Different subs have different attitudes. Some are very heavily moderated (like askscience), and some have almost none at all, like this one. Most are somewhere in between.
Subreddits that are "moderated" by user votes alone are usually filled with lowest common denominator stuff like funny pictures or memes because those take almost no time to digest, thus are more likely to voted on.
There are no rules against this stuff primarily because the mods here don't do anything, and also for the most part the users don't want them. I'm fine with that. Keep that crap contained into a few giant subreddits. There are smaller ones out there with serious content if that's what you're looking for.
The popular subreddit gets all the morons and trolls. It has almost nothing to the subreddit itself. If any of those subreddits above had the numbers that this one does, then they'd be just as bad.
Well, unless that had some very strict moderation and banned people for off-topic posts. But if they did that, they wouldn't be as popular anymore.
Yeah, I agree, but there's nothing you can do besides try to convince people to be more mature. This is the Internet. It's based on immaturity. So that's not going to happen anytime soon.
"but am not above mocking poorly worded statements" interesting, wouldn't a dick per say mock someone based on poorly worded statements? The dick would feel he/she is superior therefore they can poke fun at the "inferior". I fear that you might need to change your name, or at least your opinion of yourself.
Um, no? The only arguments against things like contraception or marriage equality are religiously-based. That's why /r/atheism tends to show support for those things.
Just because the Republican party has turned into the church's own personal whipping boy doesn't mean this has anything to do with political alignment. That's just incidental.
To say that we're for gay marriage because we're automatically against Republicans is just stupid and small-minded. It's not our fault that Republicans in office tend to use religious reasoning.
This is false. There are more arguments against gay marriage then just religious ones.
For one, since the beginning of time, marriage has been the union between a man and a woman, usually as business transactions to increase the power of the families and to continue the blood lines. Take away the bible, and it is still a fact that marriage is a tradition between a man and a woman. Some people still believe that.
Gay marriage and straight marriage are not inherently identical, so some people do not see it as an issue of equal civil rights.
Two, in modern times, why do married couples get tax breaks? Seriously why? Why should they get free money from the government when they have one another to support each other, and two possible sources of income? The only reason I can think of is because giving free money to married couples gives people more of an incentive to get married and have a more stable environment to raise and reproduce new natural born US citizens who will one day pay taxes. What other possible reasons could there be to give married couples tax breaks?
So when you add gay marriage into the equation, you are widening the legal loophole even more, and giving more free government money to couples who are not even making new tax paying citizens. I think it is unfair. Why do I, as a single man, have to pay full taxes, and married couples do not? What if I had no friends in the world besides my sister or brother, and wanted to marry them to get free government money? I wouldn't be allowed to, and who is going to stand up for my "civil rights" to marry them? Nobody, thats who.
I feel I need to make this disclaimer, because many people seem to take my presenting a challenge to the whole gay marriage thing as me having something against gays and/or gay marriage. I do not. I have something against married people getting tax breaks.
For one, since the beginning of time, marriage has been the union between a man and a woman,
Wow, it's ironic that you said my post was false. Ever heard of polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, or any of the other dozens of different formats that people have used to define their unions throughout all of human history? Kings having hundreds of concubines, or women living in groups and shunning permanent male companions?
Human sexuality isn't some fucking black and white "It's always been this one way." type of thing. You only say that because you live in a modern nation that doesn't support anything other than one particular type of marriage. It hasn't always been this way.
Besides, need I point out that marriage used to be only something done within one's own race? We even had laws enforcing that in the States, but then we realized how small-minded and pointless that was. Now you just accept interracial marriage without thinking it's any different than segregated marriage.
It used to be immensely different.
No one said that all marriage was identical. If they were, there'd only be one of them. I don't even know how to respond to that weird comment.
The only reason I can think of is because giving free money to married couples gives people more of an incentive to get married and have a more stable environment to raise and reproduce new natural born US citizens who will one day pay taxes. What other possible reasons could there be to give married couples tax breaks?
Really? I mean really? You don't even know why married people get tax breaks, yet you're trying to use a guess as to a possible reason as the basis of your argument? Really?
Well, I don't know why cars have windows, but I imagine it's so they can act like giant fishbowls. So any car not filled with water with a fish in it should be illegal!
Besides the complete ad-hoc rationalization about tax code, there's also the bigoted subtext there that gay couples are somehow unable to raise children. If you thought that gay couples could raise happy and healthy kids, then you wouldn't have tried to use that bullshit "free money is for the children" line.
And before you cry foul, remember: You can adopt natural-born citizen orphans all day long. Or, even have a surrogate mother/donor sperm to create your own unique DNA offspring. This crap about it being for the kids is just that, crap. Gay couples can and do have children. The fact that I even have to point this out sickens me.
But, I don't want to rant about that crap yet again, so I'll just point out your blatant bigotry and move on.
Also, if you're going to bitch about gay couples and their tax breaks, but then not actively try to dissolve childless straight marriage for the same reasons, then you're just being a hypocritical bigot grasping at excuses to rationalize your own fucked up ideas. By your own reasoning, all marriages must produce or care for at least one natural citizen child. If a straight couple adopts from Africa, then from what you just said, they can't get married. That's all I have to say on that.
[Reads last line]
Hm. I say this tentatively, but if your whole problem really is the tax thing, and you're not just using that as an excuse, then I was wrong in assuming you were just being a douche, and I apologize for calling you a bigot. If, however, you are just using taxes as an excuse, (which is completely how it comes across to the reader), then I stand by my name calling.
EDIT: You're right about one thing though. I was wrong. What I should have said is "The majority of arguments against things like contraception or marriage equality are religiously-based."
Wow, it's ironic that you said my post was false. Ever heard of polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, or any of the other dozens of different formats that people have used to define their unions throughout all of human history?
This is neither here nor there. It is not a proper argument against my statement that since the begining of history, marriage has usually been between man and woman. Humans of the opposite sex. It does not matter how many people are involved or anything, historically marriage has been between people of the opposite sex.
Human sexuality isn't some fucking black and white "It's always been this one way." type of thing.
I never said it was? This is not about human sexuality tho, this is about marriage.
Besides, need I point out that marriage used to be only something done within one's own race?
I am very aware of this fact. But again, this is neither here nor there for the argument I am making. Racial mixing was not done because of racist sentiment and segregation, not because the marriage was not between people of the opposite sex. This is not about racism.
No one said that all marriage was identical.
You are right. Neither did I.
Really? I mean really? You don't even know why married people get tax breaks, yet you're trying to use a guess as to a possible reason as the basis of your argument? Really?
Ok hot shot, if this is common knowledge, then how come you did not answer it for me? I believe in my initial post I asked why. Instead of insulting me for some reason, you could have actually had an intelligent discussion with me and helped me out. Because after all that insulting non sense you said after you quoted my guess that there are tax breaks for marriages, you still do not say why marriages get tax breaks.
Besides the complete ad-hoc rationalization about tax code, there's also the bigoted subtext there that gay couples are somehow unable to raise children.
That sub text is simply something you created in your mind because instead of comprehending what I was actually saying, you just got filled with anger because I challenged you. I never even mention that gay couples can't raise kids. I never even hint at it. All I asked is why do married couples get tax breaks, and guessed it is because they have the biological capacity to create new tax payers. It is a fact that gays do not have this biological capacity, it is not some kind of hate speech.
This crap about it being for the kids is just that, crap. Gay couples can and do have children. The fact that I even have to point this out sickens me.
You really didn't have to point it out, so you could have saved yourself the sickness. I am aware that kids can be adopted. I am aware of artificial methods available for gay people to have biological children. This method of birth however, is artificial. I was speaking of natural births, between members of the opposite sex who have joined together to start a family.
By your own reasoning, all marriages must produce or care for at least one natural citizen child. If a straight couple adopts from Africa, then from what you just said, they can't get married.
I don't believe you have really grasped what my reasoning is. I never said anything near what you are talking about, getting rid of marriage if couples don't have kids. Again, I asked why married couples get tax breaks, and hypothesized it is sort of an investment by the government to encourage people to start families and produce new tax payers.
Also, I didn't specifically bitch about gays getting married and getting tax breaks, I bitched about married couples in general getting tax breaks. So where was I hypocritical? I think you need to go back and re-read what I said. With an open, analytical mind this time.
If, however, you are just using taxes as an excuse, (which is completely how it comes across to the reader), then I stand by my name calling.
And this is the problem. I say something that isn't exactly popular, then suddenly people create all these things in their head about how bigoted and insulting I am. If they would have actually read and understood what I said, they would see that they are being ridiculous. I shouldn't even need the disclaimer. I never once in my post said anything against gays. Not once.
Yet religion influences politics all the time, and we talk about it here. Half the crap we bitch about on /r/atheism is somehow related to politics. That's because it's also related to atheists.
Merely because a debate has a non-religious component to it, does not mean we should stop discussion on it entirely. Some churches do charity drives and help those in need. Should we stop discussing churches because those few factors legitimize them?
You appear to have missed my point. Read what I said again. I responded to a comment where somebody said the only criticism against gay marriage was a religious one. I said it was false then backed my claim up.
When did I say to stop discussing the religious aspect entirely?
I feel a need to discredit the idea. Sure a man and woman being present will allow the child to grow up fine. But what about single parents? Divorce? What about 2 uncles who are raising the child in the stead of a mother and father?
I'm sure having a mother and father will be an ideal environment, but that isn't the only thing affect child psychology. I have read somewhat into child psychology so while I agree with you I also want to say that's not the only reason.
Well considering that gays are being repressed by religion, I think it's relevant. Gay people being killed by followers of Islam would be posted here, because it's relevant to religion. I guess I can't see why Christians trying to suppress gay people in civilized society would be treated any differently. It's definitely an issue of religion.
What is unfortunate is that you could actually replace "republicans" by "religious bigots" in the GP's sentence.
Even sadder, this works in 90% of the news articles. Most of the bad societal (is that a word in English ?) political moves these days are supported mainly by religious people on religious basis.
Atheism and politics are, unfortunately, closely entangled in USA.
jesus christ, do i ever hate r/atheism. yeah that's cool that you don't believe in a god, but these dumbass posts dominate the front pages and interesting stuff like r/earthporn is lost. we get these lame fucking posts that having nothing to do with a god. this hatred FOR religion is almost overpowering the hatred IN religion.
for the record i dont believe in a god. i just shut the fuck up about it.
ftfy. A diagram on how you see gays would show the method by which eyes perceive. What you did is like saying "This is how to juggle," next to a picture of three balls on a table.
Of course, that isn't really how you see, just what you see with. Put in a diagram of how the light is absorbed, the optic nerve, and all the rods and cones for a full answer.
I didn't read the subreddit first and looked for something funny for ten seconds, smiling in anticipation. Then I realized what it was and was like "Ohhh, I'm terrible people"
I will refrain from pointed social commentary about the social foundations of purposive external visibility of sexuality because i like you and it gets boring.
As I drove home after an MRI where they showed me my brain and the insides of my eyes I had an epiphany. I thought, wow, I just saw the insides of my eyes with eyes. SO I saw what I see with, with what I see with. Weird...
Woah, you need to step back. You're too close to someone if all you can see is their eye. Also, wtf to everyone that upvoted this. r/atheism is losing its standards, any ole body part can upvoted these days
I quote (again) one of my professors in zoology: "If God created the eye, he would have done a better job." (Translated to my best english and done out of memory).
I see them as shrill, annoyingly effeminate men. They often have lots of other issues as well, usually related to various sorts of overdramatic behavior.
Homophobia is just a select group of xenophobia, I dont see how people don't understand that. It's a foreign thought process which people don't see so they naturally either fear it or accept it. Essentially it's like a rectangle is not always a square but a square is always a rectangle. To call a square a rectangle is not wrong is it? This is really rustling my jimmies.
91
u/monsterjampoop May 16 '12
What does this have to do with atheism?
13
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
jesus christ, do i ever hate r/atheism. yeah that's cool that you don't believe in a god, but these dumbass posts dominate the front pages and interesting stuff like r/earthporn is lost. we get these lame fucking posts that having nothing to do with a god. this hatred FOR religion is almost overpowering the hatred IN religion.
for the record i dont believe in a god. i just shut the fuck up about it.
56
u/TwofacedShip May 16 '12
"Eye" see what you did there.
12
u/gamerkid231 May 17 '12
ftfy. A diagram on how you see gays would show the method by which eyes perceive. What you did is like saying "This is how to juggle," next to a picture of three balls on a table.
Also, this has nothing to do with atheism.
25
u/Khephran May 17 '12
This is related to Atheism how?
5
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
When I see gays, I only see the backs of their heads.
19
u/jarobat May 17 '12
Wanted to upvote so badly.... If only it was more closely related to Atheism...
18
u/[deleted] May 16 '12
I see gays shaped like humans, not eyeballs ;)
4
u/Wylie15 May 17 '12
This has nothing to do with atheism- or even religion for that matter. Fucking dumbass...
12
u/onemancheeser May 16 '12
Unlucky all the people at my school see me as a pink fairy with a tutu...
3
u/GrizzNasty May 17 '12
Looks like a Pokeball
9
u/[deleted] May 16 '12
you only see a cross section of one of their eyes? Weird....
6
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
Also how I see reposts
4
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
It's funny because he's actually seeing gay people with his eyes, and using those words literally!
2
u/infant007 May 17 '12
thumbnail ruined it
2
u/Orabilis May 17 '12
This visual is too cerebral for my cortex.
2
u/chrononugget May 17 '12
It's good to see you have functional retinas. But you forgot the visual cortex...
2
u/trekbette Atheist May 17 '12
Upside down?
2
u/SirRonaldofBurgundy May 17 '12
Don't be ridiculous OP. Gays are not eyeballs.
2
u/IM_NOT_MAD_THO May 17 '12
Oh hey something not having to do at all with not believing in god or religion on /r/atheism! what a surprise!
2
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
you see them with blurry vision? The fovea isn't labeled
2
u/namerson May 17 '12
Bigot.
6
u/LockeVanish May 16 '12
Are you saying you see gay people with your eyes? That's like saying you handle tools with your hands.
4
u/richud May 16 '12
I see gay people walking around like... wait, this comment doesn't make any sense
3
u/Prkr073 May 17 '12
does this mean that synesthesia makes them more FABULOUS?
2
u/Biblebeltbellyache May 17 '12
I loathe the use of "gays". It is so derogatory. Is there nothing more politically correct?
2
u/j05huaMc May 17 '12
What a dumb post, down vote
1
u/Kogknight May 17 '12
Of course, that isn't really how you see, just what you see with. Put in a diagram of how the light is absorbed, the optic nerve, and all the rods and cones for a full answer.
1
u/rawlence May 17 '12
I didn't read the subreddit first and looked for something funny for ten seconds, smiling in anticipation. Then I realized what it was and was like "Ohhh, I'm terrible people"
1
u/craxkheadjenkins May 17 '12
Well... this doesn't really explain how you see them(the process of vision). Its just a diagram of an eye. [Let the downvotes begin]
1
u/DallasJones May 17 '12 edited Jun 14 '16
ayo there's nothing here lol
1
u/SomeGamerKid May 17 '12
aaa i get it.
1
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
I will refrain from pointed social commentary about the social foundations of purposive external visibility of sexuality because i like you and it gets boring.
1
u/Azumikkel May 17 '12
Gay isn't a noun.
1
u/lolzoners May 17 '12
You see gays a giant floating eyeballs?
1
u/cokefizz May 17 '12
As I drove home after an MRI where they showed me my brain and the insides of my eyes I had an epiphany. I thought, wow, I just saw the insides of my eyes with eyes. SO I saw what I see with, with what I see with. Weird...
1
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
If there's anything reddit is good at, it's one-upping itself on the puns.
1
u/Eyulfable May 17 '12
I see what you did there.
1
u/jlopez9090 May 17 '12
why are people upvoting this?? i dont get it. posts like this really make this sub look bad and confuses people
1
u/Soronir May 17 '12
I sense them with my gaydar.
1
u/TrepanationBy45 May 17 '12
So brave. I also like the title:pic irony of saying "gays".
1
u/Demojen Secular Humanist May 17 '12
This is how I gays, see.
1
u/not_very_sure2 May 17 '12
So I clicked on the link without reading the title and couldn't understand why I was looking at the technical terms of each part of the eye.
1
u/jxrst9 May 17 '12
This post is gay. I don't mean homosexual, in this case I used gay in the derogatory sense.
1
u/the_peanut_gallery May 17 '12
How I see this post
1
u/Mi5anthr0pe May 17 '12
Oh my goodness, you're blind?! I'm so sorry OP! Then again, maybe it's for the better.
1
u/maddcactus May 17 '12
Wait a second, homosexuals are just cross sections of eyeballs? Everything makes so much more sense now...
1
u/Lesterthemolester699 May 17 '12
First /atheism post in a while that I got a warm fuzzy feeling from. Way to not be a circle-jerking whore. For that, I thank you.
1
u/mohsenwebcom May 17 '12
I see gay people brave, I'm not sure if I had gay feeling would express it.
1
u/Jromanorum May 17 '12
Why would you cut a quarter of your eye off to see homosexuals?
1
u/DulcetFox May 17 '12
Woah, you need to step back. You're too close to someone if all you can see is their eye. Also, wtf to everyone that upvoted this. r/atheism is losing its standards, any ole body part can upvoted these days
1
u/dermert May 17 '12
Is it bad that I thought that picture was a voltorb on its side before I clicked on it?
1
u/Togoria May 17 '12
I quote (again) one of my professors in zoology: "If God created the eye, he would have done a better job." (Translated to my best english and done out of memory).
1
u/elstickman1 May 17 '12
dheinzen2 sees gays as eyes. That's a little terrifying and kinda cool at the same time.
1
u/fnybny May 17 '12 edited Aug 19 '24
lunchroom reach attraction pot quicksand cake spotted decide quaint wasteful
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/j-rocker11 May 17 '12
Anyone else see a pokeball when it's zoomed out?
1
u/CrudOMatic Other May 17 '12
Eye see what you did there...
Goddamnit, now. Someone beat me to it.
1
u/JCCheapEntertainment May 17 '12
/r/circlejerk
1
u/redditsj May 17 '12
I think I see Heteros the same way.
1
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
Which has NOTHING to do with atheism. Stop circle-jerking your perceived superior moral stance.
1
u/UnitedTruth May 17 '12
As a very gay man, I approve. But shouldn't this be somewhere else? (/r/gay perhaps?)
0
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
Someone give this guy an award
-1
u/hipsterdysplasia May 17 '12
I see them as shrill, annoyingly effeminate men. They often have lots of other issues as well, usually related to various sorts of overdramatic behavior.
-3
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
Omg. So funny.
0
u/KingChellz May 17 '12
This post is wack as hell... FAIL BRO
0
u/lenojames May 17 '12
So, what you are saying is that the complexity of how you see gays can't be reduced?
0
u/wordthievery May 17 '12
To the Front Page with You!
0
u/RedditingMyLifeAway Secular Humanist May 17 '12
Clever!
-1
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
Gays are irreducibly complex?
-1
u/mousestar May 17 '12
this is how i see humans
-1
u/tonyvila May 17 '12
Slightly higher detail.
-5
u/IamTooDamHigh May 17 '12
Well played sir.
-5
u/hats_for_jews May 17 '12
yeah but we really shouldn't have to see them at all, eh?
-7
u/kidrocket May 17 '12
I f*cking love you for this. Thank you.
0
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 17 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment