There are other subreddits with primarily right or moderate leaning communities and comments in those get deleted all the time with moderator messages saying they risk the entire subreddit getting taken down by Reddit simply for sharing basic conservative views.
Sharing conservative ideas is not against reddit's community guidelines. the sitewide guidelines are pretty simple, actually:
https://redditinc.com/policies/reddit-rules
to summarize:
1. don't harrass people on or off-site, nor promote hate
2. no spam or content manipulation
3. no doxxing nor non-consential sexual material
4. no CSAM or CSAM-adjacent material
5. don't impoersonae others
6. label NSFW content
7. no illegal content
8. don't break reddit on purpose
other conservative subs have historically had issues with rules #2 and #8, so I'm sure Reddit is more sensitive to that. In addition, current conservative leaning subs do tend to have more issues with rule 1, even to this day. I imagine what you are seeing are content being pre-emptively removed to prevent potential harassment that can get the sub banned.
Mods from there have absolute power, as long as they follow the above guidelines. As we know, the rules can be as petty as they want. Their only limit is that they can't ban someone who's never participated in a sub (so they can't pre-rmotively ban someone for existing)
Mods bots do ban you for participating in other subs. I was banned from a handful for posting in /r/JoeRogan
If you find that not credible, you haven't been paying attention - reddit is a leftist cesspit echo chamber, and the only way any dissenting viewpoints survive is through having an absurd level of micromanaging and moderator involvement, like r/conservative, or being so small as to fly under the radar and not attract notice.
Centralizing forums to reddit was one of the worst things to ever happen to the internet, in retrospect. We should have stayed diverse and decentralized, and leaned into federation style community links, and made it easier for people to navigate and surface interesting unique communities, independent of the arbitrary politicization and ideological nonsense that infects reddit.
For example, supporting Trump is fine. Repeating what Trump says might be against community guidelines. Not because being a trump supporter is against the rules, but because trump sometimes says blatantly racist things, and that IS against the rules.
It's simple to be both conservative and not rude, nasty, racist, sexist, etc. Many influential conservative voices struggle with this. So they get banned, and, by value of following their lead, their followers.
Another example, on a bigger scale. Trump can be upset about losing an election. That's allowed. But Trump cannot advocate people go cause violence because of it. That's not allowed, and we had days in court because of that.
For the irony-cherry on top, repeating what he says is also often against r/conservative guidelines - they'll happily ban you for it, because a lot of the things Trump says are also really fucking stupid and contradictory, and his supporters don't like to be reminded that the emperor's naked.
(That said, I do agree with you on nuance)
And of course content creators / news aggregators know this so they purposely strip all nuance out of their reporting.
>Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.
is against TOC. You can talk about trans issues and offer reservations. You cannot say "trans people are a mental illness" or "trans are not people". That is clearly promoting hate and has nothing of substance to discuss.
For a more explicit and current example, you can say "I don't think female-affirming trans athletes should be allowed to compete in female oriented divisions of sport. Their testosterone output makes for an unfair advantadge".
That might STILL be removed, not because that comment breaks the rules, but because reddit seems to have a serious problem on the issue and it always devolves to "we need to take men out of women's sports" and then some long chain of people denying trans people of their identity. That's promoting hate. Especially since that is not too far off from what the U.S. president argues.
To be clear: your position is that refusing to see other people as they see themselves, in one specific aspect, is inherently hateful?
That's likely the crux of our disagreement in the other subthread, then.
Either that or you imagine that "denying identity" refers to something else, but I've only ever seen it used in cases that boil down to that. This often gets described as "denying existence", which from my observations conservatives just think is absurd. The entire point is that "identity" refers to self-image, while "existence" refers to what is externally observable.
Yes. That tends to fall under "hate speech":
>public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation
Denying existence or identity will fall under that curtain either way. That seems to be the interpretation Reddit uses, so your account or community will be banned for breaking its rules, regardless of your interpretation. Both dehumanize, and dehumanization is a one way ticket to denying someone as worthy of the rights humans enjoy.
These are different things (which was most of the point),
> will fall under that curtain either way
... but I fail to see how in either case.
> Both dehumanize
I don't see this, either.
Again, the actual act we refer to is:
> refusing to see other people as they see themselves, in one specific aspect
Is there any other aspect of how people see themselves which would lead you to the same conclusion? For example, if I consider myself physically attractive, and others disagree, are they hating me?
You're free to argue with thr reddit admins on how. It's not my call.
But as a hint, it's pretty easy to deny existence when you dehumanize someone. If you can't see that, you may need to read more history.
This has the logic backwards, and is also playing semantic games with the meaning of "deny existence". We're talking about a claim that someone already does not exist (which is why people think it's absurd: they're often actively having a conversation with the person they're falsely accused of believing not to exist), not the act of causing someone to cease to exist (an imprecise, colloquial way of referring to murder).
You definitelly can. There are plenty of big subreddits with posts like that, whose mods agree with.