Also too bad if you're Russian it's ok to "hate" them too.

Yeah, I had to explain it in a Reddit comment that summed it up:

A user made a post called: "One rule for Me, Another for Thee" because a site admin on Reddit posting this on r-ModSupport:

Hey again, I'm sorry to tell you once again, those communities [FragileMaleRedditor, FragileWhiteRedditor, NameTheProblem] don't break our content policy. Our rule1[sic] protects groups that are attacked based on a vulnerability, which doesn't pertain to white people or men as a group. My best advice for you would be to concentrate on your own communities or other communities that are more inline with your style.

This was my explanation on the history of what happened.

You don't get it man.

The harassment policy is a negative rule on the userbase. You are not allowed to harass people.

HOWEVER, what I have been referring to as the "apartheid" rule, is a rule officially making an EXCLUSION to the harassment rule.

This is why I say what I say:

Post Reported for: It's promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability

Reddit's recent Apartheid ruling asserts that whatever Reddit defines to be morally degenerate races are not subject to equal protection under the law. I cannot ethically abide by that. However, I can examine this work for it's possible "promotion of hate" as an extension of the harassment rule.

Apparently, I haven't laid this whole story out in a while, but I'll try to make it clear here. Let me break that statement down for you.

We'd already noticed (well over a year ago, and before this rule was created) that the harassment rule had become so broad that it seemed to cover things that were clearly not harassment. Literally: disparaging statement towards any "identity group" were considered harassment and enforced as such. This obviously didn't make sense according to the rules, but we enforced their actions anyways.

So, after having enforced this rule for well over a year, the admins announced the change they had already been enforcing as if it was new.

So, now the harassment rule was officially broad enough to include language that was simply too mean, and also included anything that might involve disparaging remarks about identity groups.

For the Racialist Left, this was obviously a serious problem because it meant that whites, men, straights, cisgenders, and Christians could all claim harassment if publicly condemned, abused, or berated.

So, they introduced a new rule about "promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability". It starts with:

Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and people that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

This rule doesn't make any sense, at first. Due to the broadening of the Harassment rule, the entire first section is already covered by the Harassment rule. "Promotion of Hate" is simply not different to "harassment" because the definition of harassment includes any disparaging comment about an identity group. The whole concept is completely covered by Harassment rule. The rest of that first quote is covered by the Violent Speech rule. This rule adds and changes... nothing?

Until we get to the 2nd part:

While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.

Now you see the purpose. The Harassment rule is excluded from being applied to groups "who are in the majority".

This rule doesn't make user conduct illegal. It makes enforcement of the Harassment rule illegal. The rule is a negation, of the application, of the harassment and violent speech rule.

Okay, so who the fuck is "in the majority"?

Well, that's what the rule said at the time. The phrasing was so fucking Americentric that Reddit forgot it was an international website. Suddenly the harassment rule depended entirely upon how you defined "the majority". Reddit threw a shit fest because this phrasing makes no fucking sense. Majority of a country? Majority of a Continent? Majority of a Religion? Majority of a fucking subreddit? IT. MAKES. NO. SENSE.

However, this insane phrasing is why I called it an "Apartheid ruling". Reddit simply asserts that the majority, are simply not to be protected from harassment, because they are the majority... and therefore not a vulnerable group.

Well, Reddit tried to "correct" this issue. They removed the word "majority", and basically self-referenced that the rule would not apply to groups that were not considered vulnerable. At no point did they try to explicitly state what groups were vulnerable, and what groups weren't, and how that would be decided. It was simply the lack of enforcement that proved their definition (as we expected at the time).

Whites, Christians, Straights, Cisgenders, Males, are all considered non-vulnerable groups... ... ... that are somehow undeserving of equal protection under Reddit's rules.

This is an insane position. Just because a group is non-vulnerable, it does not mean they are fucking invulnerable. It does not mean that violent speech and open race hatred should be explicitly allowed against them, yet that is what was happening.

So, there is only one logical conclusion to this train of thought. The non-vulnerable groups must be deserving of Harassment. If they were not deserving of harassment, the Harassment rule should still apply to them, and harassing comments should be stopped. This rule does not deny that harassment exists, just that the Harassment rule will not be enforced to stop harassment of groups that deserve it.

What kind of person, would you say is truly deserving of harassment. Someone who is engaged in such despicable social taboo, that you would find them morally failing to quite an extreme degree. The appropriate term would be: morally degenerate. By Reddit's standards, morally degenerate groups are deserving of harassment, and as such no action will be taken to stop harassment of them. This is at least consistent with Reddit's behavior.

So, what about the "races" part? Why do I include that. Because Reddit subscribes to Leftist insanity, and we can use the definition of Race established by "Toward a Political Philosophy of Race" by Falguni A. Sheth. All of these groups, including Christians, would be considered political Races and Racial Constructs. This is the same reason why Islamophobia is a form of Racism. Muslims are considered a Race under these guidelines.

So, Reddit made an Apartheid ruling. It asserted that equal protection would not be granted to demographics asserted to be morally degenerate.

How have I responded? By being in direct contradiction to the Apartheid rule and explicitly continuing to engage in equal protection via the harassment rule. I can't ethically refuse to enforce the harassment rule, or even violent speech rule, on groups that Reddit asserts are morally degenerate. This is not acceptable to me, and I refuse to abide by Rule 1, as it requires unjust treatment based on race.

There are no circumstances, that will ever exist, that will allow whites or men to be collectively be considered vulnerable, because vulnerability is never defined. It is simply asserted that they are inherently non-vulnerable in all cases whatsoever. Reddit can only come to this conclusion, by asserting that it is in the inherent nature of these non-vulnerable groups to be undeserving of equal protection; and that is based on seeing these groups as inherently morally degenerate.

That is where Reddit is. This is a bigoted fuckhole site that you should leave immediately. Have you heard of our Victory Site?