Submitted by Hyolobrika in meta (edited )
Hyolobrika OP wrote
Reply to comment by GaldraChevaliere in What is the history of this place? by Hyolobrika
What is some evidence that 'leftist' subs were being targated at the expense of 'rightwing' subs. The only seeming evidence I saw linked on https://raddle.me/wiki/what_is_wrong_with_reddit was that r/physical_removal was left up but when I went to check, it had been removed. The burden of proof is on you to link to archives that testify to 'leftist' subs being removed before equivalent 'rightwing' ones. Also I would like you to link to archived comments, mod actions etc that testify to 'problems are only ever dealt with when they impact profit' and 'The ones that exist are largely headed by people with some serious issues regarding those same minorities' please
BunnyBop wrote
Um, you have serious entitlement issues. Why would Galdra go through any of that for you? You wanted to know why and you got your answer. No one agreed to a debate so no one owes you the burden of proof.
sudo wrote
No one agreed to a debate so no one owes you the burden of proof.
The burden of proof always lies with the claim-maker, regardless of whether they are in a debate or not. It may be, as in this case, that it's too much work for what it's worth to fulfill the burden of proof, because these were experiences that a lot of people lived through, but didn't document at the time (and now they're scattered amidst millions of other reddit posts, so it would be a major chore to go back and find them all). But /u/Hyolobrika is well within their rights to ask for proof, since a factual claim was made. If, for whatever reason, the burden of proof cannot be fulfilled, then the other person has no reason to believe your claim, even if you yourself know it to be true.
An_Old_Big_Tree wrote (edited )
I think it's important here to take into account that it's a common troll tactic to waste people's time and resources getting them to do the work of coming up with sources for all of their claims.
The extensive way that proof was multiply-asked-for and the user's general engagement here lends well to this kind of interpretation of the user.
ziq wrote (edited )
They also completely ignored the countless archives linked in the wiki that prove anarchists were persecuted by reddit admins (the ban of lwse, several r/@ mods for ludicrous reasons) and demanded different proof. So even giving them full documented direct evidence doesn't meet their standards of 'reason'.
BunnyBop wrote (edited )
My ass. It is completely arrogant to come into a place, ask for a history, and then demand specific evidence as if the person who answered you was on trial. This isn't a court. If there were a decision to be made on the basis of this evidence, that would be one thing, but that's not the case. We're not deciding some community measure here, and if Hyolobrika is anything like the other rationalitybros I've seen over the years, they're only here to masturbate to their own perceived intelligence.
Edit: I don't think I've made my point well in the above paragraph so let me state it outright: it's fucking rude to expect someone to stop and do the work of putting specific evidence in front of you when they're not making any arguments.
ziq wrote
if Hyolobrika is anything like the other rationalitybros I've seen over the years, they're only here to masturbate to their own perceived intelligence.
They came here from far right 'free speech' site notabug, they claim to be reasonable and rational and holy and superior, yet immediately tell a raddler to kill themselves for recognizing their fashy dogwhistles. Safe to say they're just as bad as we all sensed.
Hyolobrika OP wrote (edited )
You are arguing in bad faith by making incendiary and unjustified presumptions. Stop it.
| They came here from far right 'free speech' site notabug
Actually I found out about this place and notabug when I wanted to see deleted Reddit posts, searched for one of those sites and found http://snew.guthub.io/ (see top bar)
| tell a raddler to kill themselves for recognizing their fashy dogwhistles
Read this thread and educate yourself. It was all a misunderstanding.
Hyolobrika OP wrote
No, you are the one with issues. I come in here intrigued and wanting to possibly learn about socialism, curious about why this place was made and when I calmly ask for evidence, I get attacked for being 'entitled'. If the claimer had just explained that it was too much effort sorry I would have been perfectly OK with that.
| You wanted to know why and you got your answer
It's not enough to have the belief available, what's necessary towards accepting that belief is some good sound reason to accept it. If it's too much work to prove it but you still have proof in your head then fine but I can't accept the belief under those circumstances.
[deleted] wrote
sudo wrote
Epicalyx wrote
sudo wrote
You shouldn't be getting downvoted for asking for evidence - the burden of proof does lie with the claim-maker.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments