I made 1 comment ever on r/trump which I am not even subbed to...
Imagine being brandished an enemy over a misunderstanding, and banned from an entire community. Especially via an automated method they admit isnt perfect? Now I must appeal? For what again? -- That is Kill All Others mentality, and I am labeled the Other.
For context: I try to be a centrist, a proper one with proper devil's advocation. I usually end up voting Democrat, but I like moderate Democrats and progressive Republicans. (But to be fair, even r/centrist over on Reddit is very... American-Left ideology). I think case-by-case application of ideologies to scenarios is best.
Here is them muting me for my shocked reply:
EDIT: Just wanted to specify with the above picture, I do not believe any side is correct, hence my use of quotation marks. Choosing sides at all, especially in a two-party system, is a mess and we have been warned this many times by many different successful leaders/philosophers. Even our founding fathers warned this... I would say this to an alt-right just as quickly as I do the alt-left.
A tantrum? What? Do you always hyperbolize?
Also an automated process to silence a community of people is disgusting morality. Just cause someone disagrees with you doesnt mean you silence them entirely. That's awful.
Your entitlement is incredible.
Of course it isn't immoral to have private discussion groups. That's an absurd idea. Subreddits are private conversation spaces, not a public service, you aren't owed access to any of them. Do you have the same emotional reaction to invite only subreddits?
Have you stopped to consider for a moment why that filter might have been established?
having private discussion groups is different than banning someone from contribution simply because you think they might be something.
You are inadvertently supporting the same bases of bias that racial segregation came form.
And seeing as how everything is an echo-chamber nowadays, I am not surprised why that filter is established. It isnt always some great-evil yknow.
You're not getting it.
Racial segregation is rooted in legislative and legal process, and that is also the scope of free speech. It does not go beyond that to private communities.
Even if you hadn't been snide in your reply, the mods could have taken a look at your comment history, quickly found the uncivil behavior there, and upheld the ban.
To paraphrase xkcd, free speech doesn't shield you from consequences. The people listening found you unwelcome, and they are showing you the door.
No, sorry, but that's pretty dumb. There's nothing wrong with creating a conversation space that excludes people who make certain choices. That's the fundamental difference here. You weren't born into the wrong subreddit, you chose to post there. And a hell of a lot of people that choose to post there aggressively harass anyone questioning law enforcement. It's a nice way to weed out people who have no interest in good faith contributions, and there's an easy way to get unbanned for cases just like yours.
That is not in any way the same 'base of bias' as excluding people based on their race, gender, nationality, or sexual preferences.
It isnt about the "safe-space" it's about the hasty judgement of someone and banning of them all based on suspicion.
So, say I was anti-Trump and I posted there... I would still be misunderstood as an "other" and labeled, banned, etc. Then have to appeal a ban for a judgement incorrectly pre-passed on me.
Which is, yes, 1000000% the same basis of mentality, the bias of a group, that people do when being racist, sexist, etc. They arent that way for 0 reason, they rationalize stereotypes as truths and then deny the entire group. That is this, in a nutshell.
Your black and white view of this is exhausting. There is obviously a difference between making assumptions about a population based on inherent qualities, and making assumptions about a group of people based on all making the same decision. It is not stereotyping to assume that someone posting in a Donald Trump fan group is a fan of Donald Trump.
Now, I certainly wouldn't approve of infringing on anyone's actual first amendment rights on this kind of basis, but again, we're talking about completely private spaces here with absolutely no pretense of free speech. People do also have every right to create whatever exclusionary communities that they want.
This is extra weird to me. Isn't this already the exact scenario you're claiming? The one that started the whole discussion? You've been claiming to be centrist and that you only posted there once, but now you're throwing it out like it's some hypothetical? I've been trying to assume the best here but it's getting increasingly difficult to believe you're anything but a bad actor trying to stir people up.