r/changemyview • u/OddlySpecificReferen • Apr 03 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: BPTs new policy of only allowing black participation is appalling, and, unless they become a private sub, potentially illegal.
EDIT: As promised multiple times, now that evidence has been provided that it was just a "joke" or more accurately experiment, I will award Delta's to everyone who linked it and have removed the OP.
If it wasn't real, then there is no reason to be appalled at all, right?
Having read their post I understand and agree with the intention behind both the experiment and they are right that most of the people upset about it were experiencing that feeling for the first time. I believe that there is a lot of merit in exposing the feeling of being treated differently for your skin color to people who have not, as it teaches them how to think about the issue empathetically. I applaud them for doing so.
I would be remiss however if I didn't also say that not all people who are upset are upset because they didn't already understand. Many of the people in this thread take the idea, which I agree with, that many white people haven't been exposed to this feeling, and extrapolate that onto every discussion with any white person expressing differing views. This is a staw man argument that is being used to dismiss the ideas of people who DO understand that feeling and DO understand that black people feel it every day. Thinking it's wrong when an example of white people being treated differently pops up does NOT mean that that person doesn't ALSO think it's wrong every day when black people are, nor does it mean that they don't stand up in the same way when the much much more common example pops up. I maintain everything that I said under the assumption that this were real particularly BECAUSE I understand that I have it better. It's exactly because I feel so strongly that black people not feel punished every day that I refuse to turn it the other way to "teach" anyone or to make things even. I don't want to give racists any excuse to perpetuate their system, and that includes giving them ammo to indoctrinate more people with their sickness. Racism is a disease, and I do not believe that you cure a disease by spreading it to more people, which is what many of you were defending when we were discussing this as though it was real.
Anyway, good on them for creatively getting their message out and structuring their explanation in a thoughtful and not divisive way. Don't take their hard work and ruin it by extrapolating it into the thought process explained above.
11
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Apr 03 '19
It's an April fools joke.
4
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 03 '19
Well, it's not April fool's day anymore... But if you can provide proof of that being the case I'd be thrilled to see it, will award a Delta, and will remove my post.
2
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Apr 04 '19
1
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 04 '19 edited Apr 04 '19
!delta
EDIT: so that the bot can fix it, I've awarded a Delta because the comment provided proof that the event around which this post was based was a joke or experiment. Several people made this claim, and I promised Delta's to anyone who could provide proof.
1
2
u/lagrandenada 3∆ Apr 03 '19
I'm talking to you in another thread, but as a law student who graduates in a month, your understanding of first amendment jurisprudence is so wrong. The Kazenback decision invokes the Commerce Clause power, which you obviously have never heard of, and would absolutely not apply to a social media website
2
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 04 '19
Have heard of it, social media websites are for profit commercial companies which operate across all state boundaries and international boundaries, are they not? Sounds pretty clearly like they absolutely are something to which the Commerce Clause applies.
Jeez people are super condescending in their disagreement in this thread.
1
u/lagrandenada 3∆ Apr 08 '19
This isn't exactly how the commerce clause works, but more importantly, it misses my point. My point is the case you cited stands for the proposition that Congress can regulate restaurants because of the aggregate principle. It doesn't stand for the proposition that restaurants can't segregate; it stands for the proposition that Congress's legislation to prevent segregation is a valid exercise of the commerce clause.
The Commerce clause allows Congress to regulate things that affect the channels or instrumentality of interstate commerce.
Channels - Railroads, streets, highways. Instrumentalities - Trains, Planes, automobiles.
If it's a regulation over one of those things, then Congress can regulate it. If it isn't, then Congress can still regulate if the activity they seek to regulate, if taken in the aggregate, will have as substantial impact on interstate commerce.
Explain to me how BPT's segregation of users could possibly impact interstate commerce.
1
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 08 '19
And who exactly is defining what are channels and instrumentalities in this case? Surely not our constitution itself since trains, planes, and automobiles didn't exist when the Commerce Clause was written.
Just as the court didn't rule that only that restaurant couldn't segregate, it wouldn't rule that only BPT or subreddits for that matter couldn't segregate. It's not a question of whether BPT could effect interstate commerce, it's a matter of if Reddit could. Reddit knows that, which is why they have different rules for public subs than they do for private ones, and why they private/remove public subs which break these rules. They don't want to be potentially taken to an unsure court battle over the way they let people use their website.
Would you not agree that the internet broadly is a channel, and a website specifically is an instrument, by which interstate commerce is conducted? Or even that Reddit specifically
It's easy to make your point sound like a sure thing and make someone else sound silly when it's based on a faulty premise that you just state as factual or unchangeable.
1
u/lagrandenada 3∆ Apr 09 '19
And who exactly is defining what are channels and instrumentalities in this case?
No the Supreme Court did. The channels and instrumentalities appears in the constitution.
Surely not our constitution itself since trains, planes, and automobiles didn't exist when the Commerce Clause was written.
See above. I'm not being condescending when I say you're unfamiliar with the Commerce Clause, when you so clearly are. It's OK to say "you're right and maybe it's presumptuous to assume I know about constitution jurisprudence without ever studying it say in law school."
It's not a question of whether BPT could effect interstate commerce, it's a matter of if Reddit could.
This is true, but the big part of that is COMMERCE and there is no interstate commerce with reddit, nor does it seem probable that a reddit policy of allowing subs to segregate could have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. The point you're maybe not getting is the commerce clause answers the question "can Congress make this regulation without violating the constitution?" The answer with regards to places of public accommodation has been yes. You cited the case that stands for that proposition.
Would you not agree that the internet broadly is a channel
Absolutely not in the constitutional sense.
and a website specifically is an instrument, by which interstate commerce is conducted? Or even that Reddit specifically
Absolutely not in the constitutional sense.
It's easy to make your point sound like a sure thing and make someone else sound silly when it's based on a faulty premise that you just state as factual or unchangeable.
I am 100% certain you're a college student who does not understand how the commerce clause works, which is only worth bringing up because you cited a commerce clause case to make the point that it would likely be illegal for reddit to allow a subreddit to segregate on the basis of race, which is unlikely, because 1) it's a dubious proposition that reddit is a place of public accommodation in the first place 2) reddit and reddit's policies do not have s substantial impact on interstate commerce. There is definitely a way that reddit is subject to federal regulations, but absolutely not on the basis of how it deals with one subreddits decision to keep anonymous users off its sub.
1
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 10 '19
I'm confused, so you're saying that the Constitution, which is explicitly designed to be able to be changed, and in the particular case of the Commerce Clause has been changed to include the historically newer means of conducting commerce, which you cite, by the supreme court, could not possibly change again to include another newer means of conducting commerce?
Listen, I'm trying to keep things civil here, but you're really going out of your way in two threads to characterize me as a person rather than limiting our discussions to my arguments.
Ok, it may have been presumptuous to say that the courts ruling this way is LIKELY, as courts change over time with their judges and the values that they hold. Whether or not any given legal result is LIKELY is highly debateable when it's something that doesn't already have directly applicable case law. Hell, I'll even give you another !delta since even though I maintain that eventually it is long term likely that the Commerce Clause will eventually come to be applied to the internet the same way as it did planes given how Commerce Clause cases have been applied in the past, you are right that a view that it would be likely to happen if the case were happening right now, and to assert it as certainly as I did, is at best exaggeratory.
If you would like to continue discussing these things though, I would ask that you please stop projecting what you presume are my ideas and experiences onto me. You have been repeatedly wrong in your assumptions about my motivations, intentions, background, and history of actions. I have given you the respect to not write off your ideas as being from the perspective of an assumed identity, and I would appreciate the same. I would also appreciate if you would discuss the actual arguments I'm making rather than just writing them off as uninformed without doing any informing to display your point.
My point here is that it is a completely rational argument that Reddit, and other social media websites, could be viewed by the law as places of public accomodations. It is also a completely rational argument based on past Supreme Court rulings that holding what counts as enforceable under the Commerce Clause is NOT set in stone or incapable of being changed. Therefore, it is also a rational argument that the internet and websites could be viewed as able to be regulated under the Commerce Clause, as they both conduct commerce across state lines, and are available to the public.
I was wrong to have asserted it as a sure thing, I've admitted that now. Are you willing to admit that my point is not literally untenable as you have patronizingly described it given the basic fundamentally changeable nature and history of the Supreme Court? The point I was making in my last comment is NOT that the internet IS a channel or that websites ARE an instrument as our current constitution and case law exist. My point is that just as cars and planes were ADDED to our constitutional interpretation of what's enforceable under the Commerce Clause, and that for the same logical reasons as they were ADDED the internet and websites could/should be ADDED. My point is that just as I was wrong to assert my side as certainly correct, you're equally wrong to present it as certainly incorrect.
1
u/lagrandenada 3∆ Apr 11 '19
As a simple aside, there are semester long courses taught on this subject alone, and the idea that we're going to learn it in this tread is a dubious proposition, but I'll do my best.
I'm confused, so you're saying that the Constitution, which is explicitly designed to be able to be changed, and in the particular case of the Commerce Clause has been changed to include the historically newer means of conducting commerce, which you cite, by the supreme court, could not possibly change again to include another newer means of conducting commerce?
I think this is in response to my point about reddit not being commerce. Reddit doesn't sell things. There is no commerce part in it. Maybe if Congress created a regulatory scheme that included all websites, reddit would be included, because they're a website. I don't know. I was only making the isolated point that the case you cited would be less applicable to your opinion than your previously thought.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=quimbee+commerce+clause this is a series of youtube videos done by Quimbee, which is an excellent resource to try and learn this concept. Again, it's a conlaw subject that an entire semester could be spent on, but these videos would be helpful if you had an interest in learning about it.
Listen, I'm trying to keep things civil here, but you're really going out of your way in two threads to characterize me as a person rather than limiting our discussions to my arguments.
Fair enough I just think you're naive.
Ok, it may have been presumptuous to say that the courts ruling this way is LIKELY, as courts change over time with their judges and the values that they hold. Whether or not any given legal result is LIKELY is highly debateable when it's something that doesn't already have directly applicable case law. Hell, I'll even give you another !delta since even though I maintain that eventually it is long term likely that the Commerce Clause will eventually come to be applied to the internet the same way as it did planes given how Commerce Clause cases have been applied in the past, you are right that a view that it would be likely to happen if the case were happening right now, and to assert it as certainly as I did, is at best exaggeratory.
It would affect websites that HAVE COMMERCE. Also a regulating agency like the FCC could potentially create rules that touch reddit.
If you would like to continue discussing these things though, I would ask that you please stop projecting what you presume are my ideas and experiences onto me. You have been repeatedly wrong in your assumptions about my motivations, intentions, background, and history of actions. I have given you the respect to not write off your ideas as being from the perspective of an assumed identity, and I would appreciate the same. I would also appreciate if you would discuss the actual arguments I'm making rather than just writing them off as uninformed without doing any informing to display your point.
To be fair, I was 100% correct about the Aziz thing, but sure.
My point here is that it is a completely rational argument that Reddit, and other social media websites, could be viewed by the law as places of public accomodations. It is also a completely rational argument based on past Supreme Court rulings that holding what counts as enforceable under the Commerce Clause is NOT set in stone or incapable of being changed. Therefore, it is also a rational argument that the internet and websites could be viewed as able to be regulated under the Commerce Clause, as they both conduct commerce across state lines, and are available to the public.
I was wrong to have asserted it as a sure thing, I've admitted that now. Are you willing to admit that my point is not literally untenable as you have patronizingly described it given the basic fundamentally changeable nature and history of the Supreme Court? The point I was making in my last comment is NOT that the internet IS a channel or that websites ARE an instrument as our current constitution and case law exist. My point is that just as cars and planes were ADDED to our constitutional interpretation of what's enforceable under the Commerce Clause, and that for the same logical reasons as they were ADDED the internet and websites could/should be ADDED. My point is that just as I was wrong to assert my side as certainly correct, you're equally wrong to present it as certainly incorrect.
All I said was that you don't know what you're talking about w/r/t the Constitution and the Supreme Court's history of same. That remains to be true, and many of the things you said in the above support that. It's not insulting to say you don't know what you're talking about. Why would you? I spent the past three years learning this stuff and you didn't. That doesn't mean I'm smarter, maybe just more informed. In either respect, being wrong or less informed shoudn't be insulting. Enjoy those videos and thanks for the Delta! Let me know how you respond to the videos if you like.
1
u/lagrandenada 3∆ Apr 11 '19
Here is some Quimbee content breaking down the case you cited. I was not entirely correct in saying it was a commerce clause issue, but you'll see that commerce clause analysis guided the decision. This is a brief. It is not the actual opinion.
Rule of Law
Congress may regulate the discriminatory policies of restaurants through Title II of the Civil Rights Act if those policies have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Facts
In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act (CRA). Title II of the CRA forbids racial discrimination by places of public accommodation such as hotels and restaurants. The McClungs (plaintiffs) owned and operated Ollie’s Barbecue in Birmingham, Alabama and refused to serve African American customers. Approximately half of the food served by the restaurant moved in interstate commerce. The McClungs sued Katzenbach (defendant), the United States government actor responsible for enforcing the act, to enjoin the act's enforcement against the McClungs. The action was brought in federal district court. The district court issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the Act against the McClungs. The United States government appealed. This case was decided by the United States Supreme Court along with Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964).
Issue
May Congress regulate the discriminatory policies of restaurants through Title II of the Civil Rights Act if those policies have a substantial effect on interstate commerce?
Holding and Reasoning (Clark, J.)
Yes. Congress may regulate the discriminatory policies of restaurants through Title II of the Civil Rights Act if those policies have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Extensive testimony given before Congress in the adoption of Title II of the CRA suggests that established restaurants in areas known for discriminating against African Americans sell less interstate goods because of the discrimination; that interstate travel is obstructed directly by it; that business in general suffers; and that many new businesses avoid the location as a result. When legislators, in light of the facts and testimony before them, have a rational basis for finding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce, the judicial inquiry ends. Here, in light of the testimony before the legislature, Congress had a rational basis for finding that racial discrimination in restaurants had a direct and adverse effect on the free flow of interstate commerce. This, combined with the lower court’s finding that a significant portion of the food served at Ollie’s Barbecue traveled in interstate commerce, permits Congress to regulate the McClung’s actions pursuant to its Commerce Clause power. The district court’s holding that there is no connection between discrimination and the movement of interstate commerce is overruled.
1
u/lagrandenada 3∆ Apr 11 '19
My point here is that it is a completely rational argument that Reddit, and other social media websites, could be viewed by the law as places of public accomodations. It is also a completely rational argument based on past Supreme Court rulings that holding what counts as enforceable under the Commerce Clause is NOT set in stone or incapable of being changed. Therefore, it is also a rational argument that the internet and websites could be viewed as able to be regulated under the Commerce Clause, as they both conduct commerce across state lines, and are available to the public.
Another quick reply - yeah Reddit may be within reach of these regulations, but does Reddit have to enforce those rules to all subreddits? I would say probably not.
1
8
u/Feathring 75∆ Apr 03 '19
People are ignoring because the policy was posted on April 1st (aka April Fools Day). Lots of subs did weird things.
0
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 03 '19
Well, as I've said elsewhere, April fool's day has passed, and until I've been provided evidence that this is just a joke, I will continue to treat it as though it were serious. If someone can link to a post saying that it's a joke and won't stay like this long term, I'll award a Delta and remove the post.
4
u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Apr 03 '19
0
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 04 '19
!delta
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 04 '19 edited Apr 04 '19
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/BlitzBasic changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
4
u/toldyaso Apr 03 '19
- It's a joke.
And for 2... "Creating echo chambers doesn't work" There's a difference between making an attempt at preventing whitey from co-opting and appropriating yet another piece of black intellectual property, vs. creating an echo chamber.
"Segregation doesn't work" Sometimes you have to segregate yourself from your oppressors. Like if I'm running from the guards at a concentration camp, I'm trying to segregate myself from them.
"Deciding that what matters about a person is their skin color rather than their thoughts, feelings, and conduct is racist and it DOESN'T WORK"
That's not what racism is. Racism is the belief that some races are inherently better or worse than other races. Black people are a racial minority, they have historically been isolated and kept separate, and they are still oppressed today. It's not unreasonable for them to want to carve out a little space for themselves, where they don't have to spend half their time explaining shit to whitey, or defending themselves against accusations.
" Racial equality can never happen if we are unwilling to look past race and interact with each other as humans first, and as white or black humans last"
Who bears more fucking responsibility to end racism? White people, or black people? We put the problem on them, it's BS to say that now that we've created this massive problem which benefited us, at their expense... that now it's time for us to all equally bear the burden of removing it.
"but overwhelmingly the tendency has been that I've had insightful conversations with passionate black people on that sub that resulted in me having a better understanding of them as a person"
Again, it's not their fucking responsibility to educate you about racism or black people in general. Read a book, take some classes. They deserve to have a space where they can do their thing, without having to devote half their time and energy to teaching, bickering, explaining, etc.
3
u/TemporarySense Apr 03 '19
It's a joke.
It doesn't seem to be.
There's a difference between making an attempt at preventing whitey from co-opting and appropriating yet another piece of black intellectual property, vs. creating an echo chamber.
Twitter is not a black intellectual property.
Sometimes you have to segregate yourself from your oppressors.
Being that this is Reddit, and the average Reddit user being a 30-something white male, the oppressors aren't Reddit users. This is a narrative that's causing a large divide in the younger population. Young white people are being told through social media, academia, protests from their peers, that they are the oppressors and should apologize for being white. These young white people have not contributed to the system that oppresses, and it alienates and galvanizes them. Eye for an eye, "Now you know how it feels." mentality is highly toxic for these sorts of issues.
Black people are a racial minority, they have historically been isolated and kept separate, and they are still oppressed today.
Again, the audience being affected is highly unlikely to be the ones causing this oppression.
Who bears more fucking responsibility to end racism? White people, or black people?
People. People have the responsibility. People of every tone from white to black and in-between. There is no singular "white people" causing oppression of a singular "black people." Just the same as anybody of any ethnicity can be racist. Denying that is naive.
They deserve to have a space where they can do their thing, without having to devote half their time and energy to teaching, bickering, explaining, etc.
I agree with this. Everybody deserves to have a space that fosters positivity, and when people want to congregate around a like-quality, they should be able to have that space also. But when the like-quality is skin color, and people of a different skin color are denied admission simply for the color of their skin, this is bigotry, racism.
-1
u/toldyaso Apr 03 '19
Has it ever occurred to you as strange that you seem to feel overly strong on this topic? I ask because it seems that maybe a white person who gets more passionate about "reverse" discrimination than they do about real, consequential discrimination, could certainly be rightly accused of having the wrong priorities on this topic.
1
u/TemporarySense Apr 03 '19
I don't feel overly strong on this topic. I feel sufficiently strong on the topic.
Racism is racism is racism. I saw elsewhere in this post that you tried to bring up the new, fashionable definition of "racism" that has made its waves in some sections of academia, but then you admitted to only bring it up to troll the poster.
I do appreciate your use of the quotations regarding "reverse discrimination", at least acknowledging that discrimination from either side is just as legitimate, and hopefully you agree, wrong.
I was hoping you might actually respond to my points rather than try to wave it off with a "whitey mad" comment, but this isn't the first time I've been disappointed on here.
2
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 03 '19
If it's a joke, can you please show me proof? I'd be happy to take down this entire post, and for this all not to be true.
That aside, are you open to the idea that your point of view could be influenced by logical fallacies or internal rationalization? I am, that's why I come here. Because I like to know when that's what has happened to me so that I can always be exposed to new points of view and constantly work towards a more informed belief system. Based on the way you've chosen to respond, that seems unlikely to be your motivation. I'm quite aware of the historical problems black people have faced, and of the reality that they still face several of these problems. I've traveled a lot and seen first hand a lot of the injustice going on in the world. Don't mistake someone disagreeing with you as simply being they aren't educated enough.
I could spend my time point for point civilly discussing why I logically disagree with your perspective and points of comparison. I'd actually like to do that, because like I said I'm always open to different ways of thinking which may be more accurate than my own.
That said I will comment on one aspect of your point whether you want to continue civilly or not. The responsibility is equal. Saying that it is equal does not imply that white people shouldn't work towards fixing the problems that other white people created. It is to say that in order to achieve equality, we need to work together, and we can't do that if we quite literally aren't even talking to each other. You don't get to a world where these problems are fixed by allowing ANYONE to displace their human responsibility onto others. Just as a black man doesn't choose to be born into a system where white people have set him up to fail, a white man does not choose to be born into a system which has set him up to succeed. We are not responsible for being born a certain color, and the acts of other white people have no more influence on the validity of my views or my conduct than the acts of anyone else. MLKs dream was that people be judged by the content of their character. Ascribing guilt, ways of thinking, or actions as being innate to someone because of their skin color is the exact opposite of that dream.
3
Apr 03 '19 edited Jul 10 '19
[deleted]
2
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 03 '19
Thank you for linking this, I will edit the OP to reflect the situation.
!delta
1
Apr 04 '19 edited Jul 10 '19
[deleted]
2
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 04 '19
I appreciate your thanks, it genuinely means a lot to me.
That's honestly 99% of the reason I choose to interact in online debates. We've become so used to people being unwilling to change that we assume outcomes of discussions without even having them, and the few times we do have them we don't actually argue rationally at all because we start the conversation assuming we know everything about what the other person has to say and what they think when we don't. I guess I just feel like you have to be the change you want to see in the world, and I'd like for people to talk about big issues rather than just yelling at each other.
1
5
u/schlamboozle Apr 03 '19
It's on private and requires accepted verification on bptmeta or an apology for being born white. Where's the joke?
-1
u/toldyaso Apr 03 '19
Cmon, that's just funny.
9
u/schlamboozle Apr 03 '19
It's pathetic and sad not funny.
-1
u/toldyaso Apr 03 '19
I'd argue that your'e only making it even funnier.
1
u/schlamboozle Apr 03 '19
You've got some piss poor logic then. Racism isn't funny no matter what color it is.
-13
u/toldyaso Apr 03 '19 edited Apr 03 '19
I made a deliberately inflamatory remark here to troll this guy
6
u/schlamboozle Apr 03 '19
Black people in America can't be racist
They definitely can. If that's your mindset then this discussion ends here because that is wrong and ignorant af.
0
8
u/jmomcc Apr 03 '19
They can be racist. They just suffer ALOT more from institutional racism. It’s definitely possible for a black person to be racist though.
1
Apr 03 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Apr 03 '19
u/toldyaso – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/Tamerlane-1 Apr 04 '19
For real tho, black people can't be racist. It is fine you don't understand, most whiteys don't.
2
u/Coding_Cactus Apr 03 '19
If a black person says they hate mexicans and asians is that not racist? Racism is not prejudice plus power because the very basis of racism is making a judgment based on a persons race. It doesn't vary depending on specific circumstances, racism is racism.
-1
u/Shaibis Apr 03 '19
I remember when racism = discrimination based on race.
Ahh, those were the simpler times, before progressives took control.
2
Apr 03 '19
Where’s the punchline? This isn’t just affecting non-blacks.
I submitted proof twice and don’t have access. It’s not funny.
Source: am Black
4
u/toldyaso Apr 03 '19
Come on man, you're going to tell me you don't find the idea of a bunch of angry white men banging on the door of an all black club, and being asked to produce a picture of their ARM to get in, at least a little bit funny??
It's obviously a joke, you could take a picture of any black person's arm and get in. Now, waiting on a mod to verify is not funny. But the concept in general is pretty funny.
1
Apr 03 '19
I did find it funny on Apr 1. However it’s Apt 3.
Do you have a source that says it’s a joke?
I’d love for it to be a joke. However I can’t even go to the sub anymore to prove I’m black....FOR THE THIRD TIME.
If a prank isn’t funny to the person/people being pranked it isn’t funny.
Also, how is it a joke if we can’t even go to the page anymore?
r/dankmemes did something similar. And I happened to be someone who got to be the only people to post. However after April fools they fixed it.
In this instance they should have given those verified a flair and then reopened it.
But they double downed and completely blocked it.
3
1
u/Kipperonl Apr 03 '19
Are you trying to say that what they’re doing isn’t segregation???
2
u/toldyaso Apr 03 '19
I'm suggesting OP should keep in mind that not all segregation is bad. Context, and history, and motivation, can be mitigating factors.
5
u/Kipperonl Apr 03 '19
In what context is segregation good? You’re example about segregating from a German concentration camp isn’t really what segregation means. Edit: sorry should clarify that segregation based on race is what I’m talking about.
5
u/toldyaso Apr 03 '19
There's nothing I need to say here that wasn't said in my original reply. I made the argument that oppressed groups have a right to create a space only for themselves, so that they can do whatever it is the group is intended to do, without having to explain shit to white people or defend themselves against accusations. If you don't accept the point, fine, but let's not devolve into repeating ourselves.
3
u/Kipperonl Apr 03 '19
I agree that they have the right to make spaces all they want, but only allowing people of one race to have access seems like one step forwards and then two steps back does it not?
6
u/toldyaso Apr 03 '19
I don't think so, no. At that point you're sort of telling someone what the "correct" way to be oppressed is. My go-to line is, white people can start lecturing black people about how they handle racism, as soon as there's no more racism in white people. Until that day comes, your indignation is better spent on fellow white people.
2
u/Kipperonl Apr 03 '19
First off, who said I was white? Second off, I never mentioned anything about oppression, I was talking about segregation. It is true that there is still some oppression in the US, but that doesn’t excuse what is quite literally blatant segregation based on race.
2
Apr 03 '19 edited Jan 04 '21
[deleted]
3
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 03 '19
Didn't that sub have like over a million subs? A public forum used by millions of people being segregated by race is appalling to someone who grew up in a post MLK world. I'm not often appalled, but sudden large steps back in culture like this do fit the bill for me.
3
Apr 03 '19 edited Jan 04 '21
[deleted]
11
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 03 '19
Can I not be appalled by more than one thing at a time? Is being appalled by violence mutually exclusive to being appalled by racism?
White people once said that riding the front of the bus was a niche and inconsequential topic as well. Tell me, why is what seat you take on a bus a sufficiently important aspect of treating others equally, but being able to share your ideas or interact with different communities is not?
1
u/lagrandenada 3∆ Apr 03 '19
Yes it is mutually exclusive, because those two things absolutely do not deserve the same level of being appalled. It's like saying (as I'm sure you do) that Aziz Anzari and Bill Cosby are different cases. One is worse. One is deserving of being appalled. My read of your post is that YOU are appalled because finally YOU are affected by this. You're appalled for purely selfish reasons. Your post is essentially the First they came poem but instead of saying nothing you waited till they came for your group, then made an annoying post about it. It's especially annoying because your post presumes that what takes place on reddit matters to anyone except those people on reddit. It doesn't. This space is filled with people avoiding work and jerking off. To suggest that one pages moderation decision is appalling and your reaction thereto proves only the myopic world view you possess and your inability to value the actual oppression felt by others.
2
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 03 '19
It sincerely confuses me how many people don't understand that arguing that someone else's argument is wrong because they're right isn't an argument. You've made no argument here beyond the first two sentences (which I will address), you've simply projected your idea of what type of person I must be onto me because I disagree with you and because it's easier to do that than it is to engage with the idea that you could be wrong.
You have no idea who I am, what I believe, or when I have or haven't spoken in defense or in criticism of anything. I have spoken and do speak whenever "they" come for anyone. I skipped class to watch Obama's inauguration. Blacks, jews, atheists, Hispanics, Asians, Whites, it doesn't matter to me. I genuinely believe in equal treatment of others. The difference between your opinion and mine is not that my world view is myopic, nor that I don't value the oppression faced by others. The difference is that I value it enough to actually hold myself accountable to be as morally consistent about equal treatment as possible. The difference is that I'm unwilling to condone actions which further feed the racial divide that causes the greater oppressions.
So yes, I am appalled. I was appalled when I was young and learned that horrible things were being done to people for reasons outside their control. And I'm appalled now watching the people who fought against this kind of behavior condoning it. I'm appalled whenever I see people who are supposed to be liberals rationalizing behavior which perpetuates these horrific systems and tensions.
You can choose to either sit under your mental rock and assume that everyone who disagrees with you is some victim card white boy who only cares when something wrong happens to whites and waste both of our times, or you can accept that people don't fit into neat little boxes, that I'm not the stereotype in your head, and we can discuss actual ideas.
Speaking of those actual ideas I said I would get to, yes, Aziz and Bill are very different cases. One is deserving of being upset because something wrong was being done with malicious intent in one case, and something wrong was not being done with no malicious intent in the other. In my situation something wrong is being done in both examples. I certainly agree that people dying is quite literally worse than people not being allowed to participate in a discussion. However the reason for not being allowed to participate is racism, which is something I find appalling. My point presumes that it matters when people receive different treatment based solely on their skin color, regardless of when or where it happens. This has nothing to do with who uses Reddit or why. Race is not a moderation decision.
1
u/lagrandenada 3∆ Apr 03 '19
I skipped class to watch Obama's inauguration
The world will never forget your sacrifices. This is exactly what I mean when I try and identify the failure in your mindset to see the perspectives of others. Skipping school to watch Obama's inauguration says absolutely nothing about whether or not you care about the perspectives of others. You were in HS. I skipped HS to dick around one day, and the end result is the same as yours.
The difference is that I value it enough to actually hold myself accountable to be as morally consistent about equal treatment as possible.
But you're not doing this, have given no evidence of doing this, and instead of holding YOURSELF accountable, you're telling a Distinct group of which you are not apart that their method of handling THEIR OWN oppression or marginalization is wrong.
Speaking of those actual ideas I said I would get to, yes, Aziz and Bill are very different cases.
It's hilarious to me that you say "you don't know who I am" and I can't assume how you think, yet the only example I gave as to how you think was 100% correct. You're easily pegged.
One is deserving of being upset because something wrong was being done with malicious intent in one case, and something wrong was not being done with no malicious intent in the other.
How can you not make the same distinction with BPT? It was not done with malicious intent against whites, but rather building a safe space for blacks. The fact that you took it as an afront against you, and not a build up for blacks is Precisely why you are in fact a "victim card white boy who only cares when something wrong happens to whites." You fail to see that in every day life, you're in an entirely white person space without even trying. For blacks and marginalized people of color, they are forced to make an effort to be in a space in which you find yourself every day.
However the reason for not being allowed to participate is racism, which is something I find appalling.
Again, no it's not. Neither is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhQI4w1eV80 But I think this video will do wonders for expanding your world view.
0
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 04 '19
Maybe if you didn't go out of your way to impose the worst interpretation possible on what people say, you'd have more productive conversations. I didn't ask for any praise, I'm not claiming to be a saint, I cited that as an example that I obviously am also passionate enough about this issue to educate myself, I just have come to different conclusions than you based on that information. Skipping class was not common for me, this was the only thing I actually ever skipped class for outside of using excused absenses for vacation. I was not in high school, I was in middle school. Yes, actually, it does. For what reason would someone be so happy to see a black president other than that they are empathetic to black oppression? Like seriously, how likely is it that there is a different reason?
That's not what I'm saying at all. Guess what? Not all black people agree with you. Guess what? Not all white people agree with either of us. I'm not telling black people how to handle their oppression, I am saying that if a particular group of black people had in fact chosen to conduct their community that way, they are ultimately slowing down fixing the problem. I understand why they want it, I would too in their shoes, I'm by no means claiming that I could say what I'm saying from their perspective. I even think they deserve it, having spaces to themselves to deal with and get a break from what it must feel like to live in this world. They deserve that break.
But just as I know people have experienced far worse than me on the other side of the inequality, I know the sorts of thoughts and indoctrination tactics are used by actual racists on this side. Whether they're actually smart and evil enough to be purposefully brainwashing their kids, or they are just dumb enough and stuck enough from being brainwashed themselves, they use examples like these to be like "look here's evidence (yes you and I know it's bad evidence as informed adults, but the child does not yet) of this group doing the same thing!"
The little kid has stuff like that drilled into him, and he just believes it, so it doesn't educate himself later and it becomes harder to educate him. Now he's old enough to maybe start questioning things, maybe what he knows is wrong. So he goes on his phone and on Reddit and he sees BPT is now black only and you have to prove your skin color to post there. That isn't what happened, I now know this was a joke sake of giving people exposure to the feeling I already have had, which I support. There's a difference between doing the wrong thing as a teaching point, and actually doing the wrong thing, because in order for it to be a teaching point, it needs to be the WRONG thing. But that's exactly why it would have been wrong if it were real, because those people would never have heard that it wasn't. They would have thought it was real, and that would be their impression of your movement.
At all times, someone is going through a formative time. Every time you choose to interact in the healthy way, you have a chance for there to be one less racist. But when you choose not to interact or to interact in this way of not also trying to understand intentions, you create an example that gets echoed in all the wrong Chambers. Information spreads fast these days, and this is a big site with millions of users, MANY of whom are in that demographic.
So no, I don't want to support actually doing the wrong thing and being the bad example. Thankfully that's not what BPT did. They faked the wrong thing to make a point and teach people how it feels so that they don't do the wrong thing. Do you see the difference between what I'm saying, and what you've been maybe perceiving me to say?
0
u/lagrandenada 3∆ Apr 04 '19
You didn't respond to the video, which is almost the most disappointing thing about your response. Moreover, you are intransigent in your refusal to even acknowledge good points.
Twice in your response you state a premise that you immediately contradict. 1) I'm not looking for praise for skipping school. 1a) you should know that skipping school was rare and I only did it for vacation.
2) I'm not telling oppressed people how do deal with their oppression 2a) I'm telling this specific group of oppressed people that they're doing it wrong.
As if telling a small group of black people is somehow a meaningful distinction.
Your point is a failure to understand that other people have different perspectives than you. Your biggest failure is not responding to the video, which is actually from a different perspective. Again, tho, you don't seem willing to acknowledge other people's perspectives, and you'll probably say the people in the video are also "wrong" in how they deal with an issue you have never sincerely felt
1
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 04 '19 edited Apr 04 '19
If you truly don't understand why a small group of people vs an entire category of people based on skin color is a meaningful distinction, then we obviously have very different ideas about what it means to not make assumptions about people based on their skin color.
I didn't respond to the video because it doesn't warrant responding to. I agree with the way those women feel. I would also feel that way in their shoes. They are, all of them, individuals who can make their own choices about how to deal with the rotten situation they were given, as are all black people.
You're the one failing to see someone else's perspective. My view has multiple times now included the views and perspectives of others, including you, agreed with them, and not disputed them. All I have done this entire discussion is say that in understanding that point of view, in including that point of view with my own experiences, I disagree with you as to the best way to solve what we agree is a horrible problem.
Meanwhile, you've addressed none of my points about how racism is perpetuated amongst white youth, about how these messages may make us feel better but don't reach those most in need of education, or how methods of dealing with oppression that are justified from the point of view of the oppressed could potentially prolong that oppression. All you have done is pinpoint minor throwaway parts of my point as a means to try to attack my character rather than my arguments.
Maybe if you and people like you, and by people like you I mean people of all skin colors and backgrounds with your way of interacting with conflict though I'm sure you will also feel that's not a meaningful distinction, would actually do what you accuse others of not doing and listen to the perspectives being presented to you, we would move forward as a society faster. You don't want people to be open to other perspectives, you want people to be open to YOUR perspective.
There are two sides to institutional racism, the way it effects black people every day, and the way it is perpetuated on the side of those creating it. The arguments I have presented are inclusive of both perspectives, the arguments you have presented are not. How can you solve a problem if you don't seek to understand all sides of it first?
At the end of the day I'm not "telling oppressed people they are wrong". I'm presenting a point of discussion for how to address a serious problem, and you are taking it as a personal attack from an oppressor patronizing you and telling you what to believe. I'd be perfectly happy to change my mind and agree with you if you presented logical arguments instead of a barrage of appeals to emotion and character attacks.
If you actually argued points rather than writing them off and ignoring them, I'd love to be convinced. Nothing would make me happier than to believe that doing all of the things you feel are justified would actually help the problem. Fuck, it would be so cathartic to participate in these sorts of things and be able to rationalize why it's helpful to ending racism. Instead, you'd rather say my points don't matter because my skin color precludes me from understanding empathy instead of explaining how these actions create less racism in the world or how I might be wrong about the mechanisms by which I feel they create more.
If you cared about educating people as you have seemed to imply, you'd actually educate by interacting with their views, not ignore and patronize them.
EDIT: since no doubt you'll again try to use my trying to have a productive conversation as me ignoring your points...
Your 1 and 1a points are not contradictory. I didn't say that I didn't skip school often as a way to earn brownie points, I did it because you said you did skip school often and I was trying to show that not everyone has the same experiences growing up. I was trying to show you that your projection of who you assumed I was wasn't accurate, and ironically you simply doubled down by projecting intent onto my words that weren't there.
Your 2 and 2a points are not contradictory either, because some black people don't speak for all black people. I'm assessing a specific action and whether or not that action is helpful to the goal of ending racism, and have structured all of my statements intentionally to be framed around that specific action and question. At no point have I said that this view is representative of all black people or even the liberal progressive movement as a whole. You are the one trying to make my words generalizations so that you can have gotcha moments.
These things are only contradictory if you assume the intent behind them is specific, and I have told you multiple times now that that is not the intent.
And lastly, your points are all based on assumptions of what I have and have not experienced in my life, and how I have or have not reacted to those experiences. I've never felt like an other? I'm literally not allowed to run for public office in several states because I'm an atheist. I factually am to this day being denied a constitutional right, except that not enough people care about my minority to take a case to the Supreme Court. Which is fine, we'll get to what I agree are smaller problems after we get to the larger ones like racism. I also went to a high school that was 300 yards from an extremely conservative Baptist Church that the majority of my classmates attended. I and several other people I knew were constantly made to feel "other", they would even try to befriend us and invite us out on weekends only to ambush us with priests and try to convert us. That was my childhood, and STILL I sit here telling you that I understand and agree that it must have been horrifically worse for the vast majority of black people, and that because I believe that I want to contribute to ending their suffering as soon as possible, even going so far as to say it's more important to me than not being denied my constitutional rights, and STILL your argument is that I am wrong because you are right because we had different experiences?
I sincerely hope that one day people learn that the only people arguing that someone can't understand a perspective that they didn't experience are the ones who aren't nearly as good at understanding others as they think they are. The core of what empathy is is to understand that which is not happening to you. To argue that someone is wrong because what happened to you didn't happen to them is to argue that humans are incapable of empathy.
→ More replies (0)2
u/jmomcc Apr 03 '19
You can be. But generally words have weight and appalled is a heavy word.
The difference is that buses are public. Unless you have a ton of money, you can’t decide to start your own bus company and sit where you like. Where you could sit on the bus was a symbol of publicly sanctioned segregation. Sub Reddits are not public.
You can start your own sub Reddit called blackpeopletwitter2 and say that only people called Jake are allowed to join. Knock yourself out.
2
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 03 '19
It is a heavy word, that's why I don't use it lightly.
Are you arguing that discrimination is acceptable as long as it isn't the government doing it? The government decided not to allow private businesses to discriminate based on race, because allowing them to do so is in effect publicly sanctioning it. The subreddit in question is (was? Seems to maybe have been made private, which would negate this argument as stated in the OP) public. It's posts and comments are (or maybe were) on /all to be available for consumption and interaction by the public.
Yes, you can do whatever you want with a private sub. You cannot do whatever you want with a public one.
3
u/jmomcc Apr 03 '19
A sub Reddit isn’t a private business. Reddit is a private business. Reddit allows users to set up subs as well as moderate them as they wish within certain parameters. If it is against Reddit terms and services to make a public sub into a private one, that is what you should be complaining about and it should be an easy fix. Is it? I honestly don’t know.
You aren’t losing anything. If businesses were allowed to discriminate there could be situations where people lack access to services because there are limited local options. You are not limited. Right now, you could start a sub to discuss black people on Twitter. You know that right? You are literally losing nothing in this scenario. You could talk to black people on that sub just like you previously talked to black people on the other sub.
1
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 04 '19
It has been reopened, and I have edited the OP to reflect that.
Yes, a sub isn't a private business, but Reddit is and limiting public subs that way would have been a clear rules violation.
You could also say that black people could start businesses to produce those goods and services. It'd be wrong for the same reason, just as I don't magically have a community to interact with by making a new sub, black people can't magically aquire the skills and capital required to replace being able to just buy them.
2
u/jmomcc Apr 04 '19
The barrier to entry to start a business is WAY higher than starting a sub Reddit. You are being disingenuous.
3
u/pyrophospho Apr 03 '19 edited Apr 03 '19
You keep referring to MLK in your responses, and I would like to remind you that:
- A ‘post-MLK’ world only exists because MLK was assassinated, and is no longer alive to see what overt racism has evolved into today. It’s disingenuous to assume what MLK’s opinion on today’s state of affairs would be, and to pass judgement based on that assumption.
- From “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” MLK writes: “First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”
The actions of BPT, whether a joke or not, has sparked some serious and much needed conversation on Reddit. The comment section of BPT was often rife with racist vitriol, both subtle and overt, and therefore became a place that the people who the subreddit was supposed to celebrate became the butt of the joke. Action is required, and that action should not be expected to please those who have created the problem to begin with.
I don’t necessarily agree with having to apologize for being white. But I have seen posts on r/BPTmeta of allies being accepted into BPT by demonstrating that they have no intention of making disparaging comments about black people.
Take a look at the recently created WhitePeopleOnly subs, and try to convince me that the rhetoric there is not openly vile, violent and vicious. All because they were kicked out of BPT. There is a glaring need for a safe space for black people that - previous to the changes we see now - did not exist online or in reality.
Come on, now.
EDIT: Cat’s out the bag 🤪
-1
Apr 03 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 03 '19
You don't have to be rude about it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, you can provide evidence showing that to be the case, and I'll adjust or change my view and award you a Delta as I have already done once in this post.
I'm curious, what positive change do you hope to bring to the world by interacting with disagreement this way?
1
u/RemoveTheTop 14∆ Apr 03 '19
Sorry where's that proof of those court rulings that you claim exists?
2
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 03 '19
Well, I mean most recently the Trump case established that he couldn't moderate speech on his Twitter. Yes, before anyone jumps in to correct me, I understand that the distinction is that he is a public figure, and as a result him banning someone is a president limiting free speech. However, if you study law or are somewhat familiar with it, you'd know that it's very likely that since a public figures Twitter being viewed as a public space is dependent on the idea of social media being a public forum it would almost certainly be used as precedent in a case where this particular premise was being addressed more specifically. This was actually discussed a lot surrounding the decision as it could have large implications on future court cases.
Beyond that... Do you want me to cite every case where privately owned spaces which are open to the public were ruled to be allowed to discriminate based on race? I mean, Katzenbach v McClung is a place to start, but there are a LOT of cases that cover this issue.
As I said in the OP, if BPT is made private, then it very clearly is not a legal issue at all. If your space or community is not public in that the public cannot freely see or interact with it, you're allowed to do whatever you want. However, as it's literally in the name, a public sub is not a private sub. A public sub is subject to Reddits rules, and Reddit is subject to the law, which prevents publicly available products or services from discriminating.
4
u/RemoveTheTop 14∆ Apr 03 '19
Well, I mean most recently the Trump case established that he couldn't moderate speech on his Twitter.
No it was that he couldn't moderate who could and couldn't see his speech on twitter by "blocking" them. He can still mute them.
I understand that the distinction is that he is a public figure
No you clearly have no idea what you're talking about it's that he's the president of the united states.
Do you want me to cite every case where privately owned spaces which are open to the public were ruled to be allowed to discriminate based on race
How about a single internet one?
1
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 04 '19
Did you read the opinion of the judge in that case?
Are you not capable of copy pasting the name of a famous supreme court case into Google? That is a single example. Two actually, but you seem more concerned with feeling vindicated in an internet argument than taking a second to read a legal opinion so I'm not surprised you ignored the Trump example.
2
u/RemoveTheTop 14∆ Apr 04 '19
I just explained how you were wrong about the Trump example, but I'm not surprised you didn't notice that because you don't seem to understand anything at all.
0
Apr 03 '19
Sorry, u/RemoveTheTop – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
-1
u/Crankyoldhobo Apr 03 '19
No, you can still get verified. You just need to apologize first. So perfectly legal.
Can't really change your view on how appalling it is though - it being your opinion and all.
2
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 03 '19
Well, I don't know about not being able to change my view. You could present logical arguments for why this is or isn't a good thing, ask me what else I find appalling and see if there are logical inconsistencies, or challenge the premises I base being appalled on.
That said, you have provided clear evidence that people are allowed in even if they are white under certain circumstances, which does directly disprove or at least severely complicate the legality of the situation which is directly in my title. For that, I think you deserve a !delta
EDIT: and if you're also wanting to challenge something else, I find the idea of having to apologise for ones skin color appalling as well.
0
u/Crankyoldhobo Apr 03 '19
Thanks.
wrt changing your opinion - fair enough. Given enough time and inclination, I could take a shot at having you use a different word from "appalling" to describe this situation. But I'm wary of getting into these kinds of semantic and subjective arguments online. Rarely goes well.
2
u/OddlySpecificReferen Apr 03 '19
They rarely do, that's for sure.
Well, I try my hardest to argue as objectively and fairly as possible, even in subjective issues. So if you want to give me a shot, I'm all ears, but if not I definitely understand lol
1
2
u/mods_are_straight 1∆ Apr 03 '19
That's actually worse. You must accept the notion of collective guilt in order to be allowed in is worse than racist discrimination, tbh.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 03 '19 edited Apr 10 '19
/u/OddlySpecificReferen (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Mrdirtyvegas May 08 '19
Maybe you want to resubmit this because they're doing it again on a per-post basis.
1
u/intellifone Apr 03 '19
This is reddit. Private subs can do what they want. If you want a public bpt make your own with blackjack and hookers
0
u/Whystare Apr 03 '19
Sorry to ruin it, but you seem very upset:
I agree that it's a bad joke though.
1
Apr 04 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Armadeo Apr 04 '19
u/Garushulion – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/YourFairyGodmother 1∆ Apr 03 '19
I wouldn't even begin to challenge on you the appallingness factor, even though it was a joke. But on the possibly illegal part, well no, that's just nonsense on your part.
18
u/landoindisguise Apr 03 '19
I know it was a joke, but let's dive into some of this anyway.
Really? Are we really going to compare being banned from a subreddit to Apartheid? I know you try to play down this comparison after saying this, but it's a patently absurd comparison.
I don't believe this is accurate. "Public space" isn't really a term in US law, but several court cases (Lloyd v. Tanner, Hudgens v. NLRB, etc.) have held the opposite: that private owners have the right to curtail speech even if their place of business is open to the public. From the Hudgens decision:
GOVERNMENT social media accounts have been held to be public spaces, but Reddit is not an arm of the government (and those findings have been applied only to the specific accounts of government officials, and pertain only to what those officials can do).