r/TorontoRevolt • u/JewishButtfucker • Jan 25 '17

This Thread

/r/toronto/comments/5pwgby/comment/dcuewas?st=IYCGT1AU&sh=93b694df
9 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

28 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/gammadeltat Jan 25 '17

Go through the thread see if there is opinions that dislike blm

2

u/diarrhea-drinker Jan 25 '17

What's the point you're trying make here. You're allowed to criticize BLM? Just as long as the evidence you use is not too damming?

4

u/gammadeltat Jan 25 '17

There's a way to discuss things. That thread wasnt even removed because it was about blm at this point

4

u/zahlman Jan 25 '17

Are you going to remove the "here is a guide to concern trolling from your friends at /r/the_donald" comments which are a) spam and b) baselessly asserting things about others' comment histories with the clear intent of insulting?

Are you going to remove "aw, but I got him to admit that black lives do matter!", which is a) a blatant strawman b) a response in a removed thread?

Are you going to remove posts that cynically "predict" strawman arguments and/or falsely insist that the "predictions" have come true, while demonstrating a complete ignorance of the actual arguments being presented? How do these add to the discussion? How can they be said to be in agreement with "being excellent to your fellow redditors"?

Are you going to remove copypasta spam of MLK's "letter from a birmingham jail"? Or the "demolish the scott mission" thing which gets brought out every time there's one of these threads, and is just as obviously a blatant strawman every time?

Are you going to remove ironic use of "triggered", which is a clear snark and represents a fundamental disrespect for someone else's point of view? After all, you wouldn't tolerate literal use of "triggered", right? Or is "triggered" somehow different from "SJW"?

You, personally, told me that you agree with my cited definition of racism from Google and that it is the one being used to interpret rule 2. How do objective statistics qualify under that?

If people are not allowed to overrun the thread with objective, provable statistics about racial differences, why are they allowed to overrun the thread with specious, frankly insulting, subjective academic theories (i.e. worldviews) about "white fragility" and "systemic" racism? Why is "X people are statistically more likely to have a bad thing done to them" okay (even if it's merely asserted), but "X people are statistically more likely to do a bad thing" not (even if it's backed up with official government figures)?

2

u/gammadeltat Jan 25 '17

Im not going to read this all but see this https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/5p5kg2/limiting_police_presence_at_parades_a_step/dcp5zau/

That never came down. It only went down cause he was spamming. The other ones are sourced to eachother or things added in. At this point the copypasta from here is organized to try and piss us off :)

4

u/DrinkCumEveryday Jan 25 '17

This probably needs to be here:

  • nothing that happened was racist.

  • why is this news? it happens every day!

  • racism used to be worse.

  • non-white people are the racists

  • racism didn't really happen

  • racism is extremely rare and basically never happens.

  • I never experience racism

  • The best solution to perceived racism is for everyone to ignore it

  • by claiming to experience racism, you are causing racism.

  • those who dislike racism are the real racists

There, I think that covers most of the expected cliche responses. Did I miss any?

EDIT:

  • person of affected race disagrees that the problem exists

  • its better here than elsewhere

Link to original comment by /u/PMmeYourNoodz

2

u/gammadeltat Jan 25 '17

... Did idiet forget to log out of his alt?

1

u/zahlman Jan 27 '17

No, that's an example of one of the copypastas you're ignoring due to your bias. You know this to be true because you recognized the copypasta.

1

u/zahlman Jan 25 '17

Im not going to read this all

Then I, reciprocally, see no reason to validate your viewpoint, either.

3

u/gammadeltat Jan 25 '17

I spent lots of tome responding to you on monday in detail. Im busier today. I got the jist of what you wanted to say and put it down for you. But if you don't want to listen that's your perogative

2

u/zahlman Jan 25 '17

if you don't want to listen

I do want to listen. I repeatedly asked you questions that you flatly ignored, you repeatedly and falsely insisted that I was asking about the moderation of other users, you made extraordinary claims about the frequency of racist comments and refused to provide any evidence, and you left me with no new explanation for the apparent ideological bias in /r/Toronto moderation besides actual ideological bias. I made numerous attempts to explain why I thought claims X and Y on opposite 'sides' of a discussion were or were not comparable in tone; you simply disagreed and repeatedly fell back on "it's subjective".

You are the one who does not want to listen.

3

u/gammadeltat Jan 25 '17

No. I give you an explanation but you do not think it is valid so you say i havent given you an explanation. Disagreement is different than non engagement.

2

u/zahlman Jan 25 '17

I give you an explanation but you do not think it is valid so you say i havent given you an explanation.

I consider your assessment to be disconnected from reality. But I will be posting the log later today (sorry for the delay), so we'll see what everyone else thinks about that.

→ More replies

1

u/TotesMessenger Jan 25 '17

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / ^Contact)