This is far from an unpopular opinion! Not only is the userbase there thoroughly juvenile, they've collectively been branded officially as the most hateful place on the Internet by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I think it has a lot to do with the way the site is designed itself; the highly segregated subreddits and confrontational voting system promote groupthink, breed radicalism, and enhance hatred of those one disagrees with. It was inevitable that the aggressive hate would eventually get so bad that the admins would have to intervene heavy-handedly. Specialized communities like the academic subs are pretty much the only reason why I go on there anymore.
I'm curious- why would you call the SPLC a hate group? My other question is why they aren't a legitimate authority.
I see the SPLC as a leftist organisation that uses the "hate group" label as a tool to discredit its political opponents and further its own agenda. Their activities betray their biases, and thus they have no business posing as a super partes (neutral) judge. In recent times, this has been recognised even by the FBI. The SPLC regularly covers men's rights issues in their blog, in the category "anti-woman", despite the fact that men's rights sites and activists are not trying to take away women's rights, but only to fight the discrimination against men and boys that's occurring in our society. It should be noted that the SPLC doesn't have an "anti-man" category, in other words it doesn't even acknowledge the existence of an anti-male sentiment (even though there are plenty of examples of it, both on the internet and in real life).The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has labeled several Washington, D.C.-based family organizations as "hate groups" for favoring traditional marriage, has been dumped as a "resource" on the FBI's Hate Crime Web page, a significant rejection of the influential legal group.
OK. I think I remember reading about them and the ADL being removed from the FBI website when it happened. However, I feel like their "link" to a lone nut with a gun is tenuous. I'm not familiar with either of their blogs, but I can't find any "anti-women" section or anything, although I don't doubt one exists. I think what it boils down to is what you consider a "hate group." I don't know if i would call the Family Research Council a hate group, but they sure are close. They seem to have only one agenda, and that's defaming LGBT people and advocating for laws to actively limit the rights of these people. As for the SPLC not having an "anti-man" category, here's their mission statement or whatever: I don't think I would consider men to be vulnerable members of society. I would consider women to fall into this category, though.The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society.
Here's the link to the anti-woman category of their "hatewatch blog" in case you want to check it out. I disagree about men not being a vulnerable group, because from a legal point of view, they have less rights than women, and from a social point of view they receive less sympathy than women when they become victims of violence or discrimination. I also think that by excluding men from the groups worthy of being protected, the SPLC is effectively condoning hate against them (and only against them), thus contributing to making them a vulnerable group.
Thanks. I'm wondering how to approach this, since I think we disagree here. What would you consider a vulnerable group? I'm also curious as to how men have less legal rights than women (at least in the USA). I will agree with you that men receive less sympathy than women in US society when it comes to victimhood. I wouldn't say that there is any specific group "unworthy" of protection from discrimination or hate, but it makes sense to me why the SPLC does not focus on them- pound for pound, men are less often victims of abject discrimination as women and other classes, there are (to my knowledge) less concerted efforts in this country to limit their rights or propagate material to create a culture of discrimination against them. I think the rubric that the SPLC is using for their list of "protected classes" or whatever has to do with historic discrimination/hate towards these groups in the USA, and current concerted efforts to limit the rights of these people and defame them as a group.
Well, when it comes to marriage, parenthood, reproductive rights, sexual crimes, domestic violence, selective service, jobs that involve working with children, affirmative action, men are legally discriminated against. But if that was the case, why would the SPLC have an "anti-white" category in their blog? Correct me if I'm wrong, but whites haven't historically been the victims of discrimination in the USA. This sentence makes me think. Knowing how to disagree is an underrated skill, I wonder if there's a book that teaches it.I think the rubric that the SPLC is using for their list of "protected classes" or whatever has to do with historic discrimination/hate towards these groups in the USA, and current concerted efforts to limit the rights of these people and defame them as a group.
I'm wondering how to approach this, since I think we disagree here.
I had no idea that there was an "anti-white" section of their blog. I don't know if I mentioned it earlier, but I had a hard time navigating their website. That is strange. I'd rather not get into a longer discussion about men's rights here, but I will concede that the SPLC's judgment is questionable. Thanks for changing my view.
I agree in that 4chan/8chan are in a different league of hatred than reddit and the description isn't completely apt, but I choose to interpret as the mainstream internet - with reddit's growing popularity I (as a biased user) would place it in the same league as Youtube, Facebook or Twitter. I think the truly most hateful place on the Internet would have to be 4/8chan and other deeply disturbing websites on the sensationally dubbed 'dark net'.
When did the SPLC decide to trade in its status for random clickbait crap? They were an organization that usefully tracked, you know, actual hate groups - Aryan Nations chapters and the like. Did the siren call of internet money get them to jump on the bandwagon of labeling random websites as "hate groups", or was there a change in leadership?
You're right, the academic subs do have the worth and they're refreshing to visit. When I say I'm not going to use reddit anymore, I'm talking about checking /all before any other social network. I'll definitely browse my city, uni or any other particularly useful subreddit - but I don't think it will become anything more than a reference tool and I won't browse it anymore than say my local newspaper (I'm not as informed about the outside world as I'd like to think).