Firstly You have redditors complaining that fatpeoplehate is banned because "free speech" even though it's banned for harassing behaviour simply because you think there is some conspiracy that's going to affect your other shit subs.
I don't think it is that simple. I think most of reddit would be fine with the banning of fatepeoplehate, if every other subreddit that contained harassing behavior was also banned. But other harassing subreddits were not banned. Can reddit really be said to have a policy of banning subreddits that harass people, if they've only banned a few of the many subreddits that harass people?
I think this is what bothers people. The inconsistency, the explicit evidence that there policy isn't to ban subreddits that harass people, but rather a set of subreddits due to their content. As for why? Well who knows. My suscpision is that it simply comes down to the fact that fatepeoplehate was bad for business with all the attention it was getting lately.
And you know, I honestly think that if they just outright said "We are banning fatpeoplehate because its bad for business" I think most people would be okay with that. But they tried to pass the action of as motivated by some sort of social good, when that really can't be true, because if that were the case they would have banned a whole bunch of other subreddits.
It's the fucking stupid ass double speak spouted off by KIA constantly. Free speech! We're also harassed, why don't you care about us!
Its not double speak to say, "Everyone should the right to free speech, but if you are going to censor us, then censor everyone fairly". What KIA gets upset about, is not simply the violate of free speech, but the hypocrisy of it. For a really clear example, KIA isn't allowed to publish public corporate public relation emails when attempting to organize consumer boycotts/intervention and such, but other subreddits are allowed too.
You can't pick and choose "I want to harass fat people today because its my right! but how dare someone not acknowledge how bad it is for me!"
Why not? Is there something wrong with acknowledging the suffering of people who do bad things?
The reason he says "congrats on your white penis" is because as he himself said "if that doesn't sound like something you have experienced a problem with" is because he is NOT talking about you being harassed.
And isn't it clear why that is upsetting? The implication is that if you don't get harassed, your a white male. Except that is false. Genitalia and skin color don't shield anyone from online harassment, and to claim otherwise is to deny the lived experiences of a lot of people. It hurts to hear that your own experiences aren't real, or worth consideration, do you disagree?
Guess what, people would care if you actually expressed that you gave a shit about other people. Not condemning the harassers and not giving a shit about victims is not going to get people to magically sympathize with you.
Isn't this kind of hypocritical? Why is the impetus on us to acknowledge other people's lived experiences, when they don't acknowledge our own? I mean, I could just take those sentence and flip them back to you. Why should we sympathize with them when they don't give a shit about us? I mean, its really clear that they don't give a shit about us. One need look no further than the media's treatment of male/female nudes leaks.
I'm just pointing out how dumb your logic is. I don't actually believe that one side should be required to be charitable first (as you suggest). Rather I believe we should sympathize with everyone, regardless if they return the favor.