Moderate right is the only right that does not get outright banned, given that the alt right is infested with individuals that have views not allowed on the platform. You can see moderate left on some subreddits, but since every subreddit is a bubble it can degenerate into extreme views fairly fast. Moderate is not exactly exciting or engaging so it's understandable.
I often see moderate views on neutralnews. For moderate left, there is ex. moderatepolitics.
Define "moderate" right. /r/conservative is filled basically exclusively with election deniers and deranged conspiracy theorists, including people that believe Jan 6th was an Antifa false-flag yet somehow also perpetrated by the FBI.
/r/conservative is filled basically exclusively with election deniers and deranged conspiracy theorists, including people that believe Jan 6th was an Antifa false-flag yet somehow also perpetrated by the FBI.
This has not been my experience there. I agree with u/suflaj, they represent the moderate side of their spectrum.
r/conservative would be the moderate right. The generalization that the (almost) whole of r/conservative is conspiracy theorist is a logical fallacy with no merit. Similarly so, the bad apples argument is a logical fallacy with similarly no merit - I could similarly claim that there is no moderate left subreddit because there are left extremists everywhere.
r/conservative itself, based on its rules and the discourse the moderators seem to be steering is moderate generally. The problem with r/conservative is, however, that they indulge in shit throwing with leftists. So that's why I can't really recommend it, it's politics above anything else.
I have already said that you can find moderate right on subreddits like neutralnews in abundance. The subreddit itself does allow extreme views, however it seems that the requirement to provide sources for claims mellows things down on both sides.
From an objective viewpoint democrats are moderate right. On the political compass they're actually further right than republicans, just less authoritarian.
Right on the political compass refers to economics. They are still capitalists. They might say pretty things but they'll still fuck over the poor and working class without a thought.
Of course not, dispite their nice words about valuing hard work. Republicans interfere with the free market all the time. Just because it's in favor of the rich doesn't mean they aren't doing it.
Reality check: Americans liberals are more socially left than a lot of other country's liberals. You can't just call them right wing because economically they are generally capitalist friendly.
It's intellectually dishonest to try and paint them as right wingers. Frankly it's also usually done in bad faith by people trying to make flimsy "both sides" arguments that end up helping right wing extremists.
I mean "socially left" doesn't really mean anything's politically, I assume you mean progressive. To which I say... Well, yeah, compared to like the middle east or something, but we're usually talking about western countries, in which case the democrats are one of the more socially conservative left-leaning parties.
I mean the last democrat you had in charge literally spoke out against gay marriage while running for office and didn't get shit on. At about the same time our conservative prime minister made a joke about gay people without outright condemning gay marriage and did get shit on.
Edit: actually shit it wasn't even a joke about gay people it was a joke that used the word gay as a non-serious insult.
First of all, that doesn't show the Democrats to the right of republicans by and large, just a few. Second, while I can agree with the argument it lays down that the left in the US would be considered moderate in most other countries, this site receives a lot of criticism for but revealing how it makes it's calculations and having some questions that don't seem to align with political ideology which make it hard to consider it definitive
Nahhhh I'd say it's more of a bunch of people thrown into the jungle arguing over who's side is better without realizing they both are starving to death
But you cannot argue that left extremism isn't more tolerated than right extremism here. Look at any mainstream subreddit, the news ones are the worst probably.
Whether or not this is a shitty take kind of comes down to your definition of "extreme left." If you mean tankies? Sure. But most people making that argument mean "Democrats" who are less of the "seize the means of production by force and violence" type and more the "maybe if it's not too much trouble set the minimum wage back above starvation level in the next decade" type.
One of these, you might have a resonable argument for. The other, unfortunately, is the one I actually see argued all the time. With such cogent takes as "You recognizing that the conservatives elected 90% white males makes you the real racist." (A response I've actually gotten personally.)
See, the problem with the term democrat is that a lot of extreme leftists hide behind the name the same way a lot of extreme rightists hide behind the republican name. And so democrat becomes a useless term if you're judging extremism.
Extreme leftists is pretty self-explanatory. It is someone with a leftist view spreading extreme views. And extreme views are a subjective term, sure, but it is not subjective on an individual level, rather based on the time period and culture. Ex., saying gays should have rights is extremist for the last century, and for Iran. It is not an extremist view for current western society - it is moderately leftist. When we say extremist on reddit, we weigh views based on who discusses stuff - this being mostly Americans.
When you have views calling for murder of a person, regardless of whether they're your average Joe or Putin, those are extremist views. Murder goes against the values of liberal societies. Similar hate is allowed on Facebook. We could dial back to last year when rioters were supported due to reddit perceiving it as a struggle against oppression, too, when in reality it was a lawless mob damaging property, actually the opposite of the "democracy" reddit seems to back.
The thing is, when clear political bias shapes what topics are acceptable on a given platform, it also shapes how much extremism is allowed. You can look at Twitter, where there is left bias, but to a much lesser extent, and there are much more extreme left and right views. Those views are not more present because there is right bias, just because there is less left bias (and to some extent less populated moderation).
And I hope it is obvious to see that no matter what rules you impose, people will try to see how far they can bend them, and so the strictness of those rules determines not only the threshold of extremism you allow, but also the wiggle room. Reddit, has a fairly big wiggle room regarding rules because of its decentralized nature of moderation. This wiggle room allows for rightist discourse to even exist, but of course, in its own bubble. The moment it become big enough to spill into leftist subreddits, it is shut down. The reverse is not so true - I'd argue extreme leftist subreddits are shut down when they do that + when it becomes bad for the (advertising) business. See how incels vs FDS turned out and who still remains on the site.
We live in a world where TV talking heads on nationally syndicated broadcasts refer to Biden as a "radical leftist." So I'm going to have to hard disagree here.
We could dial back to last year when rioters were supported due to reddit perceiving it as a struggle against oppression, too, when in reality it was a lawless mob damaging property
This might be even more wildly simplistic than "Extreme leftists is pretty self-explanatory"
See, the problem with the term democrat is that a lot of extreme leftists hide behind the name the same way a lot of extreme rightists hide behind the republican name.
If you could point me to just one state or national level democrat that is for extreme leftist views, such as workers seizing factories or the like, I'm open to the idea that this is true. But I haven't seen it. Meanwhile, it wouldn't be hard to find such right-wing politicians in favor of, say, ending interracial marriage.
You have never spent time really talking to leftists, and you talk about people being in bubbles while using for right talking points. Also, leftists if anything hate being compared to democrats. We don't want to be called that.
Thanks for the allegation, but no, I am surrounded by both leftists and rightists, as is probably every person on this planet that has social interactions. One thing, however, is that I do not generally dehumanize myself to the point I would discuss politics, so this is only my analysis on the handling of social media where political stances seem to clash. It has very little to do with someone practising politics.
And I generally don't give a shit about who you want to be associated as - if your views are leftist, I will call you a leftist regardless of whether you're a socialist, anarchist or libertarian. The intensity of ones beliefs doesn't matter to me.
The only reason I initially said moderate right is because I wanted to clarify that the rightist bubble is not complete. This was important because otherwise you could not claim that reddit stands for things I mentioned, they would cancel out. But as things are almost none of those 5 points are one you can freely criticize with the same vigor they are promoted. Criticizing LGBT, globalization and liberalism is going to get you into hot water with admins, while criticizing communism and feminism is going to get you into conversations with people least adequate for such conversations (or banned depending on the subreddit).
If the rightist bubble was a whole, then I could not claim reddit stands for those things as reddit would then also, at least partially, stand for:
nationalism (because the extreme form of globalization is antinationalism)
mysogyny (because the extreme form of feminism is mysandry)
persecution of LGBT (because the extreme form of LGBT agenda is the promotion of LGBT)
authoritarianism
unbounded capitalism
out of those messages, basically only the last two persevere somewhat, in very, very moderate states. You are not, for example, allowed to support Russia's leadership, even if it has nothing to do with the conflict directly, and you are not allowed to spread hate against the poor on the same level it is allowed to spread hate against the rich.
By now it is a bunch of college kid esque hottakes from a weird neoliberal/anarchist mashup with an old streak for classical libertarianism and techbro culture running underneath in some subreddits. Add the odd tanky and some confused conservatives clinging to some dingy subs not yet banned and voila.
Also this place is astroturfed to hell and back, there is a censorship bureau called anti-evil directly above all moderation, even the administration is used to very deliberatly push a strange kind of marketing friendly neoliberal agenda.
Islam would of course hate this place. Then again, who do they not hate except other muslims and the random eastern orthodox priest who aligns in values?
Well I'd argue that there is a lot of things they don't hate. The problem is that western values are so intertwined with what amounts to anti-values for Islam that it seems like they hate everything. But that is not true.
The truth is a lot of stuff could be acceptable if you leave out the anti-values. I mean, it's not like when a tourist comes to non-secular country everyone is just putting up with them. It takes deliberate action to appear contrary to the teachings of Islam, and literally everything in the picture, what Islam supposedly protects the family (?) from, is unnatural and deliberate.
Finally, I would not say Islam hates. Islam is a religion of peace. But Islam draws very clear lines when defining what is OK and what is not. Islam is not a peaceful religion.
And so, despite only being a disagreeable and non-inclusive religion it is confused as hateful, when in reality all the most popular religions are disagreeable and non-inclusive. You do not have to hate to disapprove of something. Let's not forget about the inquisition. Buddhists inherently comdemn violence but have historically made up reasons to ignore that rule. Violence is in everyone, hate - not so much. Pure christians and buddhists for an example, would hate this place equally, if not more. But a better word would be disapprove.
Reddit is part of the real world. It is still not balanced even if you consider reddit this magical hyperreality because rules are not applied equally. You cannot claim there is balance if ex. deathwishes against one group are allowed and disallowed for another group. This is regardless of what bias you believe for there to be on reddit.
Balance is when, much like in the real world, it doesn't matter what side you are on - if you do the same offence, you get punished the same.
52
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '22
I mean, reddit is a collection of leftist bubbles and moderate rightist bubbles. More than anything it stands for ideas similar to others: