How is the fact that the article has been posted to less than agreeable subreddits an indication of it's quality or the validity of the arguments and opinion in it?
Do they? What "outlandish responses" might those be? You're smearing by implication. What specifically do you find so "outlandish"? As far as I can tell, people making claims like yours think that creating a consistent set of rules for all, promoting free expression of all views, and countering group libel are thoughtcrimes. What's "disagreeable" is countering the idea that I might be guilty of something because of my gender and ancestry.
Specific instances of outlandishness:
SJWsAtWork -- low comment traffic, a bit more agreeable than the rest.
ThisIsNotASafeSpace -- top comment on the top all time submission, very high quality discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ThisIsNotASafeSpace/comments/3t6awz...
SJSucks -- highly upvoted comment (relatively speaking) on top all time post, again, some very high quality discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/sjsucks/comments/1vs4kj/watchmen_co...
SJWhate -- this one speaks for itself, I hope:
https://www.reddit.com/r/sjwhate/comments/3u0t33/ahmed_moham...
> Fucking demolished
Perfectly appropriate informal language that means "You won the argument convincingly"
> It's sad that a bunch of raving lunatic SJWs can have this effect. Useless self-absorbed maniacs with no purpose in life but to pester those that have.
Many SJWs are, in fact, saving lunatics who have no purpose in life but to heckle and protest everything
> Fuck that piece of shit
Very common language when talking about public figures --- and I'd be willing to bet you used similar language about Bush, or Cameron, or Harper, or anyone else on the wrong side.
You're demonstrating exactly the kind of militarized hypersensitivity and craven hypocrisy that's turned colleges (and increasingly, workplaces) into zones for political indoctrination.
Also, I find it hard to believe that "fuck that piece of shit" was ever acceptable as college-level discourse. In fact, I think that even high school level L-D style debate shies away from that tone and temperament.
If you sincerely believe that using language that appeals to emotion, over logic and evidence, is a means to an end, then we probably will not get much further on this topic. (And I really don't see how this stance is hypocritical, or indoctrinated/pushing a doctrine in any way. It applies equally to both ends of the spectrum.)
You're taking the standards of a debate hall, applying them to an internet community, and then using the predictable and inevitable discrepancy to call the internet community hateful when, in fact, that's the normal level of discourse for _any_ internet community.
> I really don't see how this stance is hypocritical
Do you excuse the other side's casual use of "kill all men"? What about explicit statements that I am literally unqualified to hold an opinion because of my chromosomal makeup and the color of my skin? Those come across as equally hateful to me.
I wouldn't and don't excuse "kill all men," and I personally think that opinions should be evaluated on their own merits, and not by [x] feature possessed by they who come up with it. You're projecting these beliefs on to me because I've called out certain subreddits as being stomping grounds for emotionally charged, rather than fact based, content. I think both sides of this debate have salient points, but neither side benefits from the content coming out of /r/*hate subreddits.