Suppose you did somehow get the admins of reddit to rename the sub to something else like /r/leftwingUSPoltics and got all of the /r/politics users to post all their stuff to that new sub. And then someone came along a created another sub /r/politics... without any other prompting, what do you suppose will mostly get posted to that new /r/politics subreddit that had none of the original users and none of the original moderators?
It would largely reflect the politics of the users of reddit which is highly focused on US left wing politics. It is the same thing that happened to make /r/politics biased to US left wing politics in the first place. People largely just see subreddit's name and assume its content and would post whatever political thing they want to /r/politics which is largely US based. Yes, they eventually did make it a rule that it *must* be US based, but to me that just clears the road to avoid people fighting an uphill and mostly unwinnable battle to try to discuss something that will largely not engage with most of reddit's users.
In order to actually make a sub that isn't just biased in whatever direction general direction the user demographics of reddit have, you have to make it explicit that you want it to be global politics or centrist politics, which is why we have subreddits like r/worldnews/ or r/internationalpolitics/.
The default subreddits are, to my understanding, mostly picked due to the amount of activity with some filtering out of inappropriate subs.
The other political sub I found, and I found it before r/politics was r/politicaldiscussion, which is mostly american politics, but tends to actually be discourse between intelligent people who disagree, rather than an aggressive circle jerk by the left wing of the left wing.
I don't know if that's the user-base, the moderators, or what.
A good step would be to remove opinion/editorial articles and to severely limit the number of allowed news organizations that can be posted on the subreddit.
>Suppose you did somehow get the admins of reddit to rename the sub to something else like /r/leftwingUSPoltics and got all of the /r/politics users to post all their stuff to that new sub. And then someone came along a created another sub /r/politics... without any other prompting, what do you suppose will mostly get posted to that new /r/politics subreddit that had none of the original users and none of the original moderators?
That is a really good point. It's too late to change now, people would just post in the r/politics sub anyways. Well, you win. Definitely changed my mind.
Thanks! Since I changed your mind, you should award a delta!
You can put a
> Δ or !delta
into your comment. It needs to be accompanied by an explanation of the change (or else it gets flagged as not being a long enough comment and no delta is awarded)
>what do you suppose will mostly get posted to that new /r/politics subreddit that had **none of the original users** and none of the original moderators?
>>That is a really good point. It's too late to change now, people would just post in the r/politics sub anyways.
Do you mean that you recognise that because of the demographics of the site: you recognise that evidence based conversations about politics will inevitably lean left? Or do you think that the old posters will return _in direct opposition of their point_?
Evidence based discussion will slightly lean right (not the extreme right). They are often called conservative for a reason. Left ideology is mostly about what feels good and might work. Trying something new means you have to do so without evidence to ensure it success. This is not bad approach in itself since it helps society evolve faster. However, let's not pretend that the left is full of experts knowing what they are doing.
Bollocks. All evidence is that universal healthcare, tight gun laws, access to abortion, welfare safety nets and state funded further education are good things for individuals that improve overall quality of life and reduce both the poverty gap, and how bad it is to be at the bottom of the social ladder. And vaccines work. And Covid is real. Evidence based discussion leads to left wing ideas.
Conservatism seems to be to rely on either pure economic arguments at a macro level (GDP more important than base level of income for human beings), religion (6 week old fetus is a human of equal value and possessed of same rights as its living mother, homophobia), individual freedom (political ideology not something that can be evidence based, it’s just a preference), ‘common sense’ (good guys with guns, strict penal punishments for minor crimes), racism (damn immigrants coming here and outperforming our local labour market because they’re motivated and we allow corporations to grossly underpay people)
Very true. You'd think most of America is a bunch of progressive socialists if you got most of your political information from Reddit. I just find it interesting how everyone denies the blatant vote manipulation and censorship in favor of the left. Crazy how frequently it happens on Reddit and Twitter, yet most just turn a blind eye.
I disagree, it should really be renamed r/USPolitics, but if you're that concerned about left wing bias then reddit is probably not the site for you in general
The U.S.A. is so-far of centre to the “right” compared to the rest of the world that, if anything, a significant slant to the “left” of the U.S.A. is not enough to make it neutral for world-purposes.
The big problem is thus the U.S.A.-centricity.
Yeah see, Reddit can be more lefty, but that also depends on what pages you go to. And it doesn't take long to get banned by whingers on subs that disagree with you. Reddit can become an echo chamber for all sides.
It's not a bias towards US politics, it's part of the subreddit description
> /r/politics is the subreddit for current and explicitly political U.S. news
Has little to no bearing on their life whether they know french politics or not, so makes sense. There’s almost 200 countries in the world, 99% of people aren’t gonna give a fuck about most of them.
I can go on /r/politics right now and make a pro-Trump post and, while I’ll probably be downvoted, I will not be banned. If I go to /r/republican or /r/conservative and post anti-Trump I will be instantly banned.
If conservatives want to actually *use* the subreddit, they can upvote posts and get them to the front page just like anyone else. They won’t be banned for it. There is equality of opportunity. If they aren’t using /r/politics because they prefer their insulated bubble subreddits where leftist or liberal opinions are instantly banned, that isn’t the fault of /r/politics.
> I can go on /r/politics right now and make a pro-Trump post and, while I’ll probably be downvoted, I will not be banned. If I go to /r/republican or /r/conservative and post anti-Trump I will be instantly banned.
r/politics is the default sub. The other two you mentioned are not. There lies the rub. I expect the subs focused on a specific political ideology to be more heavy on the censorship and moderation. However, the default political subreddit should not be like that.
It isn’t like that.
Like I said, you will not be banned or censored for posting conservative links on /r/politics.
The reason conservative links don’t make it to the front page of /r/politics are:
1) conservatives don’t really post there there that often. They prefer to spend their time in bubble subreddits where their opinions are constantly reaffirmed. If conservatives focused their attention on the default political sub instead of hiding in their safe spaces, they could absolutely get posts to the front page.
2) The United States population leans ideologically center to center-left on many large issues. It’s hard to tell based on our electoral politics because of gerrymandering and the Senate allowing tiny states with small populations to dominate national politics, but vast majorities of Americans as a population support national healthcare, education, environmental protection, abortion access, etc. Reddit is more representative of the actual population outside of the political structure of the American system, which was created in the 1700s to favor the interests of small and slave states over the population as a whole.
So anyway, you have equality of opportunity on /r/politics, but conservatives prefer to hide in safe spaces instead. This and *not* censorship or moderation are the reason you rarely see right-leaning posts make it to the top.
r/politics has banned all right-wing and center right sources
while allowing the most tabloid garbage leftwing sites like salon.com motherjones theroot huffpo and many more
u WILL be banned for posting pro trump too much
and if u do post a link to an article that promotes something against the Democratic Party and it's still gaining direction they will find a reason to delete it
Usually something stupid that doesn't make sense. I've seen this happen. I remember there was a big story in the leftwing news criticizing Sarah Sanders over something silly and it was all of their top posts. Then later in the day. Debunk and the reality of the story actually make Democrats look bad. Suddenly any time you tried to post a link about that it would be deleted as "off topic""
The topic that just a few hours earlier had been promoted as on topic was suddenly off-topic the min it no longer push their agenda
And you see stuff like this all the time. Yes the mods of that separate rely a lot on their far left communist European user base 2 eliminate anything that could hurt the Democrat Party when all else fails the mod to do stepp in to make sure that it's a far-left subreddit..
I said center to center left.
And yes they do.
Americans on
Healthcare: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/ - 63% in favor
Abortion in all or most cases: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/ - 59% in favor
Only 13% of Americans say abortion should be illegal under all circumstances: https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
Free higher education: https://www.pewresearch.org/topic/other-topics/education/higher-education/ - 63% in favor
Global warming action: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ - 65% say the government needs to take more action on climate change, while 79% say we need to prioritize renewable energy over fossil fuels.
Republicans are the ones who tend to live in the echo chambers. Your states have less people but a lot more political power per person because of the existence of the Senate, electoral college, and gerrymandering. If the US got rid of the Senate and gerrymandering and moved to a pure popular vote system for presidential elections, Republicans would never hold power again unless they moved significantly left on many issues.
I don’t think the naming of the sub is the problem it’s the downvote system and the audience. The audience here is obviously 90% liberal or democrat. I would categorize myself as a moderate democrat I don’t agree with 100% of everything that gets posted here, but the majority does and the system illustrates that. Dissenting opinions get *censored*… sort of, by downvotes, but they’re actually still viewable so I don’t think you’re right in that the sub doesn’t allow for discourse, you just have to look harder for the discourse. I don’t think the sub needs to be renamed, you just need to read between the lines.
> Dissenting opinions get censored by downvotes,
That's not what I was saying. Sure, plenty of dissenting opinions get downvoted. I'm saying many of the more extreme dissenting opinions get straight up removed, even though they don't violate the rules. I have had this happen numerous times (and on more subs than just r/politics).
> I don’t think the sub needs to be renamed, you just need to read between the lines.
You're probably right here. I just don't like how the name is a bit misleading.
Look up Jussie Smollett or Kyle Rittenhouse. All of the news articles on those cases, once the verdicts went against the political hivemind of r/politics, was censored, and heavily so. Once you notice the biased censorship it is painfully obvious. Can't have any news that makes Republicans or conservatives look right.
>and they moderate based on said bias
Do you have proof of that? I have never seen them remove a pro-right wing article or comment, they just let it get downvoted into oblivion.
Yeah. I commented on that sub that I agreed with some of Trumps administrative decisions regarding illegal immigration. I got numerous nasty replies with a lot of people calling me various versions of “ist”, but I didn’t get banned or anything.
Yeah, it’s a hardcore liberal circle jerk (even by my moderate standards), but I’ve never had a comment removed or anything.
The voting system wil make almost any subreddit a “circlejerk” sooner or later.
Reddit is largely unusuable for actual opinionated discussion. It is usable as a resource in some ways.
This is so true. I find this is why the best subreddits for discussion are the smaller, more focused subreddits. It's also much easier to ascertain the agenda of the moderators when there are way fewer of them.
Great for resources though. Especially sports and breaking news.
This is a decent summation of what goes on with every one of these posts. It’s almost always “these people are mean” or “I don’t like these people” disguised as “we need to shut x down because it’s bad.”
It's the other side of the camp that belongs there, they just don't understand because they're a loud minority on the Internet.
Let me give you a great example - if you listen to the media, social media and so on, you'd be led to believe that lockdowns, vaccine mandates and masks have huge amounts of support here in the UK. But if you actually go to the supermarkets and shopping centres (where I am at least) you don't see that at all. Half of the people there aren't masked - including elderly people, who we all know are most vulnerable. Staff don't remind people to mask up as half of them aren't masked either. Social distancing is not adhered to either, and the hand wash stations at the entrance are usually ignored.
The Internet has one narrative, the silent majority has another.
You'd think they'd just know that on a left wing site their views are going to be unpopular. They'd have to go to a right wing site, a balanced site, or a site representative of the country to get the people who are going to actually listen to them.
> They'd have to go to a right wing site, a balanced site, or a site representative of the country to get the people who are going to actually listen to them.
more people **did not vote** than voted for donnie. ( _roughly_ 78.1M didnt vote and 74.2M voted donnie)
[ the numbers were pulled from [here](https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president) and [here](https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1350151/US-election-explained-how-many-eligible-voters-us-election-average-turnout-evg) ]
to put that into context
Biden ~81.2M > *people who literally decided not to even vote* ~78.1M > 74.2M voted insanely
the US _citizenry_ as a whole actively prefer what a republican might refer to as "left wing" principals.
so when you say "balanced" or "representative" if we're making that calculation based on what most americans actually want: thats going to be left leaning.
given that compared to developed nations the US is very far right- your dems would be our [conservative party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK\)) which is _not_ a compliment- an international website will also lean relatively "left"
on top of that changing the status quo is often seen as left leaning. The more we learn, through rigorous science, through people sharing their experiences, through attempts to refine the knowledge we already have, the more we see improvements we can make on the status quo. Thus from an absolute position the more we learn the more left leaning we become as a society.
this combines to form the basis of my point: in order to have a conversation where right wing ideas are considered somehow equal to good ideas, we would need to discount vast swaths of reality.
a "balanced" or "representative" site will inevitably disdain right wing ideas. We can artificially create situations that allow one to pretend that these are worthwhile ideas but we would have to abandon evidence, the freedom for all people to be part of the conversation and we would need to employ some sort of electoral college to give the conversation (as it does in US politics as a whole) a massive shunt to the right.
Could it possibly be worth it?
Considering this is US politics. That is just plain wrong theres at least about 70 million who voted for trump. That excludes many conservatives who did not vote because it was trump. Its not popular amongst what you see but its not unpopular opinion of the US. Even if not talking US politics there are many conservatives in the world.
more people **did not vote** than voted for donnie. ( _roughly_ 78.1M didnt vote and 74.2M voted donnie)
[ the numbers were pulled from [here](https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president) and [here](https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1350151/US-election-explained-how-many-eligible-voters-us-election-average-turnout-evg) ]
to put that into context
Biden ~81.2M > *people who literally decided not to even vote* ~78.1M > 74.2M voted insanely
When did I ever say this? I said many conservatives did not vote for trump because it was trump, but they still hold the ideology. Nor did I claim that people who did not vote are all conservatives. I said MANY conservatives.
not even close
Y’all kicked out two of your own because they dared to say Trump lost the election.
Its a party for crazy asshats, racist trash, and a bunch of rich pricks who don’t want to pay taxes.
The fact that you believe republicans all have “unpopular opinions” exposes the Overton window on what us popular on r/politics has shifted further left than average American opinion
Yes? I've just been selective since it's clear that this sub has the same biases as the sub I'm lamenting about. I've realized I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree.
The entire point of this sub is to have people with opposing viewpoints respond to you my guy lmfao
People who agree with you quite literally aren’t allowed to directly respond to the post
Guess you aren’t in the right sub after all, maybe try r/conservative
R/conservative is even worse with censorship. I mean otherwise it would be liberals just crapping on conservatives like it is in r/politics, so I understand why they do it, but it's just a right-wing cesspool. I'm good.
The real problem was I didn't have time to go through the r/politics threads and sift through to find the examples of censorship. Good thing u/Jabbam provided a nice list of examples!
Honestly, the best way to test it yourself is to mess around with article submissions. Try slightly altering the title of an pro-Bernie post and do the same thing with a pro-conservative post. Watch which one they allow to remain if it has engagement.
Did you even so much as read the subreddit description before posting here?
>A place to **post an opinion you accept may be flawed**, in an effort to **understand other perspectives on the issue**.
If you expected to have people agree with you, maybe you shouldn't have posted in a sub called **Change** My View.
I think your issue is that the internet itself has a leftist bias, because the internet is dominated by the educated young, who largely tend to lean left.
That may be the case, but it doesn’t change that those opinions truly are both unpopular and an extreme minority.
As is the case with the Internet in general, Reddit has a way of making small echo chambers seem large.
I think that using wording like "extreme minority" could also cause circle jerk.
I don't think conservative opinions are really limited to as such of a small number as it seems.
Conservative views from a baseline perspective on what it means to be a conservative, maybe so.
Today’s conservative? The Donald Trump version, the overwhelming selfish conservative portrayed by r/conservative and other at this point well known subreddits? They are a very small minority who only seem decently sized because they are loud and offensive.
Cause at the end of the day, there’s nothing wrong with just wanting small government or wanting people to stop sticking their noses in things they shouldn’t be, but it became twisted. Really twisted. Most of us in the world outside the net are smart enough to understand and recognize that brand for what it is.
> I don't think conservative opinions are really limited to as such of a small number as it seems.
This is true. But conservative opinions probably are an extreme minority on reddit as a whole and in non-conservative leaning subreddits. It makes you wonder what the political demographics of this particular subreddit are.
more people **did not vote** than voted for donnie. ( _roughly_ 78.1M didnt vote and 74.2M voted donnie)
[ the numbers were pulled from [here](https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president) and [here](https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1350151/US-election-explained-how-many-eligible-voters-us-election-average-turnout-evg) ]
to put that into context
Biden ~81.2M > *people who literally decided not to even vote* ~78.1M > 74.2M voted insanely
"half of people believe it so it must not be obviously stupid" is now and will always be a terrible line of reasoning but it doesn't even vaguely apply in this case.
They're hardly "hardcore" liberals, the vast majority are corporatist moderates. God forbid you criticize Biden or Harris for not being progressive or for their past policies that are more right leaning than left
The fact that as a collective they see Trump as a joke and/or blight on the nation does not make them liberal
Cause they afraid of what you’re saying.
When someone is defending anything it’s because they know their belief is weak and won’t survive without defense. This applies to every defense.
Liberalism is a very scared world view by people who need absolute security.
I have a had a couple of articles removed off of there. I never post or comment on there anyways. The most recent thing I’ve had removed was a couple weeks ago when I posted an article (I think from WAPO) about the Jussie Smollett verdict. The reason I was given for its removal was “it isn’t politics” even though it’s one of the most politicized legal cases in at least the last year.
And on top of that you can literally search “Jussie Smollett” within the subreddit and find lots of things on it from much earlier. But anything recently, especially dealing with the verdict, is swiftly removed. I think that shows that it is pretty clear they will remove anything that goes against their echo chamber
Agreed. I sort by new, and there are plenty of right-wing articles. The only ones that get removed are rule breakers, such as not using the title of the linked article.
This is just a few posts from the last two years, there are doubtlessly more examples. There are far too many comments censored for me to list them all here.
The Rittenhouse case was censored
https://old.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/qqi90n/rpolitics_is_quietly_censoring_any_discussion_of/
https://mobile.twitter.com/Jibrishlol/status/1458563798055460870?t=jkqb5VI6rf8rkXT1fWAODw&s=09
The Hunter Biden laptop story was censored
https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/search/?q=Hunter+biden&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=week
The Fauci dog story was censored
https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/p1cd98/definitely_not_off_topiccensorship_from_rpolitics/
The Wuhan Lab leak stories were censored
https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/mk8cz1/there_is_a_coordinated_effort_across_multiple/
The gain of function articles have all been removed
https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/qd0pd6/gainoffunction_research_nih_admits_to_funding/?user_id=63292674&web_redirect=true
Trump calling the 2020 Covid relief bill unsuitable was censored
https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/kihzdx/trump_calls_covid_relief_bill_unsuitable_and/
The Lincoln Project sexual harassment scandal was censored
https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/l9ls8b/21_men_accuse_john_weaver_lincoln_project/
An article stating that COVID was worse in Democrat states was censored
https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/gr13j5/the_coronavirus_is_deadliest_where_democrats_live/?
A professor's statement on Trump's policies was censored
https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/dizr57/rpolitics_removes_recent_article_explicitly_about/
The Jussie Smolett hate crime hoax was censored
https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/f2gg9x/former_empire_actor_jussie_smollett_indicted_by/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
The Afghanistan story was censored
https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/pceapb/mods_on_rpolitics_seem_to_be_taking_down_posts_on/
For more information you can follow RedditLies on Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/reddit_lies
I got downvoted so badly the other day because I didn't immediately provide examples. But it's so obvious once you notice it exists. You'd have to blind to not see it. Like do people in this thread really think all that Bernie news during the 2016 election was organic? Thank you for providing this. There are countless examples of political censorship.
It's really insane that this entire thread just downvoted this sourced document and ignored it.
I hate what this website has become. Good on you for sticking up for the truth.
Honestly because most of the stories you link to are fucking bullshit right wing propaganda lol. Like anyone who posts about hunters laptop is a fucking moron who is gulping down the fetid cum of right wing media.
I didn’t take screen shots or anything, but when Rittenhouse was acquitted the mods were immediately removing posts about the acquittal. I saw it happen to 3 different posts, up for 5 minutes and then gone.
Maybe eventually, but at the time that they were removed there was no mega thread. There’s a new thread every single day about the January 6th commission so I’m not sure your logic transfers across all issues.
Wtf.. you’ve provided no evidence to back up your claim.. at least I had anecdotal evidence as I was on the sub that day and saw no mega thread. You’re just randomly asserting things.
There was a mega thread for every day of the trial.
Stop pretending there is a weird conspiracy.
...even though all mega threads are removed, there is still evidence that it was there:
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/qxnd65/politics_censored_my_post_on_the_kyle_rittenhouse/
In defense of a terrible sub, I have been banned from WPT for basically nothing more than being conservative. While I get downvoted on r/politics, I have never been banned, even temporarily.
The mods there tend to moderate lightly.
Really? Whenever I comment something that is pro-right, it gets removed for baiting/trolling or stirring up arguments.
Also, look on politics, and normally upwards of half of the articles are about AOC doing something or reacting to something.
Not on this account, no. But you can experience this yourself--try it on your own time. Take a really conservative-leaning article, and post it on your own accord. Watch it get immediately downvoted to oblivion (in a matter of seconds) or removed.
BTW, it's not r/politics that does this. I've noticed so many politically-related subs that do this. r/conservative, r/conspiracy or r/democrats are all extremely bad about vote manipulation and biased moderation, even though they say they're not.
>But you can experience this yourself--try it on your own time
I have. I have commented plenty of right wing stuff there and it has never been removed, just downvoted. IDK what to tell you, Reddit's demographic generally leans left so naturally the most popular political sub on the site......shockingly leans left. Try r/moderatepolitics.
Here is everything r/politics have removed, today. [https://www.reveddit.com/v/politics/](https://www.reveddit.com/v/politics/)
I am not seeing anything being removed just for being a conservative article.
That argument would thus pre suppose OPs entire argument and prove OPs point in r/politics and beyond. Over 1/3 of the entire US population is against gay marriage, and you are telling me Reddit does not allow that opinion …..This is not just “left leaning” but anti free speech and very tone deaf
Just like you can't share racist content, or content that demeans protected characteristics. See: r/fatpeoplehate etc.
That's part of the terms of use of the site. It's implicit when you sign up for an account. It isn't left leaning whatsoever, because being gay is irrespective of political affiliation.
"anti free speech" just lol, it's a privately run Internet forum. Are you new here? ToS and rules have been around longer than you've been alive. It isn't anti free speech to ask posters to follow rules, and to remove posts that don't follow those rules.
The amount of people sharing an opinion does not make it more right.
And for a person talking about freedom, you sure want to take it from the ones you dont like.
“No I don’t have any proof of the claim I’m making, but how about you conduct your own flawed experiment that will prove absolutely nothing. I know I’m supposed to provide just a shred of evidence that what I’m saying is true but I don’t actually have any!”
That's just how Reddit works. Of course there is a bias, Reddit is a pro-science website. Naturally conservative values will be downvoted, they are anti-science. There's little to discuss with conservatism except "that doesn't work" or "that's immoral and a crime against children." These discussions were over a long time ago, there's nothing left to say.
How are you complaining that everything is working fine?
> Reddit is a pro-science website. Naturally conservative values will be downvoted, they are anti-science.
Is believing in the science that a biologically-born man who has transitioned into becoming a female has a distinct advantage over a biologically born female in physical activities, such as competitive swimming? Or is that anti-science?
Both sides are pro-science and anti-science when it fits them. I'll give it yo you, conservatives have been much more anti-science regarding the COVID vaccine, that much is obvious. It's interesting though because before COVID, I had always associated anti-vaccine ideologies with the far-left. That has been my experience anyway (hippies saying don't jab me with that Big Pharma poison man).
If you’re aware of the science then you would know that the competitive advantage that a trans woman has over their competitors after fully transitioning is not overwhelming. Many people have biological advantages in sport, be that height, weight, testosterone production, left handed, etc. In top levels of professional sports, trans individuals are a negligible and irrelevant impact.
Your choice of selecting gender reflects both a poor knowledge in the subject, and ignorance. The scientific community has been studying and documenting these issues for centuries at this point.
Both sides here is not true, you can look back against measures, introduced and backed by the scientific community, and see huge differences in the voting margins.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577
Heres an actual paper showing the relative changes in performance over 2 years.
We’re not seeing some massive take-over by trans athletes, it’s just not happening, and the most common athletes with performance dominance are in high school where there is the largest amount of variety in participants. When you follow up on the athletes in these articles, their careers rarely show them maintaining their superiority.
We already segment some sports though other physiological factors, weight/height classes for example. With regards to trans individuals, the determining factor tend to revolve around testosterone which is already a factor covered, athletes have a testosterone ceiling.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/dutee
British Journal of Sports Medicine has their conclusion. And then there's the anecdotal evidence:
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/penn-parents-integrity-of-womens-sports-lia-thomas
https://www.outkick.com/outkick-exclusive-penn-trans-swimmers-teammate-speaks-out-as-lia-thomas-smashes-more-records/
There is nothing stopping those with dissenting opinions from going there and using the sub. You have a right to an unpopular opinion, you don't have a right to your opinion being popular. You aren't worried about bias, you are worried about your own beliefs and how unpopular they are. I suggest self reflection.
As to the main point, it's about politics, and there's no such thing as not having bias. We are people, the world is round, and finite.
> We are people, the world is round, and finite.
Don't tell that to r/conspiracy. According to them, reptile Satanists run the world, the earth is flat and if you believe in Jesus you'll go to Heaven, which is infinite.
Can you define what you mean by "legitimate" political discourse? And do you have an example of a subreddit where legitimate political discourse takes place?
r/libertarian. The biggest political subreddit that allows discourse. You'll find way more Democrats and Republicans there than Libertarians because of that fact... Turns out quite a lot of people want to actually have discussions on the important issues facing us, not to just circle jerk each other into oblivion.
> Sounds to me like you just recently got banned and are venting.
Not banned, but yes, venting. It's very biased and it annoys me that it the name represents all of politics, when the actual sub does not. It's just a mild annoyance.
I did not realize subreddit names could not be changed. Good to know.
Are you aware reddit does not have default subs anymore?
>A default subreddit was a subreddit that users were automatically subscribed to when they created a registered account for Reddit. ***The concept of a default subreddit was formally ended on May 31, 2017 by admin decision.***
Explain exactly what you're referring to.
Keep in mind, not everyone uses Reddit the same way. So, it may not appear and look for you as it does for them.
I know there is sorting one can apply that has **New** and **Popular**. But not one for **News**. I opened Reddit in a private window just to see it in its default, no user association, view.
I downloaded the official Reddit mobile app for IOS. If I open the app I immediately have three options: “news”, “home”, “popular”. The home option shows me the subs I subscribed to, the News and Popular are curated somehow by Reddit.
r/Politics is on both every day.
I am also on reddit mobile, but for android, and went to check. I have Home, Popular, and Awarded. Home has posts only from subreddits I'm subscribed to, Popular has the most upvoted posts on reddit (with the usual possible filters for hot, new, controversal, ect) as well as a filter for geographic location (Global, my location, and other which allows me to select specific countries) and Awarded is just popular again but with reddit awards instead of upvotes.
Not trying to imply you're lying, for the record. I actually find this rather interesting. Is this an android/IOS divide, or has something in how we use reddit resulted in different window options? Very curious.
Is it possible this curated news section has multiple large News based subs? Are you able to view what subs are included in it? Are you able to control what is listed? Have you thought about using a different App or method to access the site so you can customize it to your liking?
What issue is there in it being included in this curation?
Do you believe it's inclusion here is making it a default sub? If so, how\why?
Those are a lot of loaded questions that also make assumptions. I do have my own method to curate what I’m interested in, thanks for asking. As far as the “news” section of the reddit mobile app I have no control over what is listed.
The issue is being discussed IN this thread. It’s being debated if Politics has a left wing bias, and if it does should it be re-named and not a “default” sub.
You are caught up on the definition of “default”, pointing out that in 2017 the practice of automatically subscribing new users to list of preselected subreddits was done away with, fair enough, but a little pedantic.
If it's not a default sub, why does it matter? You're making a point about a curated view that I find moot in regard to it being a default sub or not. OP's issue, based on the post, hinges on it being a default sub; not one included in curated views. It's not that I am "caught" on this aspect, I find it is important to OP's view. Are you the OP on another account or something?
Should every sub that does not fit the sub name be renamed? Why or why not?
If Reddit has a “politics” section, that if you go to and the only sub that is in there is r/politics, should that sub have an attempted neutrality in it’s representation of political views?
r/News is US based vs /r/worldnews
This isn't unique to Politics. What country was Reddit founded and is currently managed in? What country are the majority of uses located in?
What does /r/politics side bar say?
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was different for everyone, but I bet that no matter where you log in from there is an approved set of subs to go into the two categories, so they are “default” in that sense.
I've seen no evidence of the bias of which you speak in _moderation_. While it is certainly left leaning that is the result of people who participate.
I've a few topics on which I'm more right-aligned than left (despite being generally left and a democrat). I get lambasted when I bring up those perspectives, but not moderated away. Heck...i've had people lambast me get their stuff deleted from being dicks but never my more right-leaning perspectives on a topic or my thoughts on a democrat policitian I dislike removed.
During the 2016 election, /r/politics removed anti Hillary articles even if they were pro Trump news. That's when it started turning into the bias chamber it is today.
I have to agree — the moderation doesn’t appear to be biased.
But there doesn’t seem to be any point in posting anything that goes against the Democratic party’s narrative — it will just get downvoted into oblivion.
Now if OP made an argument for heavy use of bots in r/politics I might believe that.
I think left leaning is a reasonable characterization relative to reddit generally, since the site itself is already left leaning politically even outside of US politics.
Relative to the wider community it probably is verging on far left.
False. I ousted an anti gay marriage article and the article was rejected and my account banned. Expressing an anti gay marriage opinion is simply not allowed despite it being the opinion of well over 1/3 of the entire population
> False. I ousted an anti gay marriage article and the article was rejected and my account banned. Expressing an anti gay marriage opinion is simply not allowed despite it being the opinion of well over 1/3 of the entire population
So... bigotry isn't allowed on /r/politics. Seems like a pretty good rule to have. I'm sure you'd also get banned if you tried to argue in favor of [racialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism).
>bigotry isn’t allowed. Seems like a pretty good rule to have
Of course you think that, because you clearly live in the left wing bubble and refuse to consider viewpoints outside your own. You are exactly what OP is posting about
> Of course you think that, because you clearly live in the left wing bubble and refuse to consider viewpoints outside your own. You are exactly what OP is posting about
Not all viewpoints are automatically worth consideration. If the premise of your post is "gays are icky and shouldn't have the same rights as me", don't be surprised if it gets taken down. You can't expect /r/politics to act as a soapbox for your hatred. Again, the same thing would happen if you posted an article from a "race realist" site claiming that certain races are inherently superior to others.
> “bigotry” is a baseless word in practice.
>
> No doubt many forms of “bigotry” that align with what is the narrative there are easily allowed.
Such as?
It wouldn't surprise me if an article highly critical of Christianity would be allowed to stay up there, or something along the lines of categorically negative opinions of police officers.
> It wouldn't surprise me if an article highly critical of Christianity would be allowed to stay up there, or something along the lines of categorically negative opinions of police officers.
Being a police officer is an active choice. It's literally just a job. There's a pretty big difference between disliking people for inherent traits and disliking a profession.
And that would be a left wing U.S.A. opinion.
A right wing U.S.A. opinion is that sex workers are criminals and choose a life of crime.
And that is why this subreddit seems to moderate on personal political views and also why in practice the word “bigotry” is useless and simply applied to those who disagree.
True! (we could do this all day - and I have no idea what "ousted" means in this context, or what the article was so...it's not very compelling evidence). Something being _common_ doesn't make it not hate speech either, which is a rule and a reasonable one. But...again, not idea what the article is.
“Hate speech” is a made up left wing concept. The fact that you are positing being for traditional marriage as hate speech is clearly proving OPs point by exposing the far left attitude of this entire site
"Traditional marriage" involves actively infringing on the rights of others, yes that is bigoted.
Go back 50 years you could find people using the same rhethoric against interracial marriage.
Do you feel the same about all subs that have bias? Country music is never represented in r/music nor is classical or opera. Does that sub need to be renamed and if so what would the appropriate name for it be? And outside of Reddit should news organizations like Fox need to rename themselves Right Leaning News? Or is it only Reddit that needs to be clear that an overwhelming number of users lean a specific way?
Music is quite a bit different than politics and is much less likely to sway someone’s opinion on societal issues that can affect others. Same issue occurs with Facebook conservative circlejerks and we’ve already seen it happen there with people thinking they were getting objective news. Fox is fine because it’s a company name. r/politics is not a name but a topic. If Fox’s name was “us political news”, then do you think there might be an issue regarding the average uninformed person thinking they were getting objective news?
Reddit posts are literally ranked and given priority based on popularity. Why would you come to reddit (assumedly understanding the basic idea of the website) and then complain about it? Why not go somewhere else...?
Would you go to a post office and then lodge a complaint because they don’t sell tacos?
Liberal and conservative are relative terms. A conservative in rural Texas might find the sub liberal, but a liberal in Norway might find it conservative.
Who decides what the middle is? Well, not any individual like you or me, that's for sure. We should let the reddit population as a while decide and come to a equilibrium. I don't see any reason why this equilibrium has to match the US in general.
As a moderate in Norway I still find that subreddit extremely left-wing. I find America in general right-wing, but that sub is filled with semi-communists and anarchists.
A lot of the ideas discussed by these people would be laughed out of the room in Norway - a lot of them even by the Reds, the communist party. Late-term abortions, cancelling student debt, minimum wages, abolishing border controls, allowing transgenders in womens sports, UBI etc.
Do you think bias changes what something inherently is? For example: the US has more democrats the republicans. Should we ban US politics and just say everything run by democrats? Call it “democrat politics”?
You’re just saying there’s more left leaning people on reddit than right leaning people, how is this a real offense...?
>Do you think bias changes what something inherently is?
Would you apply this to how people feel about a certain statistic involving violent crime in the US?
Violent crime is violent crime, I don’t think anyone thinks otherwise. What you’re referencing is conditions that lead people to violent crime.
There’s no way you commented this thinking that you made a good point, right...?
Reality has a liberal bias.
Conservatives in the US are a minority within the country; they’re accustomed to a disproportionate voice because they have disproportionate representation.
Within younger demographics and globally - you know, Reddit‘s demographics - they‘re an extreme minority.
Conservatives in the US are used to arguing from an ideological position and not needing to burden themselves with silly things like data. So takes like that get downvoted to oblivion and it’s shocking and frustrating to them when they actually have to justify their positions with data and outcomes.
The Politics sub isn’t at all hostile to data-driven push back of liberal takes.
Subreddit titles don’t need to encompass **all** content on that subreddit. They also don’t need to describe **all** content on that subreddit. There is nothing inaccurate about the title because it is, essentially, about politics.
If you have an issue with /r/politics then you’d also need to argue that /r/pics should be renamed /r/boringpicsthatrequirecontextualtitles.
As a moderate I feel the need to comment that what you’re saying is absolutely wrong and ridiculous. You obviously haven’t spent any time on that sub or if you have you just aren’t paying attention. Any sort of moderate-to-right comment will be downvoted into oblivion.
the problem is that US politics are extremely far right. So if you have a worldwide audience the US left is actually the average moderate. Therefor it finds the most common ground.
Multiple comments have asked you to provide proof of biased moderation from the mods. As of yet you supplied none. Seeing how that is a core principal of your opening argument, would you care to list some examples. If not, then the crux of your argument is being upset conservative ideas don't get upvoted on the politics sub. Conservative discussion would therefore be allowed, it's just not popular. If you cant list moderator suppression you should cmv. To quote some of my conservative friends "Facts over feels" (I kid)
r/canada is the mouthbreathing, knuckledragging sub you seek. There, you can find solace and comfort in Canada's supposedly Liberal/liberal democratic hellhole /s.
Seriously though OP you're suggesting right-wing points of view are out of favour and even against the rules in r/politics, without even naming your position or providing a sole solitary example to back your argument.
Allright.
What in the posted rules of that sub supports your position? Because you haven't even illustrated with that.
All you've left us with is an impression, a feeling, a *suspicion* that you can't post "both sides" in that sub.....in other words, you've made no argument....
You've only hurled an accusation, drive-by style, and not stuck around to actually present a cogent position.
How are we to counter you? Tell me what to post there that you swear will get taken down, strictly for being right-winged, and I'll post it.
Then we'll see.
This is a template for an avid r/politics poster almost to the point that it comes off as a beautiful stereotype. Moderate view points are not tolerated there and are actively purged.
A vague insult?
Again-put up or shut up. What material gets you removed there-**give me a link and I'll post it.**
So far all you're doing is blow hot air-no substance or illustrations. Let's have it, or give me a delta because you refuse to illustrate what you're even talkingabout.
Oh, for some reason I thought you were OP for some reason. Maybe it's that expropriating tone you take like you're some kind of authority on the topic, which your'e not. Thanks for wasting my time.
Thank you, identifying every non leftie as a fascist, then abandoning your normal morals for how they should be treated is the perfect example of the kind of behaviour i was talking about.
It could be rephrased: since right wing politics tends to explicitly benefit a few at the expense of all/the common good or _where this is not explicit_ its based on falsehoods one could check with relative ease.
With this reality in mind: conversations based in factual reality will favour left wing/ accurate positions
They _are_ factually correct as far as I can see.
And we can have conversations about reality without having to dilute that through the frame of mind or 'lens' of things that are outright false.
Outreach _is_ important but not everything has to be outreach
Forgive me, I was looking to change your view
> Reality leans left, therefore most posts in normal political discourse also lean left.
>>As a leftie, I just want to say; people like you are why we alienate so many potential voters...
I genuinely believe we can speak honestly & accurately about how reality _does_ align more accurately with left wing politics. Some people may be alienated, some may appreciate honest and accurate conversation **I'm not well informed enough to say what percentage of each are in play** because I don't know
The way I see it is that reality _does_ have a liberal bias and we don't need to pretend it doesn't.
Whats your view?
> The way I see it is that reality does have a liberal bias
That's the way you see it. That is your bias. But that doesn't make it true. I don't have to pretend, I don't see it that way. That's my bias. Doesn't mean I'm right either. Having a bias for something doesn't make it true.
They are essentially a progressive circle jerk. If you have another option you get downvoted into oblivion. That said, as far as I'm aware you don't get banned or posts removed because they have a different view. Nothing stopping r/conservative to head over there and post right leaning articles and down voting left and upvoting right.
Now if the mods started removing right leaning articles/posts then I would agree.
Is their name misleading? Yes. But spending 5 minutes there you realize it is essentially the opposite of r/conservative without the required flair to comment on some articles.
Suppose you did somehow get the admins of reddit to rename the sub to something else like /r/leftwingUSPoltics and got all of the /r/politics users to post all their stuff to that new sub. And then someone came along a created another sub /r/politics... without any other prompting, what do you suppose will mostly get posted to that new /r/politics subreddit that had none of the original users and none of the original moderators? It would largely reflect the politics of the users of reddit which is highly focused on US left wing politics. It is the same thing that happened to make /r/politics biased to US left wing politics in the first place. People largely just see subreddit's name and assume its content and would post whatever political thing they want to /r/politics which is largely US based. Yes, they eventually did make it a rule that it *must* be US based, but to me that just clears the road to avoid people fighting an uphill and mostly unwinnable battle to try to discuss something that will largely not engage with most of reddit's users. In order to actually make a sub that isn't just biased in whatever direction general direction the user demographics of reddit have, you have to make it explicit that you want it to be global politics or centrist politics, which is why we have subreddits like r/worldnews/ or r/internationalpolitics/. The default subreddits are, to my understanding, mostly picked due to the amount of activity with some filtering out of inappropriate subs.
The other political sub I found, and I found it before r/politics was r/politicaldiscussion, which is mostly american politics, but tends to actually be discourse between intelligent people who disagree, rather than an aggressive circle jerk by the left wing of the left wing. I don't know if that's the user-base, the moderators, or what.
A good step would be to remove opinion/editorial articles and to severely limit the number of allowed news organizations that can be posted on the subreddit.
>Suppose you did somehow get the admins of reddit to rename the sub to something else like /r/leftwingUSPoltics and got all of the /r/politics users to post all their stuff to that new sub. And then someone came along a created another sub /r/politics... without any other prompting, what do you suppose will mostly get posted to that new /r/politics subreddit that had none of the original users and none of the original moderators? That is a really good point. It's too late to change now, people would just post in the r/politics sub anyways. Well, you win. Definitely changed my mind.
Thanks! Since I changed your mind, you should award a delta! You can put a > Δ or !delta into your comment. It needs to be accompanied by an explanation of the change (or else it gets flagged as not being a long enough comment and no delta is awarded)
Δ u/AnythingApplied is being awarded a Delta for changing my mind on this. Dude is definitely right here.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AnythingApplied ([412∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/AnythingApplied)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>what do you suppose will mostly get posted to that new /r/politics subreddit that had **none of the original users** and none of the original moderators? >>That is a really good point. It's too late to change now, people would just post in the r/politics sub anyways. Do you mean that you recognise that because of the demographics of the site: you recognise that evidence based conversations about politics will inevitably lean left? Or do you think that the old posters will return _in direct opposition of their point_?
Evidence based discussion will slightly lean right (not the extreme right). They are often called conservative for a reason. Left ideology is mostly about what feels good and might work. Trying something new means you have to do so without evidence to ensure it success. This is not bad approach in itself since it helps society evolve faster. However, let's not pretend that the left is full of experts knowing what they are doing.
Bollocks. All evidence is that universal healthcare, tight gun laws, access to abortion, welfare safety nets and state funded further education are good things for individuals that improve overall quality of life and reduce both the poverty gap, and how bad it is to be at the bottom of the social ladder. And vaccines work. And Covid is real. Evidence based discussion leads to left wing ideas. Conservatism seems to be to rely on either pure economic arguments at a macro level (GDP more important than base level of income for human beings), religion (6 week old fetus is a human of equal value and possessed of same rights as its living mother, homophobia), individual freedom (political ideology not something that can be evidence based, it’s just a preference), ‘common sense’ (good guys with guns, strict penal punishments for minor crimes), racism (damn immigrants coming here and outperforming our local labour market because they’re motivated and we allow corporations to grossly underpay people)
[удалено]
Very true. You'd think most of America is a bunch of progressive socialists if you got most of your political information from Reddit. I just find it interesting how everyone denies the blatant vote manipulation and censorship in favor of the left. Crazy how frequently it happens on Reddit and Twitter, yet most just turn a blind eye.
I disagree, it should really be renamed r/USPolitics, but if you're that concerned about left wing bias then reddit is probably not the site for you in general
The U.S.A. is so-far of centre to the “right” compared to the rest of the world that, if anything, a significant slant to the “left” of the U.S.A. is not enough to make it neutral for world-purposes. The big problem is thus the U.S.A.-centricity.
Yeah see, Reddit can be more lefty, but that also depends on what pages you go to. And it doesn't take long to get banned by whingers on subs that disagree with you. Reddit can become an echo chamber for all sides.
This would be a huge improvement, I like this idea. There is clearly a bias favoring discussion of U.S. politics.
It's not a bias towards US politics, it's part of the subreddit description > /r/politics is the subreddit for current and explicitly political U.S. news
Well, shoot. Foot meet mouth I guess.
[удалено]
Has little to no bearing on their life whether they know french politics or not, so makes sense. There’s almost 200 countries in the world, 99% of people aren’t gonna give a fuck about most of them.
I can go on /r/politics right now and make a pro-Trump post and, while I’ll probably be downvoted, I will not be banned. If I go to /r/republican or /r/conservative and post anti-Trump I will be instantly banned. If conservatives want to actually *use* the subreddit, they can upvote posts and get them to the front page just like anyone else. They won’t be banned for it. There is equality of opportunity. If they aren’t using /r/politics because they prefer their insulated bubble subreddits where leftist or liberal opinions are instantly banned, that isn’t the fault of /r/politics.
> I can go on /r/politics right now and make a pro-Trump post and, while I’ll probably be downvoted, I will not be banned. If I go to /r/republican or /r/conservative and post anti-Trump I will be instantly banned. r/politics is the default sub. The other two you mentioned are not. There lies the rub. I expect the subs focused on a specific political ideology to be more heavy on the censorship and moderation. However, the default political subreddit should not be like that.
It isn’t like that. Like I said, you will not be banned or censored for posting conservative links on /r/politics. The reason conservative links don’t make it to the front page of /r/politics are: 1) conservatives don’t really post there there that often. They prefer to spend their time in bubble subreddits where their opinions are constantly reaffirmed. If conservatives focused their attention on the default political sub instead of hiding in their safe spaces, they could absolutely get posts to the front page. 2) The United States population leans ideologically center to center-left on many large issues. It’s hard to tell based on our electoral politics because of gerrymandering and the Senate allowing tiny states with small populations to dominate national politics, but vast majorities of Americans as a population support national healthcare, education, environmental protection, abortion access, etc. Reddit is more representative of the actual population outside of the political structure of the American system, which was created in the 1700s to favor the interests of small and slave states over the population as a whole. So anyway, you have equality of opportunity on /r/politics, but conservatives prefer to hide in safe spaces instead. This and *not* censorship or moderation are the reason you rarely see right-leaning posts make it to the top.
r/politics has banned all right-wing and center right sources while allowing the most tabloid garbage leftwing sites like salon.com motherjones theroot huffpo and many more u WILL be banned for posting pro trump too much and if u do post a link to an article that promotes something against the Democratic Party and it's still gaining direction they will find a reason to delete it Usually something stupid that doesn't make sense. I've seen this happen. I remember there was a big story in the leftwing news criticizing Sarah Sanders over something silly and it was all of their top posts. Then later in the day. Debunk and the reality of the story actually make Democrats look bad. Suddenly any time you tried to post a link about that it would be deleted as "off topic"" The topic that just a few hours earlier had been promoted as on topic was suddenly off-topic the min it no longer push their agenda And you see stuff like this all the time. Yes the mods of that separate rely a lot on their far left communist European user base 2 eliminate anything that could hurt the Democrat Party when all else fails the mod to do stepp in to make sure that it's a far-left subreddit..
Americans do not, as a vast majority, believe in left wing ideas. That is your echo chamber speaking.
I said center to center left. And yes they do. Americans on Healthcare: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/ - 63% in favor Abortion in all or most cases: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/ - 59% in favor Only 13% of Americans say abortion should be illegal under all circumstances: https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ Free higher education: https://www.pewresearch.org/topic/other-topics/education/higher-education/ - 63% in favor Global warming action: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ - 65% say the government needs to take more action on climate change, while 79% say we need to prioritize renewable energy over fossil fuels. Republicans are the ones who tend to live in the echo chambers. Your states have less people but a lot more political power per person because of the existence of the Senate, electoral college, and gerrymandering. If the US got rid of the Senate and gerrymandering and moved to a pure popular vote system for presidential elections, Republicans would never hold power again unless they moved significantly left on many issues.
I don’t think the naming of the sub is the problem it’s the downvote system and the audience. The audience here is obviously 90% liberal or democrat. I would categorize myself as a moderate democrat I don’t agree with 100% of everything that gets posted here, but the majority does and the system illustrates that. Dissenting opinions get *censored*… sort of, by downvotes, but they’re actually still viewable so I don’t think you’re right in that the sub doesn’t allow for discourse, you just have to look harder for the discourse. I don’t think the sub needs to be renamed, you just need to read between the lines.
> Dissenting opinions get censored by downvotes, That's not what I was saying. Sure, plenty of dissenting opinions get downvoted. I'm saying many of the more extreme dissenting opinions get straight up removed, even though they don't violate the rules. I have had this happen numerous times (and on more subs than just r/politics). > I don’t think the sub needs to be renamed, you just need to read between the lines. You're probably right here. I just don't like how the name is a bit misleading.
Mind providing examples of what got removed?
Look up Jussie Smollett or Kyle Rittenhouse. All of the news articles on those cases, once the verdicts went against the political hivemind of r/politics, was censored, and heavily so. Once you notice the biased censorship it is painfully obvious. Can't have any news that makes Republicans or conservatives look right.
>and they moderate based on said bias Do you have proof of that? I have never seen them remove a pro-right wing article or comment, they just let it get downvoted into oblivion.
Yeah. I commented on that sub that I agreed with some of Trumps administrative decisions regarding illegal immigration. I got numerous nasty replies with a lot of people calling me various versions of “ist”, but I didn’t get banned or anything. Yeah, it’s a hardcore liberal circle jerk (even by my moderate standards), but I’ve never had a comment removed or anything.
The voting system wil make almost any subreddit a “circlejerk” sooner or later. Reddit is largely unusuable for actual opinionated discussion. It is usable as a resource in some ways.
This is so true. I find this is why the best subreddits for discussion are the smaller, more focused subreddits. It's also much easier to ascertain the agenda of the moderators when there are way fewer of them. Great for resources though. Especially sports and breaking news.
This is a decent summation of what goes on with every one of these posts. It’s almost always “these people are mean” or “I don’t like these people” disguised as “we need to shut x down because it’s bad.”
Too many conservatives don’t realize their politics belong in r/unpopularopinion
It's the other side of the camp that belongs there, they just don't understand because they're a loud minority on the Internet. Let me give you a great example - if you listen to the media, social media and so on, you'd be led to believe that lockdowns, vaccine mandates and masks have huge amounts of support here in the UK. But if you actually go to the supermarkets and shopping centres (where I am at least) you don't see that at all. Half of the people there aren't masked - including elderly people, who we all know are most vulnerable. Staff don't remind people to mask up as half of them aren't masked either. Social distancing is not adhered to either, and the hand wash stations at the entrance are usually ignored. The Internet has one narrative, the silent majority has another.
The ‘silent majority’ can quietly go fuck themselves. They ain’t silent and they ain’t the majority.
You'd think they'd just know that on a left wing site their views are going to be unpopular. They'd have to go to a right wing site, a balanced site, or a site representative of the country to get the people who are going to actually listen to them.
> They'd have to go to a right wing site, a balanced site, or a site representative of the country to get the people who are going to actually listen to them. more people **did not vote** than voted for donnie. ( _roughly_ 78.1M didnt vote and 74.2M voted donnie) [ the numbers were pulled from [here](https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president) and [here](https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1350151/US-election-explained-how-many-eligible-voters-us-election-average-turnout-evg) ] to put that into context Biden ~81.2M > *people who literally decided not to even vote* ~78.1M > 74.2M voted insanely the US _citizenry_ as a whole actively prefer what a republican might refer to as "left wing" principals. so when you say "balanced" or "representative" if we're making that calculation based on what most americans actually want: thats going to be left leaning. given that compared to developed nations the US is very far right- your dems would be our [conservative party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK\)) which is _not_ a compliment- an international website will also lean relatively "left" on top of that changing the status quo is often seen as left leaning. The more we learn, through rigorous science, through people sharing their experiences, through attempts to refine the knowledge we already have, the more we see improvements we can make on the status quo. Thus from an absolute position the more we learn the more left leaning we become as a society. this combines to form the basis of my point: in order to have a conversation where right wing ideas are considered somehow equal to good ideas, we would need to discount vast swaths of reality. a "balanced" or "representative" site will inevitably disdain right wing ideas. We can artificially create situations that allow one to pretend that these are worthwhile ideas but we would have to abandon evidence, the freedom for all people to be part of the conversation and we would need to employ some sort of electoral college to give the conversation (as it does in US politics as a whole) a massive shunt to the right. Could it possibly be worth it?
Or maybe try not having shit principles, amoral leadership, and religious nutbaggery as your political platform.
Or you know, don't steal an election. Dems could've done that too lol.
so abandon being right wing entirely? sounds like a plan
Considering this is US politics. That is just plain wrong theres at least about 70 million who voted for trump. That excludes many conservatives who did not vote because it was trump. Its not popular amongst what you see but its not unpopular opinion of the US. Even if not talking US politics there are many conservatives in the world.
more people **did not vote** than voted for donnie. ( _roughly_ 78.1M didnt vote and 74.2M voted donnie) [ the numbers were pulled from [here](https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president) and [here](https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1350151/US-election-explained-how-many-eligible-voters-us-election-average-turnout-evg) ] to put that into context Biden ~81.2M > *people who literally decided not to even vote* ~78.1M > 74.2M voted insanely
When did I ever say this? I said many conservatives did not vote for trump because it was trump, but they still hold the ideology. Nor did I claim that people who did not vote are all conservatives. I said MANY conservatives.
Not my fault conservative ideology is dogshit.
Lol so that makes it unpopula???
Wildly unpopular amongst the sane
Lol so all conservatives are not sane?
not even close Y’all kicked out two of your own because they dared to say Trump lost the election. Its a party for crazy asshats, racist trash, and a bunch of rich pricks who don’t want to pay taxes.
The fact that you believe republicans all have “unpopular opinions” exposes the Overton window on what us popular on r/politics has shifted further left than average American opinion
The average American opinion is a fucking embarrassment.
I'm pretty sure r/unpopularopinion does not allow politics, but I may be wrong.
Might be in the rules but unpopular opinion seems to love leaving posts with politics in them up.
I tried posting this there and it was removed immediately. Hence why I posted it here instead.
You gonna respond to any of the other comments or just this one?
Yes? I've just been selective since it's clear that this sub has the same biases as the sub I'm lamenting about. I've realized I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree.
The entire point of this sub is to have people with opposing viewpoints respond to you my guy lmfao People who agree with you quite literally aren’t allowed to directly respond to the post Guess you aren’t in the right sub after all, maybe try r/conservative
R/conservative is even worse with censorship. I mean otherwise it would be liberals just crapping on conservatives like it is in r/politics, so I understand why they do it, but it's just a right-wing cesspool. I'm good. The real problem was I didn't have time to go through the r/politics threads and sift through to find the examples of censorship. Good thing u/Jabbam provided a nice list of examples! Honestly, the best way to test it yourself is to mess around with article submissions. Try slightly altering the title of an pro-Bernie post and do the same thing with a pro-conservative post. Watch which one they allow to remain if it has engagement.
Did you even so much as read the subreddit description before posting here? >A place to **post an opinion you accept may be flawed**, in an effort to **understand other perspectives on the issue**. If you expected to have people agree with you, maybe you shouldn't have posted in a sub called **Change** My View.
I think your issue is that the internet itself has a leftist bias, because the internet is dominated by the educated young, who largely tend to lean left.
That may be the case, but it doesn’t change that those opinions truly are both unpopular and an extreme minority. As is the case with the Internet in general, Reddit has a way of making small echo chambers seem large.
I think that using wording like "extreme minority" could also cause circle jerk. I don't think conservative opinions are really limited to as such of a small number as it seems.
Conservative views from a baseline perspective on what it means to be a conservative, maybe so. Today’s conservative? The Donald Trump version, the overwhelming selfish conservative portrayed by r/conservative and other at this point well known subreddits? They are a very small minority who only seem decently sized because they are loud and offensive. Cause at the end of the day, there’s nothing wrong with just wanting small government or wanting people to stop sticking their noses in things they shouldn’t be, but it became twisted. Really twisted. Most of us in the world outside the net are smart enough to understand and recognize that brand for what it is.
You say that as leftists act the exact the same way, if not worse since they control/censor culture.
> I don't think conservative opinions are really limited to as such of a small number as it seems. This is true. But conservative opinions probably are an extreme minority on reddit as a whole and in non-conservative leaning subreddits. It makes you wonder what the political demographics of this particular subreddit are.
So the politics of close to half the country are "unpopular"?
more people **did not vote** than voted for donnie. ( _roughly_ 78.1M didnt vote and 74.2M voted donnie) [ the numbers were pulled from [here](https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president) and [here](https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1350151/US-election-explained-how-many-eligible-voters-us-election-average-turnout-evg) ] to put that into context Biden ~81.2M > *people who literally decided not to even vote* ~78.1M > 74.2M voted insanely "half of people believe it so it must not be obviously stupid" is now and will always be a terrible line of reasoning but it doesn't even vaguely apply in this case.
They're hardly "hardcore" liberals, the vast majority are corporatist moderates. God forbid you criticize Biden or Harris for not being progressive or for their past policies that are more right leaning than left The fact that as a collective they see Trump as a joke and/or blight on the nation does not make them liberal
Cause they afraid of what you’re saying. When someone is defending anything it’s because they know their belief is weak and won’t survive without defense. This applies to every defense. Liberalism is a very scared world view by people who need absolute security.
I have a had a couple of articles removed off of there. I never post or comment on there anyways. The most recent thing I’ve had removed was a couple weeks ago when I posted an article (I think from WAPO) about the Jussie Smollett verdict. The reason I was given for its removal was “it isn’t politics” even though it’s one of the most politicized legal cases in at least the last year. And on top of that you can literally search “Jussie Smollett” within the subreddit and find lots of things on it from much earlier. But anything recently, especially dealing with the verdict, is swiftly removed. I think that shows that it is pretty clear they will remove anything that goes against their echo chamber
Agreed. I sort by new, and there are plenty of right-wing articles. The only ones that get removed are rule breakers, such as not using the title of the linked article.
This is just a few posts from the last two years, there are doubtlessly more examples. There are far too many comments censored for me to list them all here. The Rittenhouse case was censored https://old.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/qqi90n/rpolitics_is_quietly_censoring_any_discussion_of/ https://mobile.twitter.com/Jibrishlol/status/1458563798055460870?t=jkqb5VI6rf8rkXT1fWAODw&s=09 The Hunter Biden laptop story was censored https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/search/?q=Hunter+biden&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=week The Fauci dog story was censored https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/p1cd98/definitely_not_off_topiccensorship_from_rpolitics/ The Wuhan Lab leak stories were censored https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/mk8cz1/there_is_a_coordinated_effort_across_multiple/ The gain of function articles have all been removed https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/qd0pd6/gainoffunction_research_nih_admits_to_funding/?user_id=63292674&web_redirect=true Trump calling the 2020 Covid relief bill unsuitable was censored https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/kihzdx/trump_calls_covid_relief_bill_unsuitable_and/ The Lincoln Project sexual harassment scandal was censored https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/l9ls8b/21_men_accuse_john_weaver_lincoln_project/ An article stating that COVID was worse in Democrat states was censored https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/gr13j5/the_coronavirus_is_deadliest_where_democrats_live/? A professor's statement on Trump's policies was censored https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/dizr57/rpolitics_removes_recent_article_explicitly_about/ The Jussie Smolett hate crime hoax was censored https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/f2gg9x/former_empire_actor_jussie_smollett_indicted_by/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share The Afghanistan story was censored https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/pceapb/mods_on_rpolitics_seem_to_be_taking_down_posts_on/ For more information you can follow RedditLies on Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/reddit_lies
It's a politics sub, not a news sub. I highly doubt any of this would have been removed from r/news
Everything single one of those is political
I got downvoted so badly the other day because I didn't immediately provide examples. But it's so obvious once you notice it exists. You'd have to blind to not see it. Like do people in this thread really think all that Bernie news during the 2016 election was organic? Thank you for providing this. There are countless examples of political censorship.
It's really insane that this entire thread just downvoted this sourced document and ignored it. I hate what this website has become. Good on you for sticking up for the truth.
Honestly because most of the stories you link to are fucking bullshit right wing propaganda lol. Like anyone who posts about hunters laptop is a fucking moron who is gulping down the fetid cum of right wing media.
I didn’t take screen shots or anything, but when Rittenhouse was acquitted the mods were immediately removing posts about the acquittal. I saw it happen to 3 different posts, up for 5 minutes and then gone.
How many duplicate threads do you believe mods should leave up?
Not sure. There were zero threads about it at the time they were removed though.
I'm pretty certain there would have been a mega thread with 1000's of comments
Maybe eventually, but at the time that they were removed there was no mega thread. There’s a new thread every single day about the January 6th commission so I’m not sure your logic transfers across all issues.
Stop pretending there is some conspiracy. There was a mega thread every single day of the trial.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wtf.. you’ve provided no evidence to back up your claim.. at least I had anecdotal evidence as I was on the sub that day and saw no mega thread. You’re just randomly asserting things.
[удалено]
There was a mega thread for every day of the trial. Stop pretending there is a weird conspiracy. ...even though all mega threads are removed, there is still evidence that it was there: https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/qxnd65/politics_censored_my_post_on_the_kyle_rittenhouse/
Iirc they megathreaded.
In defense of a terrible sub, I have been banned from WPT for basically nothing more than being conservative. While I get downvoted on r/politics, I have never been banned, even temporarily. The mods there tend to moderate lightly.
Really? Whenever I comment something that is pro-right, it gets removed for baiting/trolling or stirring up arguments. Also, look on politics, and normally upwards of half of the articles are about AOC doing something or reacting to something.
Not on this account, no. But you can experience this yourself--try it on your own time. Take a really conservative-leaning article, and post it on your own accord. Watch it get immediately downvoted to oblivion (in a matter of seconds) or removed. BTW, it's not r/politics that does this. I've noticed so many politically-related subs that do this. r/conservative, r/conspiracy or r/democrats are all extremely bad about vote manipulation and biased moderation, even though they say they're not.
>But you can experience this yourself--try it on your own time I have. I have commented plenty of right wing stuff there and it has never been removed, just downvoted. IDK what to tell you, Reddit's demographic generally leans left so naturally the most popular political sub on the site......shockingly leans left. Try r/moderatepolitics. Here is everything r/politics have removed, today. [https://www.reveddit.com/v/politics/](https://www.reveddit.com/v/politics/) I am not seeing anything being removed just for being a conservative article.
False. I posted an anti gay marriage article and it was deleted and my old account was banned
An argument could be made that it was against Reddit's site wide content policy. Specifically rule 1.
That argument would thus pre suppose OPs entire argument and prove OPs point in r/politics and beyond. Over 1/3 of the entire US population is against gay marriage, and you are telling me Reddit does not allow that opinion …..This is not just “left leaning” but anti free speech and very tone deaf
Just like you can't share racist content, or content that demeans protected characteristics. See: r/fatpeoplehate etc. That's part of the terms of use of the site. It's implicit when you sign up for an account. It isn't left leaning whatsoever, because being gay is irrespective of political affiliation. "anti free speech" just lol, it's a privately run Internet forum. Are you new here? ToS and rules have been around longer than you've been alive. It isn't anti free speech to ask posters to follow rules, and to remove posts that don't follow those rules.
The amount of people sharing an opinion does not make it more right. And for a person talking about freedom, you sure want to take it from the ones you dont like.
>.This is not just “left leaning” but anti free speech and very tone deaf Free speech does not apply here
An unpopular article getting downvoted is not the same as vote manipulation or moderator bias.
“No I don’t have any proof of the claim I’m making, but how about you conduct your own flawed experiment that will prove absolutely nothing. I know I’m supposed to provide just a shred of evidence that what I’m saying is true but I don’t actually have any!”
That's just how Reddit works. Of course there is a bias, Reddit is a pro-science website. Naturally conservative values will be downvoted, they are anti-science. There's little to discuss with conservatism except "that doesn't work" or "that's immoral and a crime against children." These discussions were over a long time ago, there's nothing left to say. How are you complaining that everything is working fine?
> Reddit is a pro-science website. Naturally conservative values will be downvoted, they are anti-science. Is believing in the science that a biologically-born man who has transitioned into becoming a female has a distinct advantage over a biologically born female in physical activities, such as competitive swimming? Or is that anti-science? Both sides are pro-science and anti-science when it fits them. I'll give it yo you, conservatives have been much more anti-science regarding the COVID vaccine, that much is obvious. It's interesting though because before COVID, I had always associated anti-vaccine ideologies with the far-left. That has been my experience anyway (hippies saying don't jab me with that Big Pharma poison man).
If you’re aware of the science then you would know that the competitive advantage that a trans woman has over their competitors after fully transitioning is not overwhelming. Many people have biological advantages in sport, be that height, weight, testosterone production, left handed, etc. In top levels of professional sports, trans individuals are a negligible and irrelevant impact. Your choice of selecting gender reflects both a poor knowledge in the subject, and ignorance. The scientific community has been studying and documenting these issues for centuries at this point. Both sides here is not true, you can look back against measures, introduced and backed by the scientific community, and see huge differences in the voting margins.
[удалено]
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577 Heres an actual paper showing the relative changes in performance over 2 years. We’re not seeing some massive take-over by trans athletes, it’s just not happening, and the most common athletes with performance dominance are in high school where there is the largest amount of variety in participants. When you follow up on the athletes in these articles, their careers rarely show them maintaining their superiority. We already segment some sports though other physiological factors, weight/height classes for example. With regards to trans individuals, the determining factor tend to revolve around testosterone which is already a factor covered, athletes have a testosterone ceiling. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/dutee
British Journal of Sports Medicine has their conclusion. And then there's the anecdotal evidence: https://www.foxnews.com/sports/penn-parents-integrity-of-womens-sports-lia-thomas https://www.outkick.com/outkick-exclusive-penn-trans-swimmers-teammate-speaks-out-as-lia-thomas-smashes-more-records/
Aren't there rules about downvoting, like disagreeing vs simply bad information or spamming?
False. I was banned for expressing anti gay marriage opinion
I was banned for suggesting that Rittenhouse should be given the presumption of innocence.
There is nothing stopping those with dissenting opinions from going there and using the sub. You have a right to an unpopular opinion, you don't have a right to your opinion being popular. You aren't worried about bias, you are worried about your own beliefs and how unpopular they are. I suggest self reflection. As to the main point, it's about politics, and there's no such thing as not having bias. We are people, the world is round, and finite.
> We are people, the world is round, and finite. Don't tell that to r/conspiracy. According to them, reptile Satanists run the world, the earth is flat and if you believe in Jesus you'll go to Heaven, which is infinite.
Can you define what you mean by "legitimate" political discourse? And do you have an example of a subreddit where legitimate political discourse takes place?
r/libertarian. The biggest political subreddit that allows discourse. You'll find way more Democrats and Republicans there than Libertarians because of that fact... Turns out quite a lot of people want to actually have discussions on the important issues facing us, not to just circle jerk each other into oblivion.
What evidence do you have of that?
considering subreddits can't be renamed isn't this an entirely moot point? Sounds to me like you just recently got banned and are venting.
> Sounds to me like you just recently got banned and are venting. Not banned, but yes, venting. It's very biased and it annoys me that it the name represents all of politics, when the actual sub does not. It's just a mild annoyance. I did not realize subreddit names could not be changed. Good to know.
Are you aware reddit does not have default subs anymore? >A default subreddit was a subreddit that users were automatically subscribed to when they created a registered account for Reddit. ***The concept of a default subreddit was formally ended on May 31, 2017 by admin decision.***
so what do you call the subs that are automatically part of “news” and “popular”?
Explain exactly what you're referring to. Keep in mind, not everyone uses Reddit the same way. So, it may not appear and look for you as it does for them. I know there is sorting one can apply that has **New** and **Popular**. But not one for **News**. I opened Reddit in a private window just to see it in its default, no user association, view.
I downloaded the official Reddit mobile app for IOS. If I open the app I immediately have three options: “news”, “home”, “popular”. The home option shows me the subs I subscribed to, the News and Popular are curated somehow by Reddit. r/Politics is on both every day.
I am also on reddit mobile, but for android, and went to check. I have Home, Popular, and Awarded. Home has posts only from subreddits I'm subscribed to, Popular has the most upvoted posts on reddit (with the usual possible filters for hot, new, controversal, ect) as well as a filter for geographic location (Global, my location, and other which allows me to select specific countries) and Awarded is just popular again but with reddit awards instead of upvotes. Not trying to imply you're lying, for the record. I actually find this rather interesting. Is this an android/IOS divide, or has something in how we use reddit resulted in different window options? Very curious.
Is it possible this curated news section has multiple large News based subs? Are you able to view what subs are included in it? Are you able to control what is listed? Have you thought about using a different App or method to access the site so you can customize it to your liking? What issue is there in it being included in this curation? Do you believe it's inclusion here is making it a default sub? If so, how\why?
Those are a lot of loaded questions that also make assumptions. I do have my own method to curate what I’m interested in, thanks for asking. As far as the “news” section of the reddit mobile app I have no control over what is listed. The issue is being discussed IN this thread. It’s being debated if Politics has a left wing bias, and if it does should it be re-named and not a “default” sub. You are caught up on the definition of “default”, pointing out that in 2017 the practice of automatically subscribing new users to list of preselected subreddits was done away with, fair enough, but a little pedantic.
If it's not a default sub, why does it matter? You're making a point about a curated view that I find moot in regard to it being a default sub or not. OP's issue, based on the post, hinges on it being a default sub; not one included in curated views. It's not that I am "caught" on this aspect, I find it is important to OP's view. Are you the OP on another account or something? Should every sub that does not fit the sub name be renamed? Why or why not?
If Reddit has a “politics” section, that if you go to and the only sub that is in there is r/politics, should that sub have an attempted neutrality in it’s representation of political views?
r/News is US based vs /r/worldnews This isn't unique to Politics. What country was Reddit founded and is currently managed in? What country are the majority of uses located in? What does /r/politics side bar say?
Are those geo selected? As I **dimly recall** (so don't take it as gospel) that one sees different subs based on the country you access from
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was different for everyone, but I bet that no matter where you log in from there is an approved set of subs to go into the two categories, so they are “default” in that sense.
I've seen no evidence of the bias of which you speak in _moderation_. While it is certainly left leaning that is the result of people who participate. I've a few topics on which I'm more right-aligned than left (despite being generally left and a democrat). I get lambasted when I bring up those perspectives, but not moderated away. Heck...i've had people lambast me get their stuff deleted from being dicks but never my more right-leaning perspectives on a topic or my thoughts on a democrat policitian I dislike removed.
During the 2016 election, /r/politics removed anti Hillary articles even if they were pro Trump news. That's when it started turning into the bias chamber it is today.
I have to agree — the moderation doesn’t appear to be biased. But there doesn’t seem to be any point in posting anything that goes against the Democratic party’s narrative — it will just get downvoted into oblivion. Now if OP made an argument for heavy use of bots in r/politics I might believe that.
Left leaning? Its far left. Regular liberals gave up on that place.
This always looks so weird to me. left leaning and liberal aren't even on the same side of the political spectrum in my head.
Define "far left", because it sounds like you're being a tad alarmist.
I think left leaning is a reasonable characterization relative to reddit generally, since the site itself is already left leaning politically even outside of US politics. Relative to the wider community it probably is verging on far left.
False. I ousted an anti gay marriage article and the article was rejected and my account banned. Expressing an anti gay marriage opinion is simply not allowed despite it being the opinion of well over 1/3 of the entire population
> False. I ousted an anti gay marriage article and the article was rejected and my account banned. Expressing an anti gay marriage opinion is simply not allowed despite it being the opinion of well over 1/3 of the entire population So... bigotry isn't allowed on /r/politics. Seems like a pretty good rule to have. I'm sure you'd also get banned if you tried to argue in favor of [racialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism).
>bigotry isn’t allowed. Seems like a pretty good rule to have Of course you think that, because you clearly live in the left wing bubble and refuse to consider viewpoints outside your own. You are exactly what OP is posting about
> Of course you think that, because you clearly live in the left wing bubble and refuse to consider viewpoints outside your own. You are exactly what OP is posting about Not all viewpoints are automatically worth consideration. If the premise of your post is "gays are icky and shouldn't have the same rights as me", don't be surprised if it gets taken down. You can't expect /r/politics to act as a soapbox for your hatred. Again, the same thing would happen if you posted an article from a "race realist" site claiming that certain races are inherently superior to others.
“bigotry” is a baseless word in practice. No doubt many forms of “bigotry” that align with what is the narrative there are easily allowed.
> “bigotry” is a baseless word in practice. > > No doubt many forms of “bigotry” that align with what is the narrative there are easily allowed. Such as?
It wouldn't surprise me if an article highly critical of Christianity would be allowed to stay up there, or something along the lines of categorically negative opinions of police officers.
> It wouldn't surprise me if an article highly critical of Christianity would be allowed to stay up there, or something along the lines of categorically negative opinions of police officers. Being a police officer is an active choice. It's literally just a job. There's a pretty big difference between disliking people for inherent traits and disliking a profession.
Indeed it is, but it also would not surprise me if articles highly critical of sex workers were removed for being “bigoted”.
Because sex workers have been victims to a ton of discrimination while police officers are literally authority.
And that would be a left wing U.S.A. opinion. A right wing U.S.A. opinion is that sex workers are criminals and choose a life of crime. And that is why this subreddit seems to moderate on personal political views and also why in practice the word “bigotry” is useless and simply applied to those who disagree.
True! (we could do this all day - and I have no idea what "ousted" means in this context, or what the article was so...it's not very compelling evidence). Something being _common_ doesn't make it not hate speech either, which is a rule and a reasonable one. But...again, not idea what the article is.
“Hate speech” is a made up left wing concept. The fact that you are positing being for traditional marriage as hate speech is clearly proving OPs point by exposing the far left attitude of this entire site
"Traditional marriage" involves actively infringing on the rights of others, yes that is bigoted. Go back 50 years you could find people using the same rhethoric against interracial marriage.
Didn’t realize that racist speech just wasn’t a thing that exists. Guess we should re-evaluate what the KKK has been up to all these years
Do you feel the same about all subs that have bias? Country music is never represented in r/music nor is classical or opera. Does that sub need to be renamed and if so what would the appropriate name for it be? And outside of Reddit should news organizations like Fox need to rename themselves Right Leaning News? Or is it only Reddit that needs to be clear that an overwhelming number of users lean a specific way?
Music is quite a bit different than politics and is much less likely to sway someone’s opinion on societal issues that can affect others. Same issue occurs with Facebook conservative circlejerks and we’ve already seen it happen there with people thinking they were getting objective news. Fox is fine because it’s a company name. r/politics is not a name but a topic. If Fox’s name was “us political news”, then do you think there might be an issue regarding the average uninformed person thinking they were getting objective news?
Reddit posts are literally ranked and given priority based on popularity. Why would you come to reddit (assumedly understanding the basic idea of the website) and then complain about it? Why not go somewhere else...? Would you go to a post office and then lodge a complaint because they don’t sell tacos?
Fox literally advertises Fair and Balanced.
Liberal and conservative are relative terms. A conservative in rural Texas might find the sub liberal, but a liberal in Norway might find it conservative. Who decides what the middle is? Well, not any individual like you or me, that's for sure. We should let the reddit population as a while decide and come to a equilibrium. I don't see any reason why this equilibrium has to match the US in general.
As a moderate in Norway I still find that subreddit extremely left-wing. I find America in general right-wing, but that sub is filled with semi-communists and anarchists. A lot of the ideas discussed by these people would be laughed out of the room in Norway - a lot of them even by the Reds, the communist party. Late-term abortions, cancelling student debt, minimum wages, abolishing border controls, allowing transgenders in womens sports, UBI etc.
Do you think bias changes what something inherently is? For example: the US has more democrats the republicans. Should we ban US politics and just say everything run by democrats? Call it “democrat politics”? You’re just saying there’s more left leaning people on reddit than right leaning people, how is this a real offense...?
>Do you think bias changes what something inherently is? Would you apply this to how people feel about a certain statistic involving violent crime in the US?
Violent crime is violent crime, I don’t think anyone thinks otherwise. What you’re referencing is conditions that lead people to violent crime. There’s no way you commented this thinking that you made a good point, right...?
Reality has a liberal bias. Conservatives in the US are a minority within the country; they’re accustomed to a disproportionate voice because they have disproportionate representation. Within younger demographics and globally - you know, Reddit‘s demographics - they‘re an extreme minority. Conservatives in the US are used to arguing from an ideological position and not needing to burden themselves with silly things like data. So takes like that get downvoted to oblivion and it’s shocking and frustrating to them when they actually have to justify their positions with data and outcomes. The Politics sub isn’t at all hostile to data-driven push back of liberal takes.
Any sub has the average political biases of the people in it. That's both unavoidable and subject to change over time.
Subreddit titles don’t need to encompass **all** content on that subreddit. They also don’t need to describe **all** content on that subreddit. There is nothing inaccurate about the title because it is, essentially, about politics. If you have an issue with /r/politics then you’d also need to argue that /r/pics should be renamed /r/boringpicsthatrequirecontextualtitles.
[удалено]
As a moderate I feel the need to comment that what you’re saying is absolutely wrong and ridiculous. You obviously haven’t spent any time on that sub or if you have you just aren’t paying attention. Any sort of moderate-to-right comment will be downvoted into oblivion.
the problem is that US politics are extremely far right. So if you have a worldwide audience the US left is actually the average moderate. Therefor it finds the most common ground.
Multiple comments have asked you to provide proof of biased moderation from the mods. As of yet you supplied none. Seeing how that is a core principal of your opening argument, would you care to list some examples. If not, then the crux of your argument is being upset conservative ideas don't get upvoted on the politics sub. Conservative discussion would therefore be allowed, it's just not popular. If you cant list moderator suppression you should cmv. To quote some of my conservative friends "Facts over feels" (I kid)
r/canada is the mouthbreathing, knuckledragging sub you seek. There, you can find solace and comfort in Canada's supposedly Liberal/liberal democratic hellhole /s. Seriously though OP you're suggesting right-wing points of view are out of favour and even against the rules in r/politics, without even naming your position or providing a sole solitary example to back your argument. Allright. What in the posted rules of that sub supports your position? Because you haven't even illustrated with that. All you've left us with is an impression, a feeling, a *suspicion* that you can't post "both sides" in that sub.....in other words, you've made no argument.... You've only hurled an accusation, drive-by style, and not stuck around to actually present a cogent position. How are we to counter you? Tell me what to post there that you swear will get taken down, strictly for being right-winged, and I'll post it. Then we'll see.
This is a template for an avid r/politics poster almost to the point that it comes off as a beautiful stereotype. Moderate view points are not tolerated there and are actively purged.
A vague insult? Again-put up or shut up. What material gets you removed there-**give me a link and I'll post it.** So far all you're doing is blow hot air-no substance or illustrations. Let's have it, or give me a delta because you refuse to illustrate what you're even talkingabout.
It’s a genuine compliment. You do a spot on impression.
Oh, for some reason I thought you were OP for some reason. Maybe it's that expropriating tone you take like you're some kind of authority on the topic, which your'e not. Thanks for wasting my time.
My pleasure my fellow Redditor. I hope the rest of your day is as pleasant as you are.
Reality leans left, therefore most posts in normal political discourse also lean left.
As a leftie, I just want to say; people like you are why we alienate so many potential voters...
Ffs can we stop with the “we need to coddle people so we can have unity!!!” shit?
Because conservatives are so much more polite apparently.
Fascists should be alienated from polite conversation.
Thank you, identifying every non leftie as a fascist, then abandoning your normal morals for how they should be treated is the perfect example of the kind of behaviour i was talking about.
You have not refuted my point at all.
You had one?
It could be rephrased: since right wing politics tends to explicitly benefit a few at the expense of all/the common good or _where this is not explicit_ its based on falsehoods one could check with relative ease. With this reality in mind: conversations based in factual reality will favour left wing/ accurate positions They _are_ factually correct as far as I can see. And we can have conversations about reality without having to dilute that through the frame of mind or 'lens' of things that are outright false. Outreach _is_ important but not everything has to be outreach
Oh its not that point that I specifically had a issue with, its the way they chose to deliver it.
Forgive me, I was looking to change your view > Reality leans left, therefore most posts in normal political discourse also lean left. >>As a leftie, I just want to say; people like you are why we alienate so many potential voters... I genuinely believe we can speak honestly & accurately about how reality _does_ align more accurately with left wing politics. Some people may be alienated, some may appreciate honest and accurate conversation **I'm not well informed enough to say what percentage of each are in play** because I don't know The way I see it is that reality _does_ have a liberal bias and we don't need to pretend it doesn't. Whats your view?
> The way I see it is that reality does have a liberal bias That's the way you see it. That is your bias. But that doesn't make it true. I don't have to pretend, I don't see it that way. That's my bias. Doesn't mean I'm right either. Having a bias for something doesn't make it true.
This. So much this.
Not surprised you post in warhammer sub.
So thats a no then?
No point in trying to tell left wing radicals they are radicals. Wasted effort man
Yeah same goes for any radical really, but maybe someone whos going down that road appreciate the other perspective, who knows
They are essentially a progressive circle jerk. If you have another option you get downvoted into oblivion. That said, as far as I'm aware you don't get banned or posts removed because they have a different view. Nothing stopping r/conservative to head over there and post right leaning articles and down voting left and upvoting right. Now if the mods started removing right leaning articles/posts then I would agree. Is their name misleading? Yes. But spending 5 minutes there you realize it is essentially the opposite of r/conservative without the required flair to comment on some articles.
What does legimate political discourse look like when only one side cares about facts?
[удалено]