Talk:Reddit/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 May 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Karma

I've never been a member of Reddit, so a lot of the mechanics of up/downvoting and karma are just what I've picked up in passing, and I may have gotten some of the details wrong. If anyone can correct me, I'd appreciate it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Displayed karma total is just posts karma; comment karma only affects that comment in that post. No-one pays a user's karma a blind bit of notice except the user themselves - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes checking comment karma is useful when trying to figure out if any given user is a blind troll. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 14:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The other kind of karma

What, nothing about Violentacrez?--ZooGuard (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

So write it - David Gerard (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Highly left-leaning"

Ok, that's something I'm going to challenge.

While Reddit is definitely anti-Republican (Obama's AMA crashing of the site can attest to that), it's gigantic MRA and pedo population (especially the admins' TV Tropes-like response to the latter), near-idolization of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson etc., and anti-gun control and climate denial slant suggest something else. It's more libertarian-populist. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As the person who wrote the "highly left-leaning" comment, I actually agree completely with what you wrote. However, we are both right. On the axes of political philosophy , "liberal" and "conservative" are opposites, while "libertarian" and "authoritarian" are opposites. That means, for example, someone may be a Conservative Authoritarian (like most fascist regimes), or a Liberal Libertarian (in the case of Reddit). Therefore, Redditors are both left-leaning and libertarian. The best term I've heard to describe them is "brogressive." ShadowUltra (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"...while "libertarian" and "authoritarian" are opposites." Except in the US, where "libertarian" means "advocate of corporatist neo-feudalism." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And the UK, where it means "Tory who finds taxes a personal affront" - David Gerard (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Where on the political spectrum would you put young bigots who wouldn't mind getting some weed and some government handouts? They're not libertarian, they just disagree with older authoritarians on a couple points, for selfish reasons that will change as they get older. I'd say it's just 'younger rightwing'. Dmytry (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. They only want the good stuff, such as government money, drugs or freebies, for those who are like themselves. And they are usually quite privileged on pretty much every axis. That poor black/Latina single mother of two, or that TWOC (trans woman of color) who has to rely on sex work to make ends meet? LOLNO, just "welfare queens" who have no "ethics in government handouts". These people may stage a token protest against corporate welfare, sure ... until they profit from it themselves.

Basically, they want something like socialism, just not international and for everyone (egalitarian) like traditional socialism, but only for white people who are like them and agree with them. You know what that's called? "National socialism". *zing* Left-wing politics don't work without egalitarianism and social justice; if you believe in elitism and special rights for certain groups (no, not policies, such as affirmative action, that merely relieve systemic disadvantages a little bit), especially already powerful groups (think rich white cishet men, not feminists, let alone womanists or transfeminists), you are by definition right-wing. They're just young conservatives or fascists, and not in any way anarchist or libertarian; they just like the idea of calling themselves left-wing because it sounds hip and they think it gives them credibility against "SJWs" whom they call "far left" and (via horseshoe theory, which is bullshit, just like the Political Compass, see above definitions for left-wing and right-wing) link to the far right (checkmate, SJWs!) so they can deflect awkward questions regarding how much common ground they themselves have with the far right (lol, that Happy Merchant is totes ironic, we bash Jews and Marxists all the damn time just for the lulz and because it's edgy to be a bigot). --91.7.40.43 (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed

The new stuff needs a forest of citations - it makes implausible assertions about the views of all of Reddit (which is goddamn huge) and randomly confuses Reddit users, specific subreddits and Reddit's owners and administrators. Arguably the outside world will not perceive the differences, but the new text talks about actions or failures of action on the parts of these, so it should get this right, not wrong. Also needs to understand wtf sec 230 is and why. I appreciate this is a reasonable rendition of the views of bits of the skepticsphere and of the more bozolike bits of Reddit, but not of the whole world - substitute the word "Internet" for "Reddit" and the error should become apparent - David Gerard (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think tomorrow I'll be covering it in a forest of citation-needed tags, and the next day hacking the stupidity away - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Two days instead, and still no substantiation. Cite tags added. Each of these should be substantiable - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No-one gave enough of a shit to cite, so away it goes. When come back, bring cites - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The general problem is describing storms in a teacup happening in one tiny portion of a goddamn huge site as if almost anyone on the site has even heard of it, let alone gives a shit - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

ShitRedditSays is Shitty, Too

I have provided enough documentation for how SRS is a pretty shitty place, too. Yet this keeps getting undone without discussion. Why?—Chbarts (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's probably better if you write in userspace first (User:Chbarts/Reddit) --81.175.227.88 (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

By "enough documentation" you mean this link? http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/13p174/major_tw_woman_rapes_man_horrifying_but_mostly Could you please explain how that source supports the sentence you've attached it to? ("when they're not shaming rape victims or denying the existence of certain forms of rape altogether.")--ZooGuard (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I see in the link, they are actually criticizing people for marginalizing male rape victims (in other words, the opposite of what Chbarts says). I'm no fan of SRS, but evidence should actually support the claims being made here. Mr. Anon (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As someone on SRS, mind if I ask you your problems with it?--Token Conservative (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The main problem I have is the fact that it is against SRS rules to disagree with the validity of a post. This means users whose posts make it to SRS (which, despite its rules, inevitably creates a downvote brigade) are unable to defend themselves. If a user's post was taken out of context, or if it really isn't that big of a deal, they will find themselves targeted with no way to explain themselves. For example, this highlighted on the front page of SRS today, taking the quote as if he is equating pedophilia to homosexuality. The actual poster, it seems, misspoke and was talking about broader methods of stopping child predators. In many ways the nature of SRS stifles discussion.Mr. Anon (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of times where a comment was taken out of context, and a couple of times where a comment was posted at +50 karma, and by the time it made it to SRS frontpage it was pushing +200. Not saying it doesn't happen, but taking things out of context doesn't seem to happen very much, and the downvote brigade doesn't seem to be very effective.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a circlejerk. What do you expect? Osaka Sun (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

One month later...

They make fun of nine-year-old rape victims.—Chbarts (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, sure. I got sidetracked a bit. SRS can be OK when they're not simply being hateful. That's my point. Is this POV not going to be represented here at all?—Chbarts (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the linked thread, the rest of which you conveniently excluded, the first quote seems to be again a case of mocking a stereotypical position. If you are upset by it, it should be for putting words in Redditor's mouths.

As the rest are screenshots, no context can be verified - e.g. if these are instances of sarcasm and/or hyperbolic paraphrasing. Even if they are genuine comments, nothing guarantees that these are genuine SRS participants and not agent provocateur trolls, or that this is representative for the subreddit.

Seriously dude, I understand the sparkles are pretty, but you need to put down that axe.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've seen other examples. That's just what was readily to hand. My point, however, is that there's a negative side to SRS which is not being represented here, which means they're being given free reign to be hateful in a way nobody else mentioned here is. Why is that?—Chbarts (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You: "WAH BLAH SRS IS EVIL"

Us: "You sound butthurt. Cites plz."

You: (crappy deceitful cites)

Us: "Those are crappy deceitful cites."

You: "But WAH BLAH SRS IS EVIL"

There's a certain circular nature to this discussion - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is where they defend bullying someone to the point of making them want to commit suicide: http://i.imgur.com/SRLHwKB.png Is that bad in your eyes? BTW, I'd be happier if you didn't use 'butthurt': It makes light of rape. —Chbarts (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

After being caught lying once, you provide another contextless example. Also, fuck off - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

And you make jokes about rape.—Chbarts (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. Your attempt at false equivalence is noted. "Butt" doesn't necessarily mean "anus", it comes from "buttocks". "Butthurt" is how you feel after having your ass kicked, literally or metaphorically.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a rape joke as it's commonly used. And I don't understand the rest, either: You demand cites, I give them, you tell me to fuck off and imply I should get raped. Why? What's wrong with my cites?—Chbarts (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It was repeatedly pointed out to you that your "cites" either don't support your claims, or suffer from a lack of context. See the comments above and below this one.

Instead of challenging these criticisms and defending your "cites", you disappear for a month and pop up with another quote. In other words, you implicitly abandon your previous attempts and start shopping for another "incriminating quote". What do you expect us to do?--ZooGuard (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the first .png I've taken a look at from the examples you've presented, and seriously? I'm not a fan of this commenter "stereotyping" gamers, but in no way is he telling the OP to commit suicide. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A few suggested edits for various topics

Violentacrez section had too much personal information. Whoever wrote it was likely from /r/ShitRedditSays.

Violentacrez was a Reddit user responsible for creating and moderating many of the NSFW subreddits, including /r/jailbait and later, /r/creepshots. Violentacrez posted hundreds, perhaps thousands of images to Reddit. He also regularly made outlandish comments about his sexual history, most notably claiming in an Ask Me Anything session that he had sex with his stepdaughter. In October 2012, Gawker writer Adrian Chen obtained Violentacrez's real identity from a disgruntled former friend who met him at a Reddit meetup and became disillusioned with his disturbing sexual behavior. Chen contacted Vilentacrez and informed him that he would be writing an article about his online behavior. On October 12, 2012, this article was posted.

War were declared.

The previous editor wrote from a biased viewpoint, stating that there was no evidence for what they've been accused of, but I've found some evidence that belongs here as well.

A subreddit devoted to criticizing, making fun of, and drawing attention to the ignorant bigotry and otherwise disturbing content that some Redditors shower with upvotes. SRS users typically find upvoted comments, post them to SRS, and then make fun of or heavily criticize the users involved. SRS was originally designed as a subreddit to try and educate these users, but when those attempts were met with severe downvoting, the users decided to turn the subreddit into the "circlejerk" it is known for today. Because SRS is supposed to be a safe space for marginalized groups to talk without fear of downvotes, those who violate the circlejerk or attempt to argue their "innocence" are swiftly banned in order to preserve the discussion space for people who would get downvoted elsewhere on Reddit.<ref>It does sound a little harsh, but we're dealing with a website that verges into boob and poop jokes 5 minutes into any discussion. (Particularly on default subreddits.)</ref>

ShitRedditSays is blamed for all manner of things by all manner of people in Reddit, such as vote brigading, publishing personal information on other users and conducting campaigns of harassment against other Redditors. Here is some evidence that indicates that these accusations are true and merit further investigation.

The section on /r/atheism is just plain wrong and represents the anti-atheism circlejerk that is becoming more prevalent in Reddit.

Not as relentlessly awful as some, but a good demonstration of the fact that not believing in a god or gods in no way implies any capacity for joined-up thinking or not being a horrible person. It is important to note that /r/cringe, /r/magicskyfairy, /r/circlejerk, and even 4chan have all submitted posts to /r/atheism and "brigaded" (manipulating votes with a specific purpose) them in order to garner attention. /r/magicskyfairy in particular hates /r/atheism and does it somewhat regularly, although instances have declined since meme posts have had stricter rules in place when being posted. /r/atheism has received a lot of criticism for being a hate sub, bigoted, unpleasant, and "extremist" by many people; however, there have been no instances where the accuser has proven that this is the case. The main point to take away is that /r/atheism does not deserve to be classified as the "worst of Reddit" because the only examples of being bad have either not been proven or have been manipulated into appearance. /r/atheism is no better nor worse than any other subreddit; however, I will not be removing /r/atheism from this section because it needs to be seen.

Early in 2013, there was a little coup d'etat among the moderators at /r/atheism, wherein the founder of the subreddit was forced out.<ref>A little something to do with the founder not logging onto /r/atheism in about a year.</ref> The first assistant moderator that the founder had invited to help with /r/atheism became chief moderator. Afterwards, a lot of new policies were implemented, leading to the wailing and gnashing of teeth among most of the members. The original founder then created a new subreddit called /r/atheismrebooted (which is just like it sounds — a rehash of the best and worst of /r/atheism's original format). One of the users at /r/atheismrebooted was kind enough to post a timeline of their little soap opera here. </ref> ^{— Unsigned, by: 98.24.17.148 / talk / contribs} 21:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Huge mess nowiki-ed to prevent reference error message. Please be more concise and clearly separate quoted parts of the article from your proposed additions.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible picture

[1] - we could use this for 'Worst of Reddit'? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What about "we condone child porn" or other such crap that supposedly can be found on Reddit? It's best to give equal attention to all the crap imo. Nullahnung (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

How about no? Pro-CP circlejerks have all but banished since the ViolentAcrez kerfuffle. To be fair, though, they still happen in the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist subreddits. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Burning this game would be an insult to fire.} 00:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that we should put a "we condone child porn" in the article, I was making the point that we should not have any "we condone" at all, because otherwise we would have to have it on all moral no-go's. Nullahnung (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave this here. ·Femilisk^♥ 12:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe SRS has taken over RationalWiki. I was at my local library last week and there was an entire section on gender studies but only seven books by Orwell. How much longer until SRS controls the government? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

We control the jimmies library, we control the rustling government. ·Femilisk^♥ 12:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You know how it is, the more civil rights groups that exist for a particular group, the less oppression that they face in society. The fact that the feminist movement is larger and more significant than the men's rights movement is literally sexism and not at all based on reactions to societal issues. Let me ask you this, where exactly is my talk about straight issues? What about my talk about white issues? Checkmate --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes yes, you're both very humorous. Nullahnung (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

*collects tears* ·Femilisk^♥ 13:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

*insert meme* is always the right answer to everything ever. Of course! Why didn't I think of that? Nullahnung (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool story bro ·Femilisk^♥ 13:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Top kek --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Master trole |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Do you accept Madoka as your Lord and Savior?} 13:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Is any of this supposed to be comprehensible? MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{Suffer the storms} 13:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry! Just like you, I too also enjoy the sublimely compact meaningfulness of memesmanship as well! Nullahnung (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm all about the lols. Seriously. If you're not about the lols you can get the fuck away from me --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I once said "lol" in real life! Can you believe that? LOL Nullahnung (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not anti-meme or anti-lol, I just kinda find it confusing and, to a degree, sorta annoying. DØØM MĖSSIÅH ^{Remembrance of the transcending moon} 13:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"Master trole" is a minor Reddit metasphere meme used when someone in a discussion argues almost entirely by posting memes. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Never got enough hugs as a kid} 13:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

One man's annoying, is another genderqueer's satisfying. ·Femilisk^♥ 13:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘*Redneck voice*You /b/-hugger internetalists and your recycling of phrasings, get off my lawn! Nullahnung (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

/b/ is love. /b/ is life. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'm a survivor, keep on survivin', I'm gonna survive this, I'm gonna make it} 13:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

For Hobbes and the Sovereign. ·Femilisk^♥ 13:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

To answer the question "how about this image?" I'd say that memery in article space is probably not a great idea (and if that's not memery, it's pretty close) - it would encourage shitty additions by people who can't get it together to write wurdz. (RW even looking like ED would also not be a great thing.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I've changed my mind about it now --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

/r/Conspiratard Moderators

The moderators at /r/Conspiratard are actually pretty abusive with their powers. Not in the same scale as /r/conspiracy, but listing it as a great place to get stuff debunked is kind of inaccurate.

Unfortunately, I'm sure you can guess how this translates to Conspiracy theorists when they see that stuff is getting removed for the reason "stop posting stupid stuff" and "this is garbage (in our totally subjective opinion)"

And yes I've actually got those as reasons for being banned... I've even been banned permanently, and when I ask for a reason they tell me they don't have to explain it or something snarly like "welcome to reddit"

Is it really a good idea to advocate a Conspiracy Debunking place that acts like this?--サトセレ (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel no love for it, that section could do with trimming anyway - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

r/WikiInAction

The subreddit randomizer brought me to r/WikiInAction/ which appears to be a modestly wretched hive of scum and villainy dedicated to whining about Wikipedia, lately infested with gossip about the gamergate slap-fest. That sub has no love in its heart for RationalWiki either.

"RationalWiki is a demonstration of what happened to the Skeptic movement after feminists borged it." [2]

68.187.218.86 (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Censorship

On r/undelete, I came across this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/36l830/saying_goodbye_to_an_old_friend/

Talking about censorship on Reddit. Plenty of people, including ones from /rConspiracy have been known to censor content they don't like. It's not just the nuitty ones. Ones that appear to be same like r/Conspiratard, r/debunk this, to what you percieve at nutty, like r/conspiracy, or r/mensrights, oror r/911truth are censoring.

This has been happenign since Reddit's newest CEO.

Then there is this subreddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/POLITIC/related/2s0o9c/claims_that_ahmed_jesuisahmed_was_not_killed_by_a/

Which appears to undelete stuff deleted for political reasons. ^{— Unsigned, by: ReptoidKiller / talk / contribs 08:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)}

Are we waiting for shit to calm down?

Anyone who's been on reddit yesterday/today knows some insanity has been going down. Is RW waiting for the lunacy to boil over before commenting on it?--71.34.194.49 (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's mostly just a tempest in a teapot. We've included the one actual change(fatpeoplehate being shut down), and the site will forget the rest just like when their "free speech" was infringed with the shutdown of /r/jailbait. I don't know if there's anything relevant to cover. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I added a para, and ConfusedLiberal expanded it, which I think covers it as much as is relevant for now - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Are we going to write about the AMA/subs going private thing or...? --Akira (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Could if there's some broader impact; I suggest waiting for that. This isn't WIGO:Reddit - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Love this comment

I love this comment from SubredditDrama describing the Reddit admins. Blitz (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The hentai subreddits

A few months ago, when I heard /r/lolicon, /r/shotacon, and other subreddits like them got banned under Reddit's new rules, a little part of me died. Though I never visited the subreddits, I'm still a big fan of the content. And I really didn't get why they banned them (since, to my knowledge, they didn't even violate the new rules). I mean, I know it's quite a controversial topic, but I could have sworn they were within their rights. Does anyone have anymore info on that? A statement by the admins, anything? Or did they just bring down the hammer and act like nothing happened? - Shouniaisha (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Cull the subreddit review severely?

It's not clear this was ever a good idea, sorry. In any case, they're presently getting worse and worse. I was about to fix Plutoniumboss's latest bilge and realised "actually this whole section is probably rubbish" - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

A'ight. I have a proposal which should satisfy everyone. Why don't we keep the reasonable-sounding subs, the ones which don't advertise their insanity, and cull the obvious crazies? Plutoniumboss (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Made an account to second this. A good 25% of the subs don't belong on the list whatsoever, and a ton of the "criticism" is lowbrow mockery without explanation. Some of the notes are utterly meaningless to anyone who doesn't frequent said sub, also. To top it off, some "criticisms" are neutral or even rather positive portrayals of certain subs (i.e. /r/FatLogic). I'm removing a bunch of the garbage and encourage everyone only to refill it with legitimate critiques. --Alvysinger (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

English

I think is bad section. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much every edit ever by User:Plutoniumboss is fucking terrible. I had to vandalbin him after he started making fucking terrible edits by bot run - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:David Gerard is salty because I touched his toys without permission. Is RW invite-only? Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No, but you need to learn how to edit, looking at your contribs. And who requested that whole section be removed, exactly? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently we're triggered

https://www.reddit.com/r/european/comments/42sb06/rationalwiki_is_triggered_by_reuropean_as_well_as/ Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 18:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The word "triggered" is on its way to losing any useful meaning.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"On its way"? It already has. Some terms end up on the garbage heap. Nothing to be offended about; c'est la vie. Man, I gotta update our trigger warning article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

/r/whalewatchers

Lightning Dust, I saw your recent edit about /r/FPH and /r/whalewatchers and wondered if you think it's worth clarifying that /r/whalewatchers was technically quarantined as opposed to unbanned, something like what it says about /r/antipozi? I don't feel strongly either way, but I tried to go to it after I saw your edit because I wanted to see if it went back to being about whale watching when it was unbanned (just out of curiosity, not because I'm interested in whale watching or fat shaming), but it turned out it was quarantined (and so I assume it's not about whale watching). LaughTherapy (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me see what I can find about it on the reddit search engine. It looks like /r/whalewatchers was set to a Private subreddit, so you have to request an invite before you can see it. There also appears to have been https://www.reddit.com/r/whalewatching which was definitely banned and is viewable now, although it's still not very active. Here is the GamerGhazi thread about it, KotakuInAction thread about it. Here is an admin's comment about the situation, saying he accidentally banned it and unbanned it when the mod team explained. This "SRSsucks" thread and a ThePopcornStand thread claim that WhaleWatchers got taken down with WhaleWatching. Lightning Dust (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh you're right. It's just private, not quarantined. I didn't read the words on the page, I guess. heh. Ignore everything I've said. :) LaughTherapy (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

/r/ShitLiberalsSay

Thinks the description of /r/Socialism and /r/Communism is kek-worthy. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

/r/FullCommunism is mad

Or, watch leftists whine about liberalism. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Reading the comments, I just love how unabashedly ultra-Commie these guys are. Loyal to the dogma of dead men. Dedicated to an irrelevant messianic ideology. Aaah... it makes me proud of my work on the Berlin Wall and Command economy articles, just to name two. Fuck those tankie assnuggets :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The only communists we need here are Cultural Marxists. After all, they bankroll us.

Interesting to see that "good at debunking pseudo-science crap otherwise" comes up as well. It serves as a good dividing line between those pissed at our (supposed or real) politics and those pissed at us exposing their junk science and woo. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Aren't they a joke subreddit anyways? Why are they mentioned on the page?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

With every passing day the probability that a joke reddit is taken seriously approaches one. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that is a particularly good reason for listing them as "one of the worst subreddits".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"Not a particularly good reason for listing them"?! The first comment is literally: "Stalin did nothing wrong. Kulaks deserved it". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A über-commie remarked "I always thought rational wiki was a right-libertarian/ancap site.". Jonanism summed up to perfection. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I think the user is joking (though, the user under them appears to be serious) but even so the content of the subreddit is what should be judged and not the users themselves. For example, r/TheDonald has horrible users but those users are tolerated and encouraged by the subreddit itself. Secondly, I don't think we should list joke subreddits especially those that make purposely inflammatory comments in order to laugh at people taking them seriously.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

How exactly can you tell with certainty that they're a parody subreddit? Because their stated views are fucking ludicrous? Sadly, that's not enough to tell (read summary of Poe's). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Just put it under "Fairly awful" and be done with it. Also the "we're just joking" defense doesn't always work, especially when it attracts people who are mostly serious and the "joke" is just exaggerating their own views a bit (i.e. /pol/). ClothCoat (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

These fart nuggets belong under "Worst of". We'll vote on it if it comes to that. And you're goddamn right the "it's just a prank bro"-defense doesn't hold any water here; why, if it did, half of our content could be wiped overnight! Now, I wish you all would stop apologizing for these Stalin apologists and let them sit in their showers all night contemplating how they ended up being mentioned, under the "butt brains people" header, in a little list, on a site they could give two drops of store-owner blood about. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how I'm "apologizing" for them I'm just discussing which category they belong in which is between "bad" and "horrible" and thought it would be a compromise that would end the argument but personally I'm more in agreement with you. Personally I would put /r/anarchism under "horrible" as well but there was alot of pushback just from initially adding it so I didn't think it would stick. Anyways yes it's a pretty nasty subreddit either way. Also what about 9/11 truth? Do truthers belong in the same category as violent maniacs? They seem to fit the "fairly awful" label better. ClothCoat (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Poe's law is my exact reason for why we shouldn't add joke subreddits. I understand that people aren't always in on the joke but the subreddit encourages jokes that are (or may be) purposely absurd while jokes a r/Coontown would have no veil of absurdity.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I move for removing the "Fairly Awful Subreddits" headline and just sorting all those under "Other subreddits". The compromise could involve a new headline, "Other Fairly Awful Subreddits". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There. This looks much better and is proactive against talkpage nonsense, in my view. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

My argument isn't that it is being misidentified but that it shouldn't be there at all. r/ShitLiberalsSay may have jokes but the point is to encourage more hardline leftist views while r/FullCommunism are leftist jokes which may be serious.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I genuinely do not understand that given motivation. Could be because it's 4AM, however. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it could be worth seperating the "bad" and the "horrible" on the basis of whether or not they celebrate or promote violence for their pet cause. Truthers are dumb, but neo-nazis and tankies apologize for mass murder and have mostly bloodthirsty nutcases in their ranks. I think if we go back to seperating them that should be the criteria, so people can instantly see the worst of the worst, or what's worth just laughing at and what's truly horrific. ClothCoat (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree — and that's why the "Worst of Reddit" category remains untouched. I merely merged the two misc sections. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well to honest it might need to be restructured then. /r/conservative is terrible (I added them initially afterall) but alot of the subs under "fairly awful" are actually far more violent and even worse. Even /r/con is more prone to downvoting overtly murderous maniacs than /r/SLS and the /r/Donald. ClothCoat (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure it would need a restructuring. I did a YOLO edit to see what y'all thought; you are, of course, free to do the same. Make a suggestion edit. Worst case, we'll rollback and head back to the drawing board. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

(EC) I guess my point is that subreddits that fall under Poe should be largely ignored while subreddits that encourage more hardline thinking like r/ShitSJWsSay or r/ShitLiberalsSay. Both types of subreddits have jokes but the latter is clearly serious about their views while jokes by r/FullCommunism to be taken as "in-jokes".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that the r/FullCommunism regulars aren't dead serious about their views. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Even the /r/anarchism users who wanted to find and beat me for adding them (their way of proving they aren't edgy and violent) aren't sure if FUllCOM is a parody. ClothCoat (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Either way, we can't use the "joke defense" here. Meaning, while humor reddits may be purged from the list (as far as I'm concerned), parody ones may not be. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok I restructured it a bit feel free to move stuff around. ClothCoat (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what they are parodying if they are a parody but that is my point, Poe is impossible to label since you don't know if it is serious or not which is usually the point.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It's literally described as satirical in the sidebar. Just saying. HomoHeisenbergensis (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Right but what Rev is arguing is that they may be only half joking about their views.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Look at it this way: If they didn't want to be seen as joking, even by others holding their same views, would they do it on a subreddit describing itself as satirical? If we want to list far-left subreddits, I think something like r/Communism101 would be better to group with r/Communism than r/FC. HomoHeisenbergensis (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Following the revelation by HomoHeisenbergensis that they do indeed consider themselves to be satirical, I agree with you both that it ought to be replaced in our reddit list with the 2nd most crazy communist channel that isn't overtly satirical (if nothing else). Though our article snark about the memes of production must survive the swap! That there be some military grade snark, son. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Again it's mostly "satirical" in terms of just exaggerating their own views in way that's essentially like "Lulz can you believe liberals actually believe that we believe this?" while still holding fairly horrible views. Nonetheless while it's filled with tankies I understand removing it. I think I'm going to take a break from depressing political stuff for a bit and just focus on pseudoscience. Yeah, just write about dog woo and stuff, not read the screeds of mass murder wannabes, that sounds nice...ClothCoat (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Those who post modestly left wing deconstructions of insane far-left ideology will be first against the wall! ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The hell is this

No really what is this. ClothCoat (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Reddit Revolt wasn't due to FPH banning

At least according to some YCombinator user who doesn't much like SJWs. Oh? FuzzyCatPotato of the Unrefined Tennis rackets (talk/stalk) 18:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

/r/aznidentity

"So... we're famous."

RationalWiki is a far-left, pro-SJW site. If you look at their entry for /r/Politics, they think that it's not pro-Hillary enough, and they're extremely pro-"ShitRedditSays" (a radical feminist subreddit)

[....]

This is why I hate liberals just as much as conservatives. Liberals hide behind feel-good language like "protecting" blacks, Asian women, gay Asians, and such, all the while being against straight Asian men. Of course, that's not to say that conservatives don't do it too.

Funny how "rational" in western politics is just dog-whistle for anti-Asian

I think Prizzle got bored, and can't stop complaining about us, so he decided to write about us in RationalWiki, nobody takes that seriously, it's the modern day urbandictionary of fast biased info on Reddit.

FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Careful, they're trying to vandalize the page. Can I suggest we put some blocks in place to prevent this?^{— Unsigned, by: 10101 / talk / contribs}

Hi. Instead of reverting the same edit over and over again, please take it to the talk page instead (like you are now) and state the reason why you want the content in question removed. I do not see these edits as vandalism and instead view yours as such. Why do you deem the content as vandalism?—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 02:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

They cross-linked it and made a concerted effort to add CCJ2, which is a satire sub (mainly satirizing **BOTH** Chinese and Western racism), to the list merely out of the fact that one of the mods of CCJ2 is married to a Chinese woman. Here's the proof: http://archive.is/cGe26. It would seem that BetaWhiteNationalist is the main culprit (ironic how they refer to us as WhiteNationalists, when I'm not even white, lol). This kind of editing is certainly not organic, and is a reaction to being exposed; moreover it's an effort on the part of a group of people to disrupt, censor, gaslight, and deflect from the racism/misogyny/homophobia/anti-semitism in their own community that goes unchecked.^{— Unsigned, by: 10101 / talk / contribs}

User 10101 is proven to be a racist and a ccj2 poster. Just look at his first submission to this website. r/CCJ2 is a serious alt-right hate sub, just take one look at that sub. Racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and hate speech is not "satire" as user 10101 says. Also if you take a look at r/ccj2's sidebar, you can see they purposely use code words like "rainy" to mean "chink" or "gook". If that doesn't prove racism, I don't know what does. Not to mention r/ccj (the original anti-Asian hate sub) was permanently banned by the admins for vote-brigading, doxing, hate speech and racism. John White 03:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the exact same kind of baseless accusation without grounds which shows why /r/AznIdentity and /r/AsianMasculinity need to be on the list of "worst of the worst". Exposing you as anti-black, eg, vis-a-vis your defense of killer cop Peter Liang and constant whinging of "black-on-Asian" crime does not make me a CCJ2 poster. Also "rainy" doesn't mean anything racist, it's a term they use to mean a single Chinese woman (proof: https://www.reddit.com/r/CCJ2/comments/5b9g7h/finally_a_rainy_for_me/). You should stop making baseless accusations because anyone can see that CCJ2 exists for snarky/sarcastic "discussion" aka circlejerking and fooling around while you guys are serious about your racism. 10101 (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Will do. I didn't intend to create drama but obviously things were linked here and then all hell broke loose.10101 (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Anti-black? Show me one one post or submission on r/aznid that is anti-black. Oh wait, there are NONE. Also, Peter Liang is the ONLY cop in American history since 2000 who got CONVICTED for shooting a black man. Not to mention the guy's bullet ricocheted in a dark stairwell after a misfire. By the way, we all know you're u/prizzlevonfizzle, a mentally ill individual who has serious problems with Asians. https://www.reddit.com/user/prizzlevonfizzle John White 03:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Though all you have to do, is only take one single look at r/ccj2 and r/china to see why they belong on worst of reddit. I'm going to copy and paste some titles, links and comments: 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/CCJ2/ : "Cannot Ching the Chongs", 2. https://np.reddit.com/r/China/comments/5aupqt/i_saw_a_kid_pooing_on_the_train_station_floor/ comments in there all all anti-Asian JohnWSmith 03:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I clicked the link. I don't see anything wrong with that. Obviously you aren't fluent in English enough to pick up on the subtleties that most of them are being sarcastic. Just because you're personally offended does not mean it didn't happen or that it's racist. 10101 (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not just that. It's also the rather anti-white and anti-integration narrative (I believe in fitting into the country you live in, but apparently that makes me a "chan"), and the quite frankly scary photo-verification scheme going on. Seriously, what other subreddit requires members to submit a picture of themselves to the mods? I'm also in favor of removing these new edits, but unlike the people of /r/aznidentity I'll defer to the established community here to decide what to do.104.207.156.120 (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I've looked into both subreddits and couldn't find information that supports both edits. As for /r/aznidentity/ being "anti-black" this is the closest thing I could find. For the record, prefering to date a specific race is not racist, "Racial preferences in dating are quite common, and women appear to exhibit stronger same-race preferences than men." Therefore, I think the edit about /r/aznidentity being anti-black is completely wrong. —CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 19:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no photo-verification scheme at all. It's completely optional. The one who photo verified have lightbulb pictures next to their names. Notice how literally no one photo-verified? Why would you have to lie 10101? Also, there is no anti-white narrative. It's anti-sexpat, which can be people from any race. edit: JohnWSmith (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, "completely optional" all right. Also, themes like "fuck over whitey" featuring epic mental gymnastics as justification seem to run rampant. 104.207.156.120 (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

LMFAO. It would appear mods only care about a new users eyes' and hair in order to prove if said user is Asian. From your posts it's apparent that the sub is prejudice. The two subs that I removed had some xenophobic users but having racist mods enforcing policies is very revealing proof.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 21:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL. So one specific user was spamming the sub (which, /r/china and /r/ccj2 users do all the time), and was asked to prove he is not a troll. How does that make it racist? Also how is the third link racist at all? Cheeseburger, it's painfully obvious you're extremely biased. I provided multiple links that proved how ccj2 and r/china were racist, yet all you do is ask for more links. user10101 posts one link that's not even offensive, and you go apeshit.

Odd, I thought you said it was just once. So what're these, then? And a complaint about an attempt to make a Taiwanese talk show out of foreigners' weird habits somehow becomes editoralized into "Sexpats lose their cool over the possibility of being exposed as creeps and degenerates"? If that's not biased I don't know what is, because that just instantly generalized every foreign resident of Taiwan into "sexpat".104.207.156.120 (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am biased, biased in the sense that I find these offensive:

a) Photo confirmation request by a moderator that a user is a certain race

b) A moderator fully accepting a racist thread

Things I don't find offensive:

a) The word faggot being used in a loving way

I've provided my sources in the article and I believe that moderators are representative of the virtual space they moderate. If that makes me "biased" so be it. —CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 22:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, for A, that specific user was spamming heavily in the sub and wanted to continue posting. Therefore, to prove he wasn't a white troll like all the other white trolls, he was asked for a picture. Only happened once, yet you describe the entire sub like this. You're being hypocritical. For B, how was that even racist? JohnWSmith (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw your rules. Why does your subreddit only discriminate against white people? Your rules fail to present a solid understanding of the concept of privilege and assume that whites are privileged and that all others are unprivileged. Privilege is the advantages of a specific characteristic. For race, there's white, black (admittedly significantly smaller), and Asian privilege as well as the said races' shortcomings. The privilege concept is a criticism of the system yet why does your rules only address white privilege and make Asians out as a victim and whites as an enemy that's infiltrating your sub? —CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 22:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@WhiteBetaNationalist's recent edits are baseless and terribly cited. For one post, you cite something that's not even in the reddit thread and sort comments by most controversial. How is this not biased? —CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 23:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I only cited one thing that wasn't in a reddit thread, and it was the definition of what a sexpat was. Second, the other link was mistakenly sorted by "most controversial", no need to get upset. JohnWSmith (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the word "fag" appears TEN TIMES on the front page of r/ccj2. Like I said, this is extreme hatred and homophobia. Not to mention there was an actual article about how hateful /r/CCJ2 and r/china are: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/968570.shtml JohnWSmith (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Three times to be exact, 4 if you count the word "newfag". Fag is an interesting word that can be used as a term on the Internet to describe someone you don't like and does not necessarily have to refer to gays, context is key. Besides the instance of fag, is there an actual example of obvious homophobia? The article you linked (that is linked on the subreddit) actually refers to examples of xenophobia but never links to any of said examples to the subreddit. —CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 20:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The ctrl+f doesn't find the tags with "fag" in them since they are images. You have to manually count. For any examples of homophobia, right there on the front page: "https://www.reddit.com/r/CCJ2/comments/5b3nij/i_wouldnt_hold_hands_with_my_business_partner_on/d9nu2oz/" As for any examples of obvious xenophobia, you can literally click on any link on /r/ccj2 to see obvious examples of it: https://www.reddit.com/r/CCJ2/comments/5b98k3/highly_ironic_the_current_gen_of_chinese/ JohnWSmith (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I checked the rules and apparently the subreddit is anti-cisgender to the point of a ban, so the word “faggot” is used in a loving way. "CIS scum = ban (faggots only in this sub)" Therefore, your idea of the subreddit being anti-gay is completely made up by you. As for the xenophobic post, yes that post is xenophobic. Can you present me evidence that the whole subreddit is like this? —CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 20:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

They're still mad

For what it's worth, their reaction to me cleaning both subreddits off the page is pretty damn racist. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Choice quotes:

Honestly, after the this, I find myself not just disliking white males but approaching full on hatred towards them now. These guys are supposedly "liberal" aka "the most openminded" and sympathetic towards minorities and women. Yet, if these guys, the most so-called openminded, are willing to happily excuse grossly misogynistic/racist subs like ccj2 (actively deleting our entries of ccj2 and r.china), what does this tell you about the less liberal whites such as the conservatives or the moderates? Honestly, their excuses for ccj2 just screams to me that racism and misogyny is in their blood. At least white feminists aren't too far off about that.

Exactly. White maleness is a disease, and must be purged.

In my view the "liberal" whites are in fact the most racist towards Asians and the ones who must be purged. They are the ones who predominately have Asian fetish while attacking Asian men, who use Asians as pawns in their global game of chess, and who with their democratic militarism and crusades start cultural wars, cold/hot wars around the world and cultivate white racism through their wars on indigenous peoples. They represent the White intellectual class who've become race realists a long time ago and who've carefully constructed these multicultural societies while constantly inciting conflict between the genders and the races to keep themselves in power. They also want the world to be in that image. Liberal whites are the cause of the current Asian existential crisis, are on the verge of bringing us to WWIII, and yet at the same time they claim the moral high ground. It's truly frightening.

Lol fragile white males

Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 22:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Mad status: frothing

RationalWiki liberal western SJW neckbeard basement dwelling hipsters who shop at Whole Foods lump Duterte in with Trump and racist Europeans who hate Muslims, when Duterte is pro Moro Muslim and implemented laws to stop racism by Filipinos against Moro Muslims and Lumads. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected

* dons Mod Hat * 

Enough. 1 week protection; both subs removed. Move on. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Now if only all reddit subs could be removed, from everywhere, forever. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Fuzzy, why did you delete content about jailbait, creepshots & KotakuInAction? These are notable (& missional) aspects of Reddit's history & have nothing to do with content dispute above. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

What Weasel said. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sourced. *shrug* Feel free to re-add. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Here here. Content that was being added in the situation was terribly sourced/miscited and appears to be a product of a community's grudges. I was more disappointed at the poor quality of the edits than anything. Did I approach the situation appropriately? If not, what can I do in the future? —CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 23:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Today's subreddit of the day: /r/AltRight

https://np.reddit.com/r/subredditoftheday/comments/5cq9l6/november_13th_2016_raltright_reddits_very_own/ Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 16:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

/r/aznidentity is still mad

https://www.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/5fc96a/sexpat_trolls_keep_editing_in_raznidentity_as_a/ FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

And one redditor thinks RationalWiki is racist&imperialist&fascist because... uh... we don't like pseudoscience?

Actually, I would argue that rationalwiki is inherently racist, in that they view themselves as "rational" so that everything they oppose is "irrational." From what I've seen so far of it, they too often ignore the cultural, social, and philosophical issues that surround the issues they oppose. While they mostly focus their ire on Islam, that outlook nevertheless bleeds over into other facets of their opinion. Rationalwiki is imperialist by supporting the status quo and silencing non-western ideas as irrational or superstitious. While as far as I know they don't have a bone to pick with Asians, I don't consider them my friends.

Whether intentionally or unintentionally as a side-effect, the bottom line is that rationalwiki has a western-centric borderline imperialist view. They support New-Atheists such as Sam Harris who are known imperialists. Of course they're going to paint whites who go to Asian countries in a good light. If you want to change how they view sexpats, you're going to have to change their whole business model.

That's why it isn't worth your time. We're not just dealing with unintentional racists here, or even well-meaning fascists. The whole place is misguided from first-principles to its conclusions, and dealing with them will take more out of you than anything you can get from it.

Yep. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

They're more angry that we don't feel angry about sexpats like they do. I'm really neutral on the sexpat issue, but the protection was more due to the low quality citations and the constant reverts to hate on another sub. I tried to talk on the talk page with those guys but they are just too radical to reason with. This site is not dominantly populated by Chinese citizens who deal with sexpats; we're obviously not going to have strong opinions about the issue. Heck, I never knew of the term until they brought it up. Despite this, thinking that they can edit war is not going to get them off the page, a reasonable discussion with a good argument will.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 01:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, their mindset at this stage is that they're fighting a war. They think there's some grand conspiracy by white people to keep them down, and they're going to beat down the white man in response. Comments like this, for instance, also show that if you dare to say something contrary to that narrative, you get branded a "white troll" and banned. I'm surprised they even managed to get a four-digit number of subscribers, but these days, you never know. Notrevealingrealname (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Added that in the article because man that's bad.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 04:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I was looking for something that would better explain their mindset, but this post sums it up nicely, I think. It also implies why they see Asians who choose to integrate as beneath them at best (see the use of the terms "Uncle Chan" and "Anna Lu", abbreviated to "chan" and "lu" respectively). Notrevealingrealname (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

And to pile on a bit more, they've come up with a boycott list purely on the criteria of "advertising features Asian girl not with one of their own". They really are quite something, aren't they? Notrevealingrealname (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Notrevealingrealname, I've changed the protection of the page so you can edit. —CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 02:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That didn't quite work. I still don't see an "edit" option, and I'm afraid to ask you to fiddle with it further, in case it gives certain other people free rein to go nuts again. In any case, the fact that they will no longer actually say anything on the talk page says something. Notrevealingrealname (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The page allows only autoconfirmed users and above to edit. So your account (1) must be more than one day old and (2) have at least ten edits. And yes, they stopped trying to discuss with me. I am more than happy to discuss on the talk page with them if they so chose, but me going on their sub will just get me banned, so what's the point? —CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 06:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Notrevealingrealname You are now autoconfirmed, and you should be able to edit the page. Give it a shot and report back if it doesn't work for some reason. Thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, there's still no "edit" tab. I'm really not sure what's wrong. I even waited a bit to make sure it wasn't a one-off issue. Is there some other hidden criteria that needs to be met? Notrevealingrealname (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

If you're shittin' me, I think you just found one of the fastest ways of getting sysop. That, and not being a douche, of course. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but you guys don't really need to. I mean, I can just sit back and be satisfied that the point has been made. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with all this being heaped on me when I'm not sure how regularly I'll be here. Notrevealingrealname (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If none of y'all actually gave me sysop, then you don't need to, it works now. If you did, I'm sorry it came to that, and I'll promise not to go nuts with it. Notrevealingrealname (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

https://np.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/5fc96a/sexpat_trolls_keep_editing_in_raznidentity_as_a/dalmppv/

We are not a misogynist sub. Yes, we should keep editing it and removing it or at least watering down the criticism to the point its inconsequential. And definitely add CCJ2; amazingly they don't have r/altright on their list. Even in the altright subcategory.

Maybe they should use the talk page! I added r/altright and then saw this message:

Lol I see fatburgerface immediately added altright after he locked the page: An alt-right subreddit ... surprise? Welcome to our sub burgerface! Why don't you comment sometime? He also says: Subreddit users can't stop bringing their stupid reddit drama on here Yet he allows low quality edits of aznidentity by random trolls with zero references. Currently it says: The evil twin of /r/AsianMasculinity. It calls itself "a space for Asian men and Asian women ... [but] primarily focused on Asian Men." In practice, it's often little more than a circle jerk of unhinged hatred for Asian women who date outside their race. Can burgerface get any more hypocritical? Sounds like this whitey is definitely triggered af.

Oh man, these guys are hilarious. Part of me left that in there because I knew it pisses them off but I didn't remove it because you didn't; you originally removed it so I figured you were okay with having it on the page.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 20:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Axe-grinding-filled subreddit summaries

At this point the axe-grinding subreddit summaries make the article terrible and unreadable. I move the subreddit summaries simply be deleted as garbage. If there are substantive points to be made about Reddit from this material (I'm not sure there is any here), these should be broken out - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

CDA 230

I usually edit on Wikipedia so I just made a new account here, but the claim "Reddit admins take a very hands-off approach, wishing to keep their CDA section 230 immunity" is absolutely puzzling. Reddit is absolutely free to police and change content as they wish; once an administrator makes a substantive edit to a comment, however, they can reasonably be held liable for that comment (depending on the circumstances, of course). Reddit armchair lawyers love to erroneously claim that by editing a comment or changing a vote tally reddit is absolved of of their CDA 230 protections. This is simply not true.

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230

Shimunogora (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. So, which changes do you propose? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I know that it's a dicey thing and a real concern: never act in a manner that might leave you interpreted as a publisher - David Gerard (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

/r/aznidentity whines again

https://www.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/5br968/rationalwiki_liberal_western_sjw_neckbeard/?ref=search_posts —CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 23:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

/r/anarchism being edited by a creepy redditor

There's obvious advertisement for r/leftwithoutedge going on in the r/anarchism section. Moreover, r/leftwithoutedge is a place where literal pedophiles are tolerated. Worst part is that it's bringing made-up reddit drama onto rationalwiki. the long-short of it is that r/leftwithoutedge is made up of really nasty white boys who think that "what if the child consents tho" arguments are acceptable. the people from that sub are extremely creepy. to be honest, none of the anarchist subs on reddit are good because they're all full of redditors, and redditors are generally shitty people. I am not interested in reading a commercial for a political sub in an article explaining why reddit is shit. it really needs to be cleaned up. a quick blurb on why anarchism on reddit is absurd because of how reddit is set up or how basically everyone in the anarchist subs are either edgy anarkids or creepy racist suburbanite nerds would be enough. Makchanka (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Stupid question about /r/aww moderator

I feel like a moron asking this, but: Should we be listing /r/aww as one of the subreddits that comprises "The best of Reddit"? Specifically, I noticed that /r/aww's moderators page lists a redditor named "RicoVig" as one of the moderators. RicoVig's profile lists him as also being a moderator of a variety of racist subreddits (which will not be linked or named here).

In the end, considering the fact that one of /r/aww's mods seems to be extremely racist, should it still be listed of comprising "The Best of Reddit"? CJ-Moki (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I see said user moderates ten subs with the word "nigger" and "nigga" and also /r/BlackLivesMatterSucks/. However, I see no issue with him moderating a sub in the the best of Reddit section so long as his racism is not present in the sub.

"(which will not be linked or named here)"

Oops.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 05:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

/r/Physical_Removal

I'd like some things added to the description of this awful, awful subreddit. Some things I think should be mentioned:

• The sub isn't limited to ancaps. They also welcome libertarians, fascists, monarchists and NatSoc who share the belief that communists should be killed for their political beliefs.
• The libertarians and ancaps on the sub think commies are too dangerous to be left alive, but are fine with allying themselves with fascists and Nazis.
• They frequently pull the excuse that they're totally only interested in defensive violence. Never mind how much they worship Pinochet and fantasise about killing "leftists". And anyone to the left of Reagan is a dirty leftist to them.
• The sub is sometimes used as a dumping ground for general alt-right/fascist/racist garbage.

I propose something like this:

A place primarily populated by ancaps who worship Augusto Pinochet and fantasise about killing socialists and communists because of the "danger" they pose. But it's okay - they totally only advocate defensive violence. They have some fascist allies (apparently the only dangerous freedom-haters are on the left) who sometimes use the sub as a dumping ground for general alt-right garbage.

Maybe also include a link to the Horseshoe theory and/or My enemy's enemy?

ThineAntidote (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Subs to be added to the lists of awful subreddits

/r/europeannationalism needs to be on that list. It doesn't even try to hide its support of Nazism.

On a side note, someone should edit /r/The_Donald's description to add that it's infamous for banning users for dissent - which is why "people rarely speak out if they disagree on something that he does". ThineAntidote (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Is r/atheism still that bad?

I know that the section about r/atheism is pretty old. When I take a look at r/atheism today, it doesn't seem that bad. There are still occassionally cringy/edgy posts (which get downvoted), but most threads are pretty reasonable discussions of topics relevant to atheism. Does it still deserve to be mentioned under "awful subreddits" in its current state? --84.227.83.172 (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

/r/circlebroke2 is slightly positive

Shoutout to dgerard. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 13:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Inaccuracies/errors/possible improvements needed in the article

/r/AltRight has been banned for a while now. The 'alt-righters' section reflects this, but the introduction doesn't.

It should mention that /r/LateStageCapitalism, /r/The_Donald, and /r/Anarchism are ban-happy and will literally ban anyone for saying anything a step out of line. /r/LateStageCapitalism even explicitly says that it will ban anyone who doesn't agree.

/r/DebateFascism isn't bad as a subreddit. In fact, they don't ban you or downvote you heavily for having different opinions, nor do they try to force their opinions on you. It's simply a place where fascists debate, the same as /r/DebateCommunism, which isn't on the list.

/r/UnpopularOpinion isn't bad either. It's just people's opinions that are generally bad.

'/r/De[utschland]' should be /r/Deutschland.

I would fix these errors, but for some reason I only have read-only status on that page.

Thanks, ConservapediaRules (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

WE ARE BEING CENSORED

ALERT ALERT! KOTAKU IN ACTION HATES FREE SPEECH! TO THE BARRICADES! Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 22:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

A response made by Electronic Arts breaks record for most down-voted comment in history

https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/13/ea-response-to-battlefront-ii-complaint-is-the-most-downvoted-comment-in-reddit-history/
http://digg.com/2017/most-downvoted-post-reddit-ea-star-wars-battlefront

EA comment below

The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different heroes.

As for cost, we selected initial values based upon data from the Open Beta and other adjustments made to milestone rewards before launch. Among other things, we're looking at average per-player credit earn rates on a daily basis, and we'll be making constant adjustments to ensure that players have challenges that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via gameplay.

We appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the community has put forth around the current topics here on Reddit, our forums and across numerous social media outlets.

Our team will continue to make changes and monitor community feedback and update everyone as soon and as often as we can.

Basically, EA decided to lock popular characters such as Darth Vader. You will have to invest 40 hours in the game or you can spend money on fucking loot boxes to speed up the time. Players, of course,Ș complain, EA responds with bullshit, and there you go. And EA backtracked on it not because it's the right thing to do but because the shareholders don't like the negative PR.

On another note, WallStreet makes a complete shitty response, that gamers are overreacting and game publishers should increase the price of the games (WTF???)

Reddit also acted like reddit, flooding workers who probably have nothing to do with this with death threats and insults.

God, EA is a horrible company. It's that company that game developers should NOT work for, as its list of victims is quite long and expansive. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Damn, I recognize some of those studios, even played some of the their titles. --GrammarCommie (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I've played Spore, among my favorite game of all time, but the series is going nowhere and EA absorbed and killed off when it's not doing spectacular. I say the practices of EA is even predatory, by absorbing developers, crapping on it, and when it's crap and doesn't sell, then they kill off the developers. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

/r/antiMLM

Does that subreddit (link) deserve a mention in the "best of Reddit" section? As the name suggests, it's devoted to discussing and calling out multi-level marketing scams. ThineAntidote (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The best of Reddit - SCIENCE

I'm surprised that there are no science subreddits in "The best of Reddit", like r/science, r/askscience , r/physics etc.. ^{— Unsigned, by: ‎89.172.236.104 / talk}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.—ClickerClock_{💾 talk.txt} 13:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for not signing. Thank you, good bot! --94.253.153.21 (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

r/WeimarHistoryMemes

So, apparently, this subreddit split off from r/HistoryMemes after the end of a meme war with r/Animemes. Looking at their posts, it seems like they kind of have alt-right sympathies. Also, they apparently doxxed someone in their current meme war with r/Ottoman. They seem to use the term SS in their fight and for their Discord server, and they're reaction to the whole "Remove Keb@b" thing and Christchurch appears to be "Welcome, brothers!" Should we add them to the alt-right section? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean, the name alone. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

/r/frenworld

The latest in racist dogwhistles. Ugh. Worthy addition? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This reddit now appears to be banned but still might be of historical interest. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Added a section about them. The Crow (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

/r/ChapoTrapHouse

@Marisam do u have any evidence for what u wrote in [3] EK (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the following should suffice (https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstTrueHateSubs/comments/bpcyav/chapotraphouse_has_three_mods_removed_by_admins/) (https://therundownnews.com/2019/08/reddit-finally-quarantines-violent-leftist-r-chapotraphouse/) ^{— Unsigned, by: DePuy / talk / contribs}

r/The Donald

It's quarantined. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

'Best of Reddit'?

Are crappy subreddits really just a minority on the site? The "long tail of Reddit being an amazing place" sounds like a very dubious opinion and could use a deletion...German Tourist (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

They are. It's just that due to the nature of Reddit (it's basically really good at aggregating content and very little else) means that it's relatively easy to exploit by shitbags (for example, artificially pushing posts to the frontpage through brigading the same post, something which r/the_donald did until the admins literally had to invent a new version of the frontpage that excluded them and a couple of other political subreddits. The change in question was however clearly motivated by r/the_donald). Crappy subreddits tend to be minorities on the site in terms of user percentage (the Venn diagram of "people who post in crap subs" and "people who post in non-crap subs" is not quite separated, but it comes close, which causes a strange dissonance where the majority of the userbase seems to actively dislike them and semi-regularly wants them to be removed from the site, but the site's administration refuses to take action unless the subreddit gets negative light in the news media (and if it's not r/the_donald, which pretty much has a free pass on breaking site rules because Reddit doesn't want to deal with the blowback they would get in conservative media if they banned that subreddit). The Crow (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

One only needs to browse the top Reddit lists by subscribers to see this. I think the biggest truly shitty sub-reddit (read: beyond the usual Internet drama) in the reddits by subscribers list starts at /r/Conspiracy, with about 1 million subscribers. /r/funny by comparison gets 26 million subscribers. Something like /r/MGTOW/ may be holy shit toxic, but they only have 137k subscribers, beaten by such subs as /r/ABraThatFits/, /r/bindingofisaac/, and /r/trailerparkboys/. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

r/lsc?

Reasons for r/latestagecapitalism to be on the best of reddit? 168.8.214.24 (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure. I certainly wouldn't put it there. LSC is pretty much a self-admitted echo chamber for Far left (as in, real far left, not the reactionary snarl version) ideology (hell, their sidebar explicitly states that "pushing a counter-narrative" is not allowed, which to me has hallmarks of subreddits on the other end of the ideological spectrum which ban users for tangential reasons and looking around, they have similar banning practices[4] as those subreddits) and I distincitvely recall tankies being a common issue there. Unless someone has a serious argument to keep it, I don't think it belongs there and it might even belong in the Commies section of Other fairly awful subreddits. The Crow (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

None of that is an argument, Late Stage Capitalism helps with pointing out the bullshit that comes from capitalists. Liberals are idiots, and there's no reason to hold dialogue with reactionary bigots. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to let you know your centrist bullshit is gonna get reverted. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Oxyaena, please relax. I'm not going to remove or change anything unless I can get community consensus. This is just my read (and that's why I asked for input). However, tankies tend to show up on posts that hit my frontpage and they frequently seem to go unmoderated. Something which tends to go along with a case of capitalismdidit (blaming all issues in our society on capitalism, even when it's not automatically warranted to do so) being a common trend on things that get posted to LSC. Also, I'll point out that according to American politics, I would not be a centrist. The Crow (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of the MLs migrated to Capitalism_In_Decay after the "moderates" on the mod team did a coup 72.138.43.190 (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I would tend to occur that LSC is a capitalismdidit sub, too reactionary really for a "best of" to me. The term originated in reference to Marx, and it would be a good exercise for those with this viewpoint to read up on what happened to his ideas from roughly 1900-1950+. (It didn't go very well.) That being said, the capitalism-fetish pundits circa Reagan / Thatcher and onward also were terribly off (as expected, no purist economic theory tends to work well in practice). In practice, a lot of the complaints in the sub are complaining about weak safety nets, weak employer power, and monopolistic features (of American capitalism in particular), features which can be fixed without revolutions (sometimes) and are noted problems in the mainstream. However, the memes tend to lean towards dystopia and heavy far left "fuck the 1%" type. History has informed us what tearing-down-start-over type things tends to look like. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Revisiting this thread (hoo boy). Seems that they're now sticking up for the CCP and banning anyone who disagrees. Is this enough grounds for adding them to the commies list? The Crow (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If anything add it to the "mixed quality" section because it has some good and useful content, sites like Reddit aggregate filth, Sturgeon's Law comes to mind. That applies to RW too. A lot of the politics articles here are complete shit. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Balanced - If you want to do a detailed section on LSC, add some references to why they're bad. In addition, please don't use argumentum ad cellarium to describe a subreddits users. "Not REAL" communism we have discussed in other pages, it's not fallacious in and of itself, even though it seems extremely paradoxical to say so. Rule 3 is groanworthy, yes, but the mere presence of a rule isn't enough to put them in the "Prominent terrible subreddits" list. Maybe the "other fairly awful subreddits" list, but even then use references. Reverting this (again, since a BON inserted it before you, who come to think of it probably is you) for now. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 08:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I just say out loud how low the bar of entry is to be called a prominently terrible subreddit and that I'd like to see it fixed?

Stuff like r/badcopnodonut is already kinda on "Accentuate the negative" territory, but then you start adding stuff like r/Christianity which by all standards is pretty damn tame, r/Catholicism which should be on here not because it disagrees with Pope Francis but because it's basically as radical as r/TrueChristian under a more traditional Catholic veneer and the entire WTF? section of this article which just makes me facepalm because it just sounds like shameless pandering to the alt-right a la r/AgainstDegenerateSubs (right down to the "Children aren't safe" byline). Granted. I'm not anymore as ultra-confident in the site as I used to be, but all of the above are just goddamn low even by RationalWiki standards.

As for the status of r/latestagecapitalism. I don't see how this sub is much different from something like r/qualitysocialism (contrary to the title it's a right-wing pro-capitalist sub.) except for the fact that the few times I've been on r/latestagecapitalism that it has been more informative. Would be better if it wasn't included in either section imho. Hex4 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know enough about r/badcopnodonut to say much about it. Sniped away r/Christianity, there's no reason listed. If someone finds a legitimate reason to add it, feel free to add it back with one. Feel free to fix the reason for r/Catholicism yourself. As for the WTF? section, I think that r/dragonsfuckingcars and r/cummingonfigurines wil have to go (removed them for now). Sure, they're weird (hell, r/dragonsfuckingcars pretty much exists because of the notion of "how weird can we be") but they don't promote drug use (r/meth, r/heroin and r/cocaine) or are really dubious on the notion of informed consent (r/wouldyoufuckmywife) which makes including them in the awful subs list a bit weird. Also, I think with that I'm also removing LSC from the good subs list since it seems I'm not alone in that opinion (only Oxy seems to oppose and two BoNs and Soundwave agree with you as well). Not adding it to the Commies list, since I don't think it quite belongs on there yet. The Crow (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Crow To be quite honest you should make a subsection for reddits that are ambiguous like this, and I don't think that just because something's anticapitalist means it's automatically shit. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I actually like r/BadCopNoDonut. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of things to critique capitalism over, anticapitalism is not an irrational position. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. Critique of capitalism isn't bad by any means, but that's not why I (and others) argued for removing it from the good subreddits list. It was argued to remove it from there because LSCs userbase is very much an example of overrelying on the idea of a Golden Hammer (most relatively popular comment threads will have commenters calling for a revolution, even when it's not automatically warranted and peaceful solutions are still a reasonable option). The Crow (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

So they're larpers then? I admittedly ain't too familiar with the subreddit in question, I just thought they had good memes and posts calling out neoliberal bullshit. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I had to look up what you meant with LARPer (I don't think you meant a D&D player who likes to act out their games, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) and I assume you're meaning lefties who don't really seem to "get" their ideology but would rather use it (or act like it) for the sake of being a contrarian/wanting to be one of the "cool kids"? (reference on that taken from here) If so, then yeah, LSCs userbase tends to fit that bill. The Crow (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

/r/FragileWhiteRedditor

@Gabriel420 So, I took your advice and looked at the thread and... It's not racist. Seriously, I've gone through twelve posts and their affiliated comment sections and I have yet to see any actual racism. Please cease trying to add this thread to the article. Thank you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Taking LegalAdvice out of the good subs list

Where to start really. Well, how about to begin with the fact that the subreddit gives out bad advice very frequently. Furthermore, the subreddit's active moderators primarily consists of cops, which results in advice relating to cop violence or other pet police issues (ie. drugs) being downplayed (ie. telling victims that they have no case at all). The subreddit also tends to frequently ban actual lawyers and their Quality Contributors get preferential treatment (in the sense that if someone points out sourced critique of a QCs comment, the critiquer gets banned). Why and how this subreddit has snuck in the good subs list is beyond me. The Crow (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Given how there doesn't appear to be any counterarguments, I've moved it to the "Mixed" area and removed it from the good subs list. The Crow (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

/r/forwardsfromklandma

Sadly, I feel this sub should belong under the bad subreddits section. Or at least the mixed subsection. There's nothing wrong with the mission of this sub, but having looked at the most recent material, it appears the sub has been brigaded by the alt-right and white supremacists.

In many of the posts, a lot of comments are made by people who have connections to alt-right subs or make racist comments in general. For example, when people make posts calling out racist jokes, the comment sections are usually defending the racism or saying how funny the joke is. Some alt-right users have even tried to increase their post karma by posting in this sub to use Poe's Law to their advantage. ^{— Unsigned, by: Ourdearbenefactor / talk / contribs}

Just move it to the bad section. Seeing a whole lot of disingenuous arguers (all of these are frontpage posts). Seems there also is a Digital_Manipulation thread stickied, which probably indicates that your comment about Poe's Law is correct. The Crow (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

r/FemaleDatingStrategy

So this is a relatively new sub that was created last year. The Verge made an informative article on them back in February. What do you guys think? Dr. (“LiNK” 49) (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That it's TERF tells me a lot about it already. Ew. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't find a source on the TERF claim in the Verge article (although I do recall seeing threads about it). If you have any concrete threads, feel free to add it + a reference to the thread. Added them based on the stuff I could read in the Verge article already though. The Crow (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, found the TERF bit, it was only in the last paragraph though. Added it to the mainspace entry. The Crow (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)