Comment by evandale | Hacker News Reader

Comment by evandale | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I just quit Reddit and deleted all my accounts despite gilding > 10 comments over the past year because I got blacklisted from every community subreddit I wanted to participate in. I brought up the bias to the admins and was told mods can run their subreddit however they want despite Rule 1 of the mod guidelines saying to assume people are arguing in good faith.

I got banned because I say controversial things like Black people are not disproportionately targeted by police due to their race, but rather due to them disproportionately having guns and knives when the police show up.

The general public have a serious problem understanding nuance and statistics and I think it's disgusting that the media cry racism at every corner because it enrages people and gets clicks.

It's even more disgusting that people fall for it without realizing what the media is doing to them because they can't read past headlines.

I'll link to the actual TPS report that shows this but I'm on a slow connection right now and can't do it.

edit: nvm I'm dumb; it's not that but the report is named 9082-2018-TPS-Annual-Report.pdf if you can find it on its own. You can google "tps force report 2018 -2020 pdf". I'd find it myself but I'm downloading a 12mb pdf that's taking forever and I'm pretty sure this is the one.

You have been banned from every single subreddit you participate in because of your behavior and you don’t see an issue with your actions at all?

If you constantly smell shit, check your own shoe homie.

It was all the left-leaning run subreddits I was banned from.

The report I spoke of is in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31915214

Subreddits moderate themselves, it has nothing to do with Reddit. If a Reddit Admin bans you then you lose your entire account.

Rule 1 of the moderator guidelines from here: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/moderator-guidelines-for-...

Engage in Good Faith Healthy communities are those where participants engage in good faith, and with an assumption of good faith for their co-collaborators. It’s not appropriate to attack your own users. Communities are active, in relation to their size and purpose, and where they are not, they are open to ideas and leadership that may make them more active.

The actual post that was removed on me was in r/toronto a story I told about helping a homeless man wandering down the middle of the street in downtown Toronto. It was supposed to be a discussion of things you've done in the city that make you feel good. Moderators removed it because it wasn't relevant to Toronto just because it happened in Toronto.

Visit r/toronto and you will see feel good stories like this all the time in the subreddit. I pointed this out to the admins and still got nowhere.

I also wanted to post "We should try UBI but you have to vote to qualify. Thoughts?" in r/onguardforthee but that was also removed for trolling. That subreddit has posts similar to that one all the time.

I was definitely treated unfairly and double standards were used against me because of my reputation. I don't troll though, I just enjoy having difficult and philosophical conversations, which is why I can see it's perceived as trolling. I enjoy challenging people to think. I would never say something I didn't believe.

The admins doing nothing about the abuse was the last straw that proved to me Reddit doesn't care about finding the truth.

> I also wanted to post "We should try UBI but you have to vote to qualify. Thoughts?" in r/onguardforthee but that was also removed for trolling. That subreddit has posts similar to that one all the time.

Dude, cannot you see why if you start posting about how _Universal_ Basic Income, should not be universal and based on some sort of test, that people might think you are being a troll?

Like legitimately, what is the difference between your behavior and a troll who misinterprets things on purpose?

The difference is that this user is legitimate, asking legitimate questions for legitimate reasons to have a legitimate dialogue while following all the rules. The mere supposition of their malintent is an invalid litmus test. It's about as good as treating someone as innocent until suspected of acting similar to a person guilty of annoyance, then banning them from the community in perpetuity. "Because I we couldn't be sure" is never a legitimate reason to act so certainly in a manner which removes a member from a society.

Asking the same type of questions with the same type of answer and only providing same debunked evidence is not asking legitimate questions, it is sea lioning[1] combined with a gish gallop[2]. He is using his polite tone to convince us that he is acting in good faith.

Do you think it’s plausible that a person has been so curious on this topic that they’ve done deep research, can pull up such hard to find data that it takes them multiple attempts to find some esoteric source that supports them, and they didn’t find the high school level answers to the questions they are asking and require us to debunk each and every point they throw out without ever engaging with your counterpoints?

You’d have to believe that this person is incredibly competent at research while being simultaneously incapable of grasping the basics. You’ll notice he never tackled any point or counterpoint there. Just kept posting new sources as they were discarded while complaining that no one would look.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Edit: sorry, missed that this was a sibling thread. If you missed it the same user elsewhere in this post is also trying to argue that he was kicked off a Reddit merely for bringing up the unassailable point that cops only arrest black people more because they are inherently more dangerous. I assume you can see why I’m pointing out that the poster is unbelievable. I am already confident that they are not posting in good faith and only doing counterpoints for random third parties who might read this thread and be persuaded by the poster due to the lack of any counterpoint

Double edit:tbh this actually had the hallmarks of a 4channer mocking us to their buddies. I was one of those assholes in my youth and recognize the tactics. His “I just wanted to post, ‘{controversial statement}, Thoughts?’” is an easy bait sentence that brings out all the free speech absolutists to defend you for just “asking questions” while talking past the group engaging with the {controversial statement} portion of the sentence.

If you have not been on 4chan/8chan/2chan/whateverPermutation boards and wish to engage in internet debate it would be illuminating to observe. In between the gore and the shock porn they have random threads where they openly discuss using these tactics as they believe “normies” won’t be able to stomach their shock content to read deeply into it

The moderator guidelines are guidelines not rules. A community of people has the right to ban people for any legal reason.

edit: I still screwed up and realized it after getting to stable internet. This information is found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31915960

Hi all, I had to use Yandex to find this. Google wasn't showing the result. I hope this also shows how dangerous Google's censorship of search results is as well. I challenge you to find this report in Google search results!

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/9082-2018-...

I can't download the PDF but if I remember right the table in question is somewhere in the 50s or 60s. You can ctrl+f for it. It breaks down by suspect race and weapon type when police arrive on scene.

The third side nobody wants to talk about in this argument is that police disproportionately use force against suspects with weapons when they arrive on scene.

The report you just linked to only has 40 pages.

Was this what you meant?

https://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Use%20of%20force%...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com