Wikipedia is actually falling victim to this. Some articles now show noticeable bias (e.g. compare the "Men's Rights 'movement'" article to "Women's Rights"). On many pages, particularly gender related articles, there is a band of aggressive editors who will fight reasonable efforts to balance the tone of articles. Outside contributors who try to improve these pages will get dogpiled on. Unless you are an expert at wiki-lawyering, you won't survive even a couple edits before you are banned or restricted from editing. They enforce/investigate multiple accounts, VPN & proxy usage vigorously, so once you are out, you are effectively purged.<p>If you are ambitious and make edits similar to what others have tried (often because all of them are trying to fix the same biased statement), expect to be accused of being a "sockpuppet" or of being a "meatpuppet." If that fails, you will be accused of "tendentious editing". Of course responding to these accusations takes extraordinary amounts of time -- which is the point. These tactics are used (very successfully) to reduce people's resolve to contribute or fix biased articles.<p>Wikipedia's ideological hijacking is a serious problem and arguably represents the biggest threat to Wikipedia's longterm legitimacy. Those engaging in ideological hijackings have (very rightly) realized that if they can define what is written about a movement on Wikipedia, they can control what society thinks about it.
Things I've noticed about this discussion:<p>* The vast majority of participants in this discussion are extremists. Both sides. No matter their claims. No matter their organizations. No matter their cause. There is rife misogyny <i>and</i> misandry to be had. Nobody knows why they are fighting so they fight over genitalia.<p>* Participants on both sides are just as vile as the other. Have anti-GG been harassed? Yes. Have GG been harassed? Yes. On equal terms of severity. <i>There are a few sane participants but they tend to be quieter and also seem to be taking a step back from it all.</i><p>* Out of "real-life" people these thought patterns seem to be a minority - they are just making a lot of noise and drama on the internet. I've challenged people with both sides of the discussion in "real-life" and was met with disbelief.<p>* Social justice (anti-GG term) within the argument is not social justice. Ethics and egalitarianism (GG terms) within the argument also do not hold their true meaning.<p>None of these people are worth getting involved with. Just stay away from this whole discussion. It doesn't matter how liberal you are or how well-intentioned you are: someone is going to find your weakness and provoke you.<p>Let Reddit burn. Really. It's just a website. It doesn't matter. Whoever wins the war will simply be the rulers of an empty kingdom.<p>Edit: glad the post was flag-killed.
He mentions a subreddit dedicated to no rules slowly but surely being taken over by the same kinds of rules lawyer-ing they were trying to escape.<p>I am so, so glad he mentioned this, because I have seen it happen to two, mid-way three, communities online where these exact societal issues work together only up until they really start to get to know one another, at which point they realize they're at odds. Sometimes it's a clear schism, but the ones that hurt the most are those that remain but are quite clearly forever changed in the favor of one side. It's almost as if they treat it as vindication and banishing a group of people for differences in opinion is, as I said, typically the antithesis of these groups.<p>My guess is that every online community suffers this sort of breakdown and reinvention if it lasts for more than a few years, but that social justice and other more "modern" ideologies are just the latest and most visible / tracked step in the greater phenomenon.<p>The internet brought us together, we struggle with that fact every day! :)
To quote from <a href="https://lobste.rs/s/ovabwi/social_justice_ideological_hijackings_and_ideological_security/comments/vaypqt#c_vaypqt" rel="nofollow">https://lobste.rs/s/ovabwi/social_justice_ideological_hijack...</a> :<p>> This author seems like a calm, unbiased source for social-justice issues. Here is an article where they compare the rise of Napoleon in France, Hitler and communism in Germany, and gay marriage in the US: <a href="http://thefutureprimaeval.net/we-support-diversity-and-equality/" rel="nofollow">http://thefutureprimaeval.net/we-support-diversity-and-equal...</a><p>> Nothing sensational to see here, move along <a href="http://thefutureprimaeval.net/content/images/2015/06/yck7qK7cE.png" rel="nofollow">http://thefutureprimaeval.net/content/images/2015/06/yck7qK7...</a>
>and started banning and deleting the comments of the "trolls" who were making /r/anarchism an "unsafe and unwelcoming" space for women.<p>The best way to stick it to the man is to become him ...
There is no anarchism without feminism. Complaining about anarchists focusing on social justice is like complaining about water being wet.<p>I'd recommend reading books instead of reddit. The author must have accidentally made a left turn on the way to /r/libertarianism.