Democrat (like I said the first time) who worked to get Trump nominated.

  23. Re:Right has zero access to "societal machine" by Straif · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's true to a point as long as you do a few things:

    1) Group all anti-government, non-Muslim religious based attacks as well as white supremacist attacks into the far-right category while at the same time often miscategorizing other attacks such as classifying Fort Hood as 'workplace violence' even with Hasan's confession about his motivations. That actually required an act of Congress to have to the dead and wounded be recognized as victims of a terrorist attack and awarded Purple Hearts.

    2) Assign political motivations to non-political attacks. Not all attacks by right wingers are motivated by their ideology in the same way not all attacks by left wingers or Jihadists are motivated by theirs; sometimes an attack in a parking lot is just road rage with no deeper meaning.

    3) Start tracking after 2001 and stop tracking after 2015.

    4) Change the definition of threat as it suits your needs. In some reports "threat" is based off of actual deaths and in others it's by incident. So when you need a bigger number you count the 5 times someone was harassed on the street (with no injury) and say that is a bigger threat than a single shooting that killed multiple people.

    There is also the fact that many Jihadist plots are stopped before the threat ever materializes due to the massive manpower dedicated to just that while far right attacks are not due to their limited nature and next to no dedicated special policing (they seem to be mostly of the "lone gunman", small or single target variety which are very difficult to prevent) . i.e. it's hard to stop a crazy person with a knife until the attack starts vs someone trying to buy large quantities of explosives.

    It's just another case of statistics telling you whatever you want them to and not necessarily the truth.

    --
    Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  24. Re: Right has zero access to "societal machine" by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

    The "Tea Party movement" is reality TV. Meaning it's fictional, scripted, staged, with no reality at all.

    The financial oligarchy controls all levels of government, now and before alike.

  25. Re:How typical of leftists by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    The leftist-run forum exists because they're not happy that Reddit won't ban posts they disagree with, so they created their own forum to do so. This is exactly how the left operates.

    Yeah, just like that paragon of sensibility, Conservapedia!
    D-bags of either side do the same thing, they just pretend they're justified when they do so.

  26. Re: How typical of leftists by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Again, typical of the left. Can't debate the substance of the posts so you respond with labels. You label my post a troll, just like the left freely labels anyone who disagrees with them a racist

    You swing in, casting aspersions about a huge number of people you don't know, throwing insults around casually, and then start crying when someone fires back. (Oh my God, he called you a TROLL. How will you survive?). Not to mention the crying over the anticipated moderation of your flamebait trolling.
    You are the flakiest of the very special snowflakes.

  27. Re:Right has zero access to "societal machine" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    You have got to be joking. The Left has a firm chokehold on EVERY button of the "societal machine", which is the reason Trump was elected -

    The societal machine that voted the right wing into both houses and the president? That's one hell of a chokehold! If the right wing was able to swing into such a strong position, then the left pretty much by definition didn't have a chokehold.

    You can't logic your way into the right being in power somehow showing how the left is in power.

    That sand was Trump

    And both houses. You forget that too.

    And as for insanity, possibly in thought but not in deed - right wing lunatics were not regularly killing police, smashing stores, burning things... Antifa and BLM are meanwhile happily doing all those things on a regular basis.

    Bullshit.

    But at the edges, the Right has NOTHING like the dark cancer spreading from the left

    Apart from those be-swastika'd chaps chanting "blood and soil" and "heil hitler" you mean?

    You claim to be an impartial observer, but you are clearly not.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  28. Re:Leftists are doing Ok generally by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    It's anyone expressing skepticism about "prolitariate of all counties unite" who has to worry about their jobs, web hosting and physical safety.

    That's absolute utter rot.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  29. Re: Right has zero access to "societal machine" by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    The financial oligarchy controls all levels of government, now and before alike.

    If this was true, Jeb Bush would be president. The FO would have prefered even Hillary to Donald. Do you really think that Goldman Sachs wanted the US out of TPP?

  30. Re:Right has zero access to "societal machine" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow, neither antifa nor Black Lives Matters kill police, smash stores, or burn things. Citations needed. No, BreitBart and Daily Stormer don't count. No, punching a White Supremacist in the face doesn't count.

    I know you're trolling, but here's an antifa Berkeley professor hitting a guy in the head with a bike lock:
    http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/05/24/berkeley-college-professor-arrested-as-assault-suspect/

    Here's where they smashed up Berkeley (and their favorite Starbucks) and attacked people wanting to attend a conservative (if trollish) speaker:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Berkeley_protests#February_1
    From the link: "[the protesters] set fires, damaged property, threw fireworks, attacked members of the crowd, and threw rocks at the police."

    Here's an antifa professor being suspended from his job after calling for people to kill cops: http://nypost.com/2017/09/15/professor-who-tweeted-about-dead-cops-suspended/

    Here's a BLM march in which they chant for dead cops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqQXmnMr_w8

    Here are some of those cops: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/blacklivesmatter-kill-list-least-11-cops-shot-dead-9-wounded-blm-criminals/

    And finally, here's an article saying that MORE blacks are dying in poor black communities (gang violence) because cops are afraid to patrol them now. Kind of hypocritical to name your movement that way and get more people killed (over 90% of black murders are done by other blacks): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/26/rate-murder-fbi-increase

  31. Lessons of history by Max_W · · Score: 2

    In the beginning of the 20th century the leftists were literally banned. Such figures as Stalin, Trotsky, etc. were stuck in prisons or penal servitude hopelessly. Nevertheless they resurfaced with a bang.

    Even though nowadays those leftists may look ridiculous, in certain conditions such as a massive war, division of society into poor and rich, widespread homelessness, famine, etc. these ideas may again attract a public attention.

    At least, the history demonstrates that it is a realistic possibility. Besides, it is proven already that the overeating causes health problems, spending time in a luxurious house as opposite to hiking, running at a stadium, etc. is also problematic. So, perhaps, an investment in helping people in need could be a good insurance against losing everything.

  32. Re: Liberals create echo chamber by oobayly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a colleague who said "fucking liberals" when I told him it's stupid to think that electric car technology isn't going to improve in the future.

    To him, liberal is just an insult, he has no idea what it actually means.

  33. Re:Right has zero access to "societal machine" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > Wow, neither antifa nor Black Lives Matters kill police

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/09...

    > smash stores

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/16/...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    > or burn things

    I couldn't trivially find BLM burning stuff, so there's that.

    But Antifa lights fires ALL THE TIME. All around the fucking world, they are burning shit whenever they get together.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    BLM

    > No, punching a White Supremacist in the face doesn't count.

    Sorry, do the political opinions people have now justify violence against them? If that's a moral line we are crossing, do you have any idea the amount of damage that will cause? Do you think it will lend legitimacy to any idea, if you believe that violence against people who hold ideas you find unattractive, is allowed?

  34. Re:Right has zero access to "societal machine" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    The Right has the levers of power we're allowed to vote on. The rest of society we don't vote on, and they're hard left dominated.

    All those bible belt religious grass roots churches etc are left wing? Huh! TIL!

    As a Leftist told me recently:

    Yeah maybe, but that round like a right winger's idea of what a leftwinger sounds like.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  35. Re: Right has zero access to "societal machine" by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Exactly! The thing that gets me about my fellow left leaning folks is that they think bitching on the web of marching in the streets will cause change

    I can't remember which show it was, maybe it was Fresh Air, but I remember hearing on NPR a conversation with retired congressman Barney Frank. He went to a few Occupy Wall Street events to check out what people were saying. They were generally dumps, but there were a lot of people singing and protesting. Thinking back to his similar experiences walking through Tea Party gatherings, he asked the OWS organizers there why there weren't any voter registration areas like he'd seen in the Tea Party events, ways to harness this desire for change into actual change. Their response was that "doing that, yeah man, that's not really our thing." In the interview, Frank said that he knew right then and there that OWS would have exactly zero impact. Or at least, it wouldn't have the sort of impact that they would have wanted.

  36. Re:They're too far to the left even for Reddit?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't really care enough to look into their beliefs more, but what I find most surprising is that they were too far to the left even for Reddit.

    Reddit in general is among the most left-leaning social media sites out there. Even expressing a centrist or moderate viewpoint in many subreddits will typically get you punished in some way, if not outright banned.

    It's typical to find what any reasonable person would consider to be extreme left content posted at Reddit all of the time. In some subreddits you're lucky if you're only subjected to socialist content, rather than what should be considered outright Communist propaganda.

    These people must be really, really, really, really, really far to the extreme of the extreme left if Reddit isn't a suitable place for them.

    Why should this surprise you? There are 50+ extreme radical communists groups operating in the United States of America that I could rattle off. At least 2 of them have me on a public kill list. Pause for a second and think about that -- what kind of groups make public kill lists? I'm on those list because I'm a semi-public face on an organization that defends the first amendment, and will not allow the heckler's veto to prevent events if at all possible. For this reason the communists absolutely despise me, and they certainly have no love for the III% or any other group standing up to protect people who are trying to assemble and hold an event in peace.

    The need for moderating groups to prevent violence wouldn't even exist without years of these groups attacking people. I would venture to say much of the alt-right wouldn't exist without the extremists on the left pushing SJWism, and far too many so called centrist left being "okay with it" or at least not making any serious attempts to reign it in. It certainly doesn't happen in the major cities where the violence, intimidation, threats, and lawlessness of alt-left groups continues on largely unchecked.

    I do take some exception with this article calling these folks anarchists and socialists. Most of them are hard core communists, many with an extreme SJWism twist that reminds me of Mao's cultural revolution. These are the last people who should ever hold a position of power anywhere in government.

  37. Re:"Leftist" banned from Reddit? LOLOLOLOLOL... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Did you just assume a gender? You’re worse than hitler.

    As an insult, a "cunt" can be either male or female. (See especially The Hound from Game of Thrones)

  38. Re: How typical of leftists by Phydeaux314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I prefer to not call people nazis unless they are actually nazis. I find it lessens the impact of the term to misuse it.

    And rational does not mean they agree with me - far from it. Rational means their arguments and positions support their professed viewpoints, nothing more or less. I have no interest in having arguments with people that won't be honest with themselves or me.

    If somebody tells me that public health care is bad because the government wastes tons of money despite heaps of evidence to the contrary, I cannot have a debate with them because they do not believe in research, logic, or honest debate. If they tells me public health care is bad because the government's role is not to provide health care, then I can talk with them, because while I disagree with that viewpoint there's nothing wrong with the logic itself.

    --
    Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
  39. Re: How typical of leftists by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

    Ah, yes, so you get to set the terms of the debate before it even starts. Agree with me, or I judge you lose before it starts.

    I usually describe this as: "Do as I say, not as I do." It invariably creates a blind spot for the "invisible" activity, but also undermines the ability of the mind to see the truth in general because the mind has become used to lying to itself so it won't see the things it is not supposed to see. Obviously, at this point, the mind itself cannot detect truth and falsity, because the mind would have to see itself lying. That's almost as much fun as the Who's: "Pinball Wizard" who became deaf, dumb, and blind to hide a family secret.

    A problem with highly intelligent people like this, is that they assume that their opinions are facts.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  40. They forgot about what by edgedmurasame · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "To me, the biggest problem with Reddit is how its administrators ignore the routine harassment and witch-hunts of marginalized people that takes place, with r/The_Donald being the most prominent example,"

    Never mind that Reddit has done a lot to silence that (and other non-leftist) community under that exact excuse. After they dealt with the Violentacrez incident, they went from a user-driven site to an admin-driven site with highly-left leanings.

    --
    "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
  41. Re:Right has zero access to "societal machine" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    i watched in Ferguson as you lefties burned and looted. I watched in seattle and other cities. It is not the conservatives that are killing police and killing each other everyday inChicago, St. Louis or Deriot. No this is all he left. It is the side that is forcing gay righs/gay marriage/transgender you know about 3% of the population tha are broken people onto the rest of the population. These things do NOT make us stronger or better. The cost of health care is beyond belief. My rates are jumping 21.6% again this year. Now costing e $20,000 a year for my wife and I and we have no medical problems. I dont even take a single percription. But some how im havingo pay for a lot of other peoples health care. Ive deciding to not pay. To save the $20K+ a year and self insure. Ill take a catastrophic medical coverage and save a ton. The whole idea that you people can just take and take and take is only going to move you lower and into a 3rd world country sooner. America if we dont change is going to no better than the shiat hole that is AFRICA. And if you have never been there...AFRICA is a shit hole. Look it up....they complain here about how we enslaved them 100+ years ago....but note that there are millions of slaves today in africa. Because as stated before...the white man didnt bring slavery to Africa. Africa brought it to the white man. But that messes with the blacks whole narriative of they be the victum. Just like the left and the blacks and the broken people....none of this makes us stronger. Instead it pulls us down to gutter bottom. Shame on everyone of you, The founding fathers risked their necks to give you the greats country to ever exist...and you idiots are destroying it. May God have mercy on your condemned souls.

  42. Institutional Racism by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    So you're saying that institutional racism doesn't exist, or that it's okay because no one is "trying" to be racist?

    It must be acknowledged that "micro-aggression" is an extremely stupid word. However, if you don't think it refers to a real phenomenon, we can only ascribe that to inexperience.

    We have to thank you for including "black people are lazy" in your list there. It certainly lets us know where you stand.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:Institutional Racism by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In order to keep the narrative of white racism alive, "activists" keep turning to more and more ephemeral forms of racism, most of which require no conscious action at all on the part of whites. Conveniently, whites can not refute these racist acts nor can they really change, they can only *atone* for their inherent racism. Racism has become a kind of secular "original sin" -- an inalienable state of being for which they may only pay penance.

      Unfortunately as more and more non-white ethnic groups immigrate and rise within the United States, it's becoming apparent that the "race problem" isn't "white racism" as broad, whites vs. nonwhites phenomenon, but is instead something more like "Why can't blacks succeed when others have?"

      And the laundry list of others is pretty long -- Latinos, many of whom *don't even speak English*, have managed to thrive in the United States. The Hmong, living like it was the sometime before the 19th century managed to get ripped out of their own country by the US war machine and resettled to the prairies of the Midwest and thrived. The *Somalis* managed to escape a live-action version of "The Road Warrior" and thrive in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in spite of the obvious handicaps of negative sentiment towards Muslims *and* being African (inheriting existing negative sentiment towards American blacks).

      How have all of these groups managed to establish working communities not defined by broken families and crime despite substantial cultural obstacles in mere decades or less while native African Americans continue to fail? Surely at some point we can start to talk about problems inherent to and unique to African American communities which cannot be blamed on "racism".

    2. Re:Institutional Racism by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Even the most desperate refugees usually end up in communities made up of people from their own homeland with their culture and cultural values still intact, unlike slaves. You are comparing apples to oranges.

    3. Re:Institutional Racism by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      If it really was systemic racism, then no non-whites would be able to succeed.

      Non sequitur.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    4. Re: Institutional Racism by me3head · · Score: 1

      Hmm. What is the one thing that American blacks have in their groupâ(TM)s history that makes them different than other immigrant groups? Hmm... while those other groups surely suffered discrimination and hurdles, none had the apparatus of government institutions systematically subjugate them for generations. Anti-black racism in America is an inherently different beast than the general state of racially discriminatory practice.

  43. Re: How typical of leftists by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    He said a rational debate, not a parade of strawmen. If you're not willing to assume good faith, then you're right, you're not going to have any kind of discussion.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  44. Yes, you are completely batshit. by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    JFK was on the left.

    JFK slashed taxes, sent thousands of "advisors" to continue France's colonialist occupation of Vietnam, and lied his ass off about a "missile gap", that dramatically escalated the cold war. He also forgot to mention in his televised speech on Cuba that the entire reason the USSR wanted to place missiles there was to counter the nuclear-armed Jupiter missiles the United States had just installed in Turkey. He was also happy to play the racist card in a primary debate: "You say you are going to take ten thousand black people and move them into Orange County? It is just going to be catastrophic."

    All right-wing actions, not left wing.

    Every Democrat today is a hundred miles to the left of JFK.

    Certifiable. Democratic leadership, starting with Clinton has been to the right of Reagan. Bill signed a laundry list of massive deregulatory and corporate trade bills that Ronnie could have only dreamed of. He also passed draconian crime bills that tripped the prison population, militarized the police and threw gays under the bus for 15 years with DOMA. Hell, he even tried privatizing Social Security long before Bush did. And then Hillbots had the gall to attack Sanders as being weak on minorities.

    Speaking of Ronnie, Reaganism didn't begin with him. It began with Carter. Deregulating the trucking and airline industries, appealing to right-wing Christians and attacked Ford for being soft on the USSR. Oh, and he was also happy to play the racist card: "I see nothing wrong with ethnic purity being maintained. I would not force a racial integration of a neighborhood by government action."

    Right. Wing.

    Modern Democrats are totally bonkers, and blah blah blah blah blah

    Repeal the 22nd Amendment, resurrect Reagan and he'd be the liberal in a three way race between himself, Obama and Hillary in 2020. Reagan insisted Social Security had nothing to do with the deficit; Obama wanted to cut benefits as part of deficit "reduction". Obama took Romneycare national, started a war with Libya without authorization from Congress (something his own VP threatened Bush with impeachment for if he did the same thing to Iran), fought his own party to pass the TPP, went to the right of the GOP with his "sequester" austerity. Obama also tripled the Afghanistan occupation, tried extending the Iraq occupation past the deal Bush made with Iraq, bombed three times as many countries as Bush, overthrew the democracies of Honduras and Ukraine, and repeated the Iraq "mistake" in both Syria and Libya. And Hillary is even more right wing than he is.

    Right. Wing.

  45. Re:Right has zero access to "societal machine" by jwhyche · · Score: 2

    So explain Roy Moore?

    Genetic experiment gone wrong? Dropped on head as a baby? Alien/human breeding accident? Donkey Goat fornication? I really got nothing....

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  46. Re: Liberals create echo chamber by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    To him, liberal is just an insult, he has no idea what it actually means.

    Not surprising. Here is what it actually means:

    lib-er-al
    adjective
    1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values; favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms; (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform; (Theology) regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
    2. (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.

    Oooh, scary.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  47. entitled dude = upvote by p0larity · · Score: 1

    Seems like the only things getting "insightful" upvotes are "centrist" dudes who can't seem to understand the difference between boy's clubs and clubs for minorities.

    WTF guys. Is it really that difficult?

    When someone tries to put together a boy's club, it's invariably because they want to keep the status quo. They're afraid of losing power they already have.

    When someone tries to create a private place for women or minorities to meet, they're trying to avoid being shouted down by angry mouthpieces for once in their goddamned lives.

    The difference is power, and raison d'etre.

    When someone creates a women-only space, for example, others need not worry that they're going to miss out on any job opportunities or the ability to make ends meet. It's just a space where they want to be alone and speak. Period.

    So why anyone needs to take it personally I'll never understand. Yeah, they want to talk without you in the room. It's a rare treat. Let them have it. Everyone needs therapy some time. Especially those who have to live with -your- sanctimonious BS.

  48. Re:Mod peasant up! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    To say nothing of the excellent 'Northern Columbia Donkey Fuckers' story.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  49. Re: Liberals create echo chamber by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Used to mean 'In favor of Liberty'. Not for a long time though.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  50. Joker's social experiment? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Almost sounds like a SNL joke. How long can a bunch of anarchists run their own web site. Wonder how long before one kills another one of themselves.

  51. Re: Liberals create echo chamber by oobayly · · Score: 1

    Not for a long time though.

    For some sure, but for a lot of us liberals it still does. I've never told said colleague to shut up when he starts talking about coons, sand n*ggers, spastics, etc. I just walk away - he's free to believe that some people are intellectually inferior based on the colour of their skin, and I'm free to think he's a horrible human being.